# Lower priced Sleeper for single travelers



## TheCrescent

Amtrak’s sleeping cars aren’t really made for people who travel solo or who need a more basic room: 

The smallest room is a roomette, priced and designed for two people; and this expensive and too big for one person.

Not everyone needs lounge access and meals.

Some private operators of sleeping cars have offered super-premium sleeping cars attached to Amtrak trains and have failed. Not enough people want to pay a really high price for a train trip.

What if a private operator had a bunch of sleeping cars with rooms for solo travelers, and budget-friendly, non-first class, rooms for other travelers: budget sleeping accommodations?

Budget sleeping accommodations are a market segment that Amtrak misses, so what would people think about a private operator filling that niche, with its own cara attached to Amtrak trains?


----------



## joelkfla

TheCrescent said:


> The smallest room is a roomette, priced and designed for two people; and this expensive and too big for one person.


I disagree. It's more suitable for a single rider, and much cheaper than a bedroom, which is more appropriate for 2.

I think the size and design are comparable to the original 1-person Roomette, as still seen on the VIA Canadian. Amtrak just added a 2nd bunk to allow for 2 riders.


----------



## TheCrescent

joelkfla said:


> I disagree. It's more suitable for a single rider, and much cheaper than a bedroom, which is more appropriate for 2.
> 
> I think the size and design are comparable to the original 1-person Roomette, as still seen on the VIA Canadian. Amtrak just added a 2nd bunk to allow for 2 riders.



OK, it’s a difference of opinion.

When I book a roomette, my commute one-way is about $375. If there were two people in the room, the total would be about $575, or $288.50 per person.

I’d take the train more if I could get a bed for $288.50. If it’s $375, I might as well fly first class, which is less.

I also don’t need the Metropolitan Lounge at NYP since I just walk to the station and board, and I surely don’t need Flexible Dining.

Agrees that the room is already small but I could accept a bit smaller, since all I really need is some kind of private space and a bed.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

I think the biggest hurdle to this would be the same one Amtrak itself would have to face, that being the shortage of rolling stock. After that staffing would be an issue (assuming current 'trends'). 

If Amtrak were to get rolling stock, they would be adding it to their trains and maxing out capacity for HEP, etc. Then somebody else would have to provide it the power, etc, etc. Another issue would be ADA accessibility (obviously this would be addressed with new cars) and the size of the individual compartments has to be a minimum size, even for non-accessible compartments, although I'll freely admit ADA isn't my specialty, especially on trains. 

I do agree there is a market for budget sleepers, it's just not as simple as hitching more cars onto the existing trains (imho).


----------



## jis

The problem at present though is if one looks at the single level Sleeper fleet, close to 20% of it is sitting in Mothballs. Another 20% or so is for PMO leaving only 60% of the fleet in actual day to day operation. Can't do a lot with the PMO part, but minimally the Mothballed part needs to be brought back on line before one can legitimately worry about lack of equipment. Buying a bunch of equipment and then immediately shunting a significant proportion in numbers of the existing fleet into Mothballs does no one any good as far as service is concerned.


----------



## Dakota 400

I remember seeing the Slumbercoaches. At that time, I thought they were too small. Particularly when I compared them to the type of Roomette which was the standard kind of that day. (Like the Cabin for one on VIA, today, I think.) If I recall correctly the Slumbercoach rooms appeared smaller than Amtrak's Roomettes are now. I am OK in an Amtrak Roomette; pretty sure I would not like a Slumbercoach room regardless of the fare differential that may exist.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

TheCrescent said:


> Amtrak’s sleeping cars aren’t really made for people who travel solo or who need a more basic room.



Not sure I agree, but moving forward.



> What if a private operator had a bunch of sleeping cars with rooms for solo travelers, and budget-friendly, non-first class, rooms for other travelers: budget sleeping accommodations?
> 
> Budget sleeping accommodations are a market segment that Amtrak misses, so what would people think about a private operator filling that niche, with its own cars attached to Amtrak trains?



Amtrak does not play well with others. The “high end private trains” that have failed seem to have the same story line on why they failed. Something about cost of haulage by Amtrak. The lack of any cooperation, and the ever changing cost of service or additional services charges.
You just can’t price a service if your cost of said service changes on a daily basis.


----------



## jis

I loved the Slumbercoach singles and always used them whenever available. At the end it also saved on the exorbitant add ons for meals that were thrown in for Sleepers. They did not apply to Slumbercoach.

I am OK with the Amtrak Roomettes as accommodation for singles as far as the hard product goes, but the fare addon for the soft product which is targeted for two people is a bit much.


----------



## MARC Rider

Why should a private operator be able to do things more cheaply and efficiently than Amtrak? They would have to buy expensive sleeping cars, staff them, come to an agreement with Amtrak about hauling them on the train, pay taxes, insurance, etc., etc., I can't see how their costs would be any less than those incurred by Amtrak. As people have pointed out, this business is highly overhead-heavy, which means the high costs are incurred even when the passenger revenue is light. In fact, even if they only ran the service during busy periods (thus presumably saving on staff costs and the costs of being hauled by Amtrak), they'd still have the maintenance and depreciation costs for all that expensive rolling stock, and without receiving any revenue. Passenger trains used to be privately operated. That obviously didn't work, which is why we have a subsidized publicly owned system today.


----------



## MARC Rider

I rode a slumbercoach once, on the Crescent in 1990. The seat in daytime mode was fairly comfortable as I recall, but in night-time mode the mattress was a bit thin. I think there was also an issue with getting access to the toilet in sleep mode. The other thing was that the rooms were really small, and I don't remember how I was able to store my luggage. Some people might find them claustrophobic, in fact. But I did appreciate the fact that it was only $50 above the coach fare. Not sure what the best design for a budget sleeper would be, probably either some kind of lie-flat seat or Euro-style couchette.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

MARC Rider said:


> Not sure what the best design for a budget sleeper would be, probably either some kind of lie-flat seat or Euro-style couchette


I'm not sure how couchettes would be received here in the US, especially the aspect of being booked into a room shared with strangers.


----------



## cassie225

Ok, I’m not trying to sleep with a stranger, if I wanted to do that I could sleep with my husband, lol, just joking!!!! Especially these days sleeping with a stranger sounds dangerous, they could be the mad smasher of NO lol. Seriously I don’t think I could do that but to each his own


----------



## TheCrescent

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> I'm not sure how couchettes would be received here in the US, especially the aspect of being booked into a room shared with strangers.



I wouldn’t take one with strangers in the same room, but I am thinking a room without meals included and without lounge access.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Aside from the costs of the rolling stock itself; if an operator other than Amtrak were to attempt this - would they be able to get access to tracks at a reasonable cost and get good service? I'm talking about like a full train rather than just hitching to Amtrak? (and I should probably not post this since I'm having deja vu about a thread like that) Would Amtrak allow NEC access?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Nightjet pods are getting ready to be deployed. It will be interesting how well or not they are received by the traveling public.









Siemens Mobility and ÖBB present interior design of the new Nightjet | Press | Company | Siemens


Austrian Federal Railways (ÖBB) is investing in the new generation of Nightjet trains, which will offer passengers an even more comfortable nightime t ...




press.siemens.com


----------



## Skyline

I


Dakota 400 said:


> I remember seeing the Slumbercoaches. At that time, I thought they were too small. Particularly when I compared them to the type of Roomette which was the standard kind of that day. (Like the Cabin for one on VIA, today, I think.) If I recall correctly the Slumbercoach rooms appeared smaller than Amtrak's Roomettes are now. I am OK in an Amtrak Roomette; pretty sure I would not like a Slumbercoach room regardless of the fare differential that may exist.



I loved the slumbercoaches. Wish they still existed. Bare bones, affordable, and not considered first class.

There were one-person and two-person configs. They were able to get so many accommodations squeezed into each car by stacking them as shown in this photo. Kind of tight, but perfect for a 20something on a tight budget who wanted private horizontal sleeping accommodations. 

In the early years of Amtrak a single slumbercoach cost $15 extra on a one-night train in the East; more for two-nighters in the West. Similar to what the heritage railroads charged pre-1971. Were they able to make a profit on them? Could Amtrak? What would be a fair cost today?


----------



## Skyline

MARC Rider said:


> I rode a slumbercoach once, on the Crescent in 1990. The seat in daytime mode was fairly comfortable as I recall, but in night-time mode the mattress was a bit thin. I think there was also an issue with getting access to the toilet in sleep mode. The other thing was that the rooms were really small, and I don't remember how I was able to store my luggage. Some people might find them claustrophobic, in fact. But I did appreciate the fact that it was only $50 above the coach fare. Not sure what the best design for a budget sleeper would be, probably either some kind of lie-flat seat or Euro-style couchette.



My recollection, from the early '70s, was that because the slumbercoach bed -- in sleep mode -- was so narrow that access to the toilet was easier than in a single roomette of the day. But that was 50ish years ago and it's possible I've burned a few brain cells since then.


----------



## TheCrescent

MARC Rider said:


> Why should a private operator be able to do things more cheaply and efficiently than Amtrak? They would have to buy expensive sleeping cars, staff them, come to an agreement with Amtrak about hauling them on the train, pay taxes, insurance, etc., etc., I can't see how their costs would be any less than those incurred by Amtrak. As people have pointed out, this business is highly overhead-heavy, which means the high costs are incurred even when the passenger revenue is light. In fact, even if they only ran the service during busy periods (thus presumably saving on staff costs and the costs of being hauled by Amtrak), they'd still have the maintenance and depreciation costs for all that expensive rolling stock, and without receiving any revenue. Passenger trains used to be privately operated. That obviously didn't work, which is why we have a subsidized publicly owned system today.



Amtrak isn’t providing budget accommodations so the proposal is for someone else to step in and do it. I would think that someone else would have difficulty doing this more easily than Amtrak could but my issue is not trying to find efficiencies; it’s to find a way to expand the rail passenger market by addressing a market segment that Amtrak is ignoring.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

TheCrescent said:


> Amtrak isn’t providing budget accommodations so the proposal is for someone else to step in and do it. I would think that someone else would have difficulty doing this more easily than Amtrak could but my issue is not trying to find efficiencies; it’s to find a way to expand the rail passenger market by addressing a market segment that Amtrak is ignoring.



Expect Amtrak will protect its business with ever dirty trick in the book.


----------



## Dakota 400

Skyline said:


> My recollection, from the early '70s, was that because the slumbercoach bed -- in sleep mode -- was so narrow that access to the toilet was easier than in a single roomette of the day



An interesting memory, but you are correct that accessing the toilet in the Roomettes of the day was not difficult to do if one had the strength to do it. But. they were certainly inconvenient. It would be interesting to see a floor plan for a slumbercoach compartment to see where the toilet is located in that space. I thought the bed would cover the toilet.


----------



## Mailliw

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Nightjet pods are getting ready to be deployed. It will be interesting how well or not they are received by the traveling public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siemens Mobility and ÖBB present interior design of the new Nightjet | Press | Company | Siemens
> 
> 
> Austrian Federal Railways (ÖBB) is investing in the new generation of Nightjet trains, which will offer passengers an even more comfortable nightime t ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> press.siemens.com



I think the pod couchettes are a great idea for nighttrains, but they'd be of very limited use in North America since they lake a daytime configuration. At present they'd only be useful on the overnight NER.
I think the best way to bring the cost of sleeping accommodations down is simply to _build more sleeping cars. _


----------



## Anthony V

Skyline said:


> I
> 
> 
> I loved the slumbercoaches. Wish they still existed. Bare bones, affordable, and not considered first class.
> 
> There were one-person and two-person configs. They were able to get so many accommodations squeezed into each car by stacking them as shown in this photo. Kind of tight, but perfect for a 20something on a tight budget who wanted private horizontal sleeping accommodations.
> 
> In the early years of Amtrak a single slumbercoach cost $15 extra on a one-night train in the East; more for two-nighters in the West. Similar to what the heritage railroads charged pre-1971. Were they able to make a profit on them? Could Amtrak? What would be a fair cost today?
> View attachment 28405


Is the slumbercoach in the photo the Loch Sloy? If it is, I can say that I rode in that particular slumbercoach in 2015 at the Illinois Railway Museum in Union, IL. To make it feel as if I were a passenger on the North Coast Limited back in the day, I took a brief catnap during the 45 minute ride on the museum's 5 mile mainline.


----------



## railiner

Dakota 400 said:


> An interesting memory, but you are correct that accessing the toilet in the Roomettes of the day was not difficult to do if one had the strength to do it. But. they were certainly inconvenient. It would be interesting to see a floor plan for a slumbercoach compartment to see where the toilet is located in that space. I thought the bed would cover the toilet.











Slumbercoach – Amtrak


Built by Budd for the New York Central in 1959, Amtrak Slumbercoach 2092 at the Southeastern Railway Museum was one of an order of 12 built for Northern Pacific (4), Missouri Pacific (1), Ba…



www.train-museum.org


----------



## Willbridge

Skyline said:


> I loved the slumbercoaches. Wish they still existed. Bare bones, affordable, and not considered first class.
> 
> There were one-person and two-person configs. They were able to get so many accommodations squeezed into each car by stacking them as shown in this photo. Kind of tight, but perfect for a 20something on a tight budget who wanted private horizontal sleeping accommodations.
> 
> In the early years of Amtrak a single slumbercoach cost $15 extra on a one-night train in the East; more for two-nighters in the West. Similar to what the heritage railroads charged pre-1971. Were they able to make a profit on them? Could Amtrak? What would be a fair cost today?



I never rode in a Slumbercoach, but everyone who I knew with experiences liked them. Of course, we were all younger then. They were the ideal single car for a no-nonsense plaid flannel shirt sort of train.


----------



## jiml

An "elephant in the room", apart from lack of rolling stock, is that the Slumbercoaches we all remember would be unlikely to meet today's safety standards for egress in an emergency, plus there's always ADA requirements.


----------



## Barb Stout

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Nightjet pods are getting ready to be deployed. It will be interesting how well or not they are received by the traveling public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siemens Mobility and ÖBB present interior design of the new Nightjet | Press | Company | Siemens
> 
> 
> Austrian Federal Railways (ÖBB) is investing in the new generation of Nightjet trains, which will offer passengers an even more comfortable nightime t ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> press.siemens.com


In the article, the phrase "barrier-free" is used a few times. The first couple of times I thought it meant no walls, but then I read this: "Barrier-free overnight travel will also be possible with the new Nightjets. Every Nightjet will include a multifunctional car with a low-floor entrance, a barrier-free couchette compartment, and a barrier-free toilet." I know I wouldn't be too excited about a wall-free toilet, so I'm hoping that "barrier-free" means something else. So what might it mean, no steps?


----------



## jis

Barb Stout said:


> In the article, the phrase "barrier-free" is used a few times. The first couple of times I thought it meant no walls, but then I read this: "Barrier-free overnight travel will also be possible with the new Nightjets. Every Nightjet will include a multifunctional car with a low-floor entrance, a barrier-free couchette compartment, and a barrier-free toilet." I know I wouldn't be too excited about a wall-free toilet, so I'm hoping that "barrier-free" means something else. So what might it mean, no steps?


I suspect it means something akin to accessible in some European equivalent of ADA sense.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Barb Stout said:


> In the article, the phrase "barrier-free" is used a few times. The first couple of times I thought it meant no walls, but then I read this: "Barrier-free overnight travel will also be possible with the new Nightjets. Every Nightjet will include a multifunctional car with a low-floor entrance, a barrier-free couchette compartment, and a barrier-free toilet." I know I wouldn't be too excited about a wall-free toilet, so I'm hoping that "barrier-free" means something else. So what might it mean, no steps?


The impression I get is that it means no steps and sufficient space for mobility hindered (as JIS said above) - seems to be a Britishism/Europeanism - rather than saying accessible as we do.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Dakota 400 said:


> I remember seeing the Slumbercoaches. At that time, I thought they were too small. Particularly when I compared them to the type of Roomette which was the standard kind of that day. (Like the Cabin for one on VIA, today, I think.) If I recall correctly the Slumbercoach rooms appeared smaller than Amtrak's Roomettes are now. I am OK in an Amtrak Roomette; pretty sure I would not like a Slumbercoach room regardless of the fare differential that may exist.


Slumber Coaches weren't as small as one might think, including the fact that they had a Bathroom, and also Meals weren't included so Prices were Lower!

My favorite Slumber Coach trip was the Southern Crescent between Washington and Atlanta.

Slumber Coaches were especially good for One night trips, ( never did a Multi Night trip in one)and back in the day most Crack Trains had real Lounges, which were great for getting out of your room, and some even had Coffee Shop type Food Service Cars for those that didn't want to Pay for Meals in the Diner.


----------



## Dakota 400

railiner said:


> Slumbercoach – Amtrak
> 
> 
> Built by Budd for the New York Central in 1959, Amtrak Slumbercoach 2092 at the Southeastern Railway Museum was one of an order of 12 built for Northern Pacific (4), Missouri Pacific (1), Ba…
> 
> 
> 
> www.train-museum.org



Thank you. That answers my questions.



Bob Dylan said:


> and back in the day most Crack Trains had real Lounges, which were great for getting out of your room, and some even had Coffee Shop type Food Service Cars for those that didn't want to Pay for Meals in the Diner.



That was when the food and beverage options available in the Food Service and Lounge cars were more plentiful and varied than currently.


----------



## jis

Dakota 400 said:


> That was when the food and beverage options available in the Food Service and Lounge cars were more plentiful and varied than currently.


Back then the Cafe/Lounge counter food was quite fine for me. Springing for Diner was an added luxury which I could seldom afford on my Graduate Assistantship. Indeed, I could barely afford Slumbercoach, let alone Sleeper It would have been even less affordable if I was still on my GA after the food surcharge was tacked on. It was almost not affordable with my salary while I was paying off a few loans. There were times when it was Greyhound all the way since I could not afford Amtrak Coach even. My first cross country trip was by Greyhound since I could only manage to do it using a one month Ameripass. All that seems now to be in a different Galaxy far away and far in the past! And yet was just 45 years back.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Barb Stout said:


> In the article, the phrase "barrier-free" is used a few times. The first couple of times I thought it meant no walls, but then I read this: "Barrier-free overnight travel will also be possible with the new Nightjets. Every Nightjet will include a multifunctional car with a low-floor entrance, a barrier-free couchette compartment, and a barrier-free toilet." I know I wouldn't be too excited about a wall-free toilet, so I'm hoping that "barrier-free" means something else. So what might it mean, no steps?




The whole accessible of train travel is sorely lacking in the Europe. Like people make a big deal about have AC on the train a few years back, the accessibility is not a given and is a common question when a new service starts. The nightjet is using Bilevel single level equipment so a person in a wheelchair can directly roll into a railcar with out any assistance.

I was reading specs for a Stadler railcar, they listed 5 platforms heights that they could build for. What NightJet is building are trainsets that are designed for a wheelchair user and is barrier free access.


----------



## jpakala

Another accommodation was the duplex room such as this photo of Connoquenessing Creek shows. There were 12, running crosswise of the car, with a few steps the width of 2 doors providing access to the uppers, the lowers having aisle-level doors. There were 2 bedrooms (with enclosed toilet & sink) at each end or in a bit older version 2 at one end and 3 at the other because I they lacked the enclosure and so were a bit smaller. PRR had many such cars. NP had 4 similar but same-level one-person rooms under (sleeper) domes. Duplex rooms were wonderful accommodations. Is it possible at least to visit such today anywhere?


----------



## Steve4031

That’s an interesting car. I haven’t see that one before.


----------



## jphjaxfl

When I was younger before and after Amtrak started, I frequently traveled on Slumbercoaches and really enjoyed them. I traveled on trains from the New York Central, Burlington, Seaboard Coast Line and Amtrak, I was stationed at Grand Forks AFB, ND for over 3 years and use to travel on the Slumbercoach on the Empire Builder frequently. The military fare between Grand Forks and Minneapolis was $14.50 including the slumbercoach charge. The train left Grand Forks around midnight and arrived at Minneapolis Great Northern Station at 6:30AM. The fare was cheaper than a Greyhound ticket and far more comfortable. Back then the Empire Builder was on time and very reliable. The crews were ex Great Northern crews that prided themselves on how they operated "their" train. I also road the train westbound from Minneapolis and Grand Forks. In those days, Amtrak didn't offer free meals to First class Sleeping car passengers, so the cost of meals was the same. The Dining Car crews were also ex Great Northern and Northern Pacific and the food was excellent. For some reason, the portions served on the western trains was much bigger than eastern trains. I loved the slumbercoaches and traveled on them whenever they were on the train.


----------



## toddinde

jiml said:


> An "elephant in the room", apart from lack of rolling stock, is that the Slumbercoaches we all remember would be unlikely to meet today's safety standards for egress in an emergency, plus there's always ADA requirements.


People are also bigger today. I don’t think people really remember how tiny the Slumbercoach really was. Is there a market for really itty bitty rooms with tiny beds? No. The number of unsatisfied passengers this product would create would be self defeating.


----------



## toddinde

joelkfla said:


> I disagree. It's more suitable for a single rider, and much cheaper than a bedroom, which is more appropriate for 2.
> 
> I think the size and design are comparable to the original 1-person Roomette, as still seen on the VIA Canadian. Amtrak just added a 2nd bunk to allow for 2 riders.


The Amtrak roomettes are basically enclosed sections.


----------



## toddinde

I too enjoyed the Slumbercoach back in the day, but I wouldn’t like them now. That very narrow bed in a teeny tiny room with no meals or lounges? I think you would have to be a monk to appreciate that. I would much prefer a more comfortable coach product, although I like the Amtrak coach, and frequently sleep better in it than in a roomette.


----------



## railiner

toddinde said:


> The Amtrak roomettes are basically enclosed sections.


A Slumbercoach double room is approximately the same size...perhaps a little bit shorter. I loved the Slumbercoach, and used them whenever one was available, on whichever train they were on. The narrow bunk was no issue for me, and I actually liked them, as they allowed you to use the toilet at night, without the need to raise the bunk.
There were some converted Pullman Roomettee cars, (ex NYC) that became the "16-10" type Slumbercoaches. For whatever reason, Single rooms 1,2.3. and 4 were the size of the double rooms, but only had one bunk installed. Those familiar with them, would try for these rooms, as they sold at the same rate as the duplex style single rooms. They had a much larger window, more interior space, and were a real bargain...


----------



## cirdan

As a kid I spent three years living in Germany and also a short stint in France and travelling in couchettes felt fairly normal for me. I first experienced them on a school trip and later made many trips by myself.

Sometimes when you got several like minded young people sharing a couchette it might turn into an impromptu party (it helped if you had some alcohol to share) until some annoyed folks in the compartment next door would bang on the door and tell you to shut up.

But yeah, at some point you get too old for that type of thing, and that is often about the same time you start having a bit more money on the side, which was why I started upgrading to sleepers. I do all I can too avoid couchettes these days.


----------



## ehbowen

toddinde said:


> I too enjoyed the Slumbercoach back in the day, but I wouldn’t like them now. That very narrow bed in a teeny tiny room with no meals or lounges? I think you would have to be a monk to appreciate that. I would much prefer a more comfortable coach product, although I like the Amtrak coach, and frequently sleep better in it than in a roomette.


Um, if we had sanity in charge at Amtrak, coach and Slumbercoach passengers would be able to purchase appetizing and nutritious meals in the dining car whenever they chose; they just wouldn't be inclusive in the ticket. And there's no reason there can't be a coach lounge; Southern Pacific and Budd showed how a single-level lounge and diner could quite workably be combined in their "Pride of Texas" cars for the 1950 _Sunset Limited._

The size issue is what it is, but it's not the same for all largish people. I took multiple trips doubled up in Superliner roomettes, often in the upper berth, back when I was still at 270+ lbs. and never had a problem with it (Of course, I spent three years living in enlisted berthing aboard a Navy battleship...). Why not have mock-ups of all of the Amtrak sleeping accommodations on display at major terminal stations so prospective passengers can know what they're getting into (in more ways than one!)? Besides, do you honestly believe that a "Person of Size" would be any more comfortable in an Amtrak coach seat...especially if doubled up?


----------



## jis

Here is a remarkably information filled discussion thread on the subject of Slumbercoaches and Duplexes from Classic Trains that I thought many here might find interesting






Slumbercoach (Sleepercoach) vs. Pullman Duplex Roomette - Classic Trains Magazine - Railroad History, Vintage Train Videos, Steam Locomotives, Forums


Classic Trains magazine celebrates the 'golden years of railroading' including the North American railroad scene from the late 1920s to the late 1970s. Giant steam locomotives, colorful streamliners, great passenger trains, passenger terminals, timeworn railroad cabooses, recollections of...



cs.trains.com





Here are some Pullman car layouts on the Empire Builder. Note they had Duplexes and not Slumbercoach. The subtle differences are discussed in the thread that I have given reference to above:







And here is an interesting 3D rendition of all the types of sleeping accommodation. Specifically note the Duplex Roomette:


----------



## TheCrescent

I’m 6’2”, taller than the length of the beds in roomettes. I can deal with it. I could also thus deal with a smaller room. Size issues aren’t due to weight alone.


----------



## Dakota 400

jis said:


> Here is a remarkably information filled discussion thread on the subject of Slumbercoaches and Duplexes from Classic Trains that I thought many here might find interesting



Interesting? Yes! Thanks for the link. I am wondering now if what I saw were Duplex Roomettes and not Slumbercoaches.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

I really don’t think Amtrak or anyone else should be in the “budget sleeper” business. If you don’t want to pay for a sleeper.... ride in coach. 

The cost of creating, maintaining, and operating slumbercoaches really doesn’t make sense. Which is one of the reasons they no longer exist.


----------



## TheCrescent

crescent-zephyr said:


> I really don’t think Amtrak or anyone else should be in the “budget sleeper” business. If you don’t want to pay for a sleeper.... ride in coach.
> 
> The cost of creating, maintaining, and operating slumbercoaches really doesn’t make sense. Which is one of the reasons they no longer exist.



I commute 600 miles each way, every two weeks (so 600 miles of travel per week, for about $200-$370 per week). My total spending on those trips will be about $15,000 this year.

Most of that spending goes to American Airlines because Amtrak does not offer a product that’s a good value for a solo passenger. I can fly first class on American for less than Amtrak charges.

It’s a business decision: if Amtrak won’t offer a product that is competitive, it won’t get much of that $15,000. I’m not taking coach overnight. And when I do take Amtrak, I expect to continue to be the only (!) sleeping car passenger who gets off at my destination station, in a mid-sized metro area.

Amtrak, it’s your choice.


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> I really don’t think Amtrak or anyone else should be in the “budget sleeper” business. If you don’t want to pay for a sleeper.... ride in coach.


Sounds like that line of argument is fragrant with the possibility of being extended to say there should be no Roomettes either.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

jis said:


> Sounds like that line of argument is fragrant with the possibility of being extended to say there should be no Roomettes either.



No, the roomettes fill the role. 

An all roomette viewliner would have 16 roomettes plus a H room. That would have the capacity of 34 beds. 

The classic slumber coach had 36 or 40 beds but no H room. With an H room the capacity would be similar to an all roomette viewliner. So just build an all roomette viewliner if the demand is there.


----------



## TheCrescent

crescent-zephyr said:


> No, the roomettes fill the role.
> 
> An all roomette viewliner would have 16 roomettes plus a H room. That would have the capacity of 34 beds.
> 
> The classic slumber coach had 36 or 40 beds but no H room. With an H room the capacity would be similar to an all roomette viewliner. So just build an all roomette viewliner if the demand is there.



I don’t know if demand is there for more roomettes at Amtrak’s current pricing. I do know that there is unmet demand for the following:

1. A small number of very high-end rooms. If Iowa Pacific could fill a few attached to the City of New Orleans, Amtrak could on its long-distance trains.

2. “Cabins for One,” as Via and other railroads offer them, and I would pay for one.

3. A budget coach accommodation (surely at least some bus passengers would go for something like a commuter coach attached to Amtrak trains, at a lower price than regular coach.

Given railroads’ large overhead, and how close Amtrak has come to breaking even with a load factor of about 60%, it’s clear that one path to profitability is simply filling more seats and rooms. The marginal cost of each is low.

Airlines differentiate on pricing and product between a wide variety of customers, and niche segmentation helps them maximize revenues. Amtrak should do the same.

My American Airlines app shows 7 tickets already booked for my travel for the next 6 weeks. Amtrak could have gotten each of those trips if it simply offered a product that better matched my needs, instead of offering either a product that is too far below (coach) or too far above (roomette, priced for 2 people even though I’m traveling solo).


----------



## joelkfla

TheCrescent said:


> 2. “Cabins for One,” as Via and other railroads offer them, and I would pay for one.


A VIA Rail Cabin for 1 is just a roomette without the upper bunk. The Cabin for 1 is actually about 0.5 sq. ft. larger than an Amtrak Roomette.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

TheCrescent said:


> 2. “Cabins for One,” as Via and other railroads offer them, and I would pay for one.



Cabin for 1 on VIA is a “heritage roomette” - same size room. I prefer the design of the Amtrak roomette but VIA does have much more comfortable bedding. (Did the new Amtrak bedding ever appear? I think it did?).

But a roomette on via rails Canadian is $1826 USA for Toronto to Vancouver. A roomette on Amtrak from Washington DC to Seattle is $1654.


----------



## TheCrescent

crescent-zephyr said:


> Cabin for 1 on VIA is a “heritage roomette” - same size room. I prefer the design of the Amtrak roomette but VIA does have much more comfortable bedding. (Did the new Amtrak bedding ever appear? I think it did?).
> 
> But a roomette on via rails Canadian is $1826 USA for Toronto to Vancouver. A roomette on Amtrak from Washington DC to Seattle is $1654.



I checked the Via website and a cabin for 1 was $2,647 but a cabin for 2 was $3,971 (both Canadian). That’s my point: a private room at a lower price for one person than for two would be appealing. The Canadian’s fares are generally higher than Amtrak ones for the routes you list.

I did not know that true cabin for 1 is the size quoted above.


----------



## caravanman

Strange how the topic has veered so far away from private slumber coaches on Amtrak trains, why no posts deleted or moved?
What train business would offer to convey a competitors passengers at the risk of losing their own paying customers to that competitor?


----------



## cirdan

caravanman said:


> Strange how the topic has veered so far away from private slumber coaches on Amtrak trains, why no posts deleted or moved?
> What train business would offer to convey a competitors passengers at the risk of losing their own paying customers to that competitor?



Maybe it depends where the passengers are coming from.

It is often alleged that Amtrak loses money on every coach passenger and that it is the sleeper passengers that bring in the profits.

If that is the case, and if the private slumbercoaches attract away primarily coach passengers while themselves generating more positive cashflow than they remove, there might be an argument. Especially if slumbercoach passengers may still be spending money in the cafeteria etc.

There are a lot of ifs and assumptions there though. It would take somebody with a deeper understanding of Amtrak accounting to give a definite answer.

Remember that a few years ago Amtrak agreed to convey Iowa Pacific's sleeper cars on the CONL, despite these being in direct competition to their own sleeper cars. That was finally discontinued, but not AFAIK because of anything Amtrak did.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

cirdan said:


> Remember that a few years ago Amtrak agreed to convey Iowa Pacific's sleeper cars on the CONL, despite these being in direct competition to their own sleeper cars. That was finally discontinued, but not AFAIK because of anything Amtrak did.



Not a subject matter expert but do recall a few failure to hook the Iowa Pacific equipment to the CONL, that resulted in next day departures. That going to hurt the ridership, just a bit. There was the whole let’s change the PV rates to eliminate the multi-car, multi-trip discount that happened during Iowa Pacific time.

It does not take much negative action by Amtrak to kill something that is depend on Amtrak to operate.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

TheCrescent said:


> I checked the Via website and a cabin for 1 was $2,647 but a cabin for 2 was $3,971 (both Canadian). That’s my point: a private room at a lower price for one person than for two would be appealing.



A cabin for 1 is a heritage roomette, and a cabin for 2 is a heritage bedroom. 

It’s the same thing as Amtrak’s roomette and bedroom. Amtrak just designed the roomette space so that it can accommodate a second person.


----------



## TheCrescent

crescent-zephyr said:


> A cabin for 1 is a heritage roomette, and a cabin for 2 is a heritage bedroom.
> 
> It’s the same thing as Amtrak’s roomette and bedroom. Amtrak just designed the roomette space so that it can accommodate a second person.



But again:

My point is that offering a lower-priced private room for a solo traveler is appealing.

It’s that simple.

The Night Riviera train between London and Penzance has single cabins and double ones. The single cabins don’t include lounge access, and the upcharge is smaller than the total up charge for a double cabin.

That’s what I suggest.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

TheCrescent said:


> My point is that offering a lower-priced private room for a solo traveler is appealing.



Ok, sorry. I think I was just focused in on the VIA rail example. VIA rails roomette / bedroom is the same as Amtrak’s to me and at similar price points. 

A slumbercoach, with tiny rooms and no H room had a maximum of 40 beds with duplex rooms (rooms for 2). I still think if the demand is there an all roomette sleeper would make as much sense as designing a new type of car.


----------



## TheCrescent

crescent-zephyr said:


> Ok, sorry. I think I was just focused in on the VIA rail example. VIA rails roomette / bedroom is the same as Amtrak’s to me and at similar price points.
> 
> A slumbercoach, with tiny rooms and no H room had a maximum of 40 beds with duplex rooms (rooms for 2). I still think if the demand is there an all roomette sleeper would make as much sense as designing a new type of car.


No apology needed- and thanks for the very valuable and helpful information you’ve shared.


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> A slumbercoach, with tiny rooms and no H room had a maximum of 40 beds with duplex rooms (rooms for 2). I still think if the demand is there an all roomette sleeper would make as much sense as designing a new type of car.


Duplex Rooms are not room for two. See the diagrams I have posted on the previous page, and the discussion pointed to in the same post.

Duplex rooms are vertically staggered single rooms of a slightly more luxurious proportions than Slumbercoach singles.


----------



## Mailliw

Night Riviera Sleeper | Great Western Railway


Travel overnight between London Paddington and Penzance on our Night Riviera Sleeper train service. Plan your journey and buy tickets with GWR today.




www.gwr.com




According to their website solo passengers still get lounge access (& breakfast); it appears single compartments are just double compartments with the upper berth folded away.

There is one circumstance that I could see a return to open sections; if they could be subject to the ADA requirements for coaches instead of sleeping cars. They'd have a passenger capacity of 38; 36 in 18 standard sections and 2 (including companion) in an accessible section adjacent to the restroom. Upper berths would have windows and additional outlets. Of course if an ensuite accessible bedroom is still required just go with roomettes instead.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

jis said:


> Duplex Rooms are not room for two. See the diagrams I have posted on the previous page, and the discussion pointed to in the same post.
> 
> Duplex rooms are vertically staggered single rooms of a slightly more luxurious proportions than Slumbercoach singles.



Oh yeah, I mixed up the terms. So they were just called single and double rooms?


----------



## jis

Mailliw said:


> There is one circumstance that I could see a return to open sections; if they could be subject to the ADA requirements for coaches instead of sleeping cars. They'd have a passenger capacity of 38; 36 in 18 standard sections and 2 (including companion) in an accessible section adjacent to the restroom. Upper berths would have windows and additional outlets. Of course if an ensuite accessible bedroom is still required just go with roomettes instead.


I have traveled in a Meter Gauge car that fits this description (without the ADA stuff of course) including window for upper berth on a KTMB (Malaysian Railway) train between Butterworth in Malaysia and Hat Yai in Thailand. So such things do already exist. It was a Hyundai self generating (diesel) coach, in the Kuala Lumpur - Hat Yai International Express. This was at least 20 years back.


crescent-zephyr said:


> Oh yeah, I mixed up the terms. So they were just called single and double rooms?


As the diagram spells out, they were called Duplex Rooms. Honestly I did not come up with the seemingly odd name. Pullman did!


----------



## TheCrescent

Mailliw said:


> Night Riviera Sleeper | Great Western Railway
> 
> 
> Travel overnight between London Paddington and Penzance on our Night Riviera Sleeper train service. Plan your journey and buy tickets with GWR today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gwr.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to their website solo passengers still get lounge access (& breakfast); it appears single compartments are just double compartments with the upper berth folded away.
> 
> There is one circumstance that I could see a return to open sections; if they could be subject to the ADA requirements for coaches instead of sleeping cars. They'd have a passenger capacity of 38; 36 in 18 standard sections and 2 (including companion) in an accessible section adjacent to the restroom. Upper berths would have windows and additional outlets. Of course if an ensuite accessible bedroom is still required just go with roomettes instead.


I may be wrong then. When I dummy-booked a ticket, it didn’t show lounge access for solo cabins but it for others but I may have just missed it.

The upcharge was £40 for a solo cabin but £60 (ie, £30 per person) total for a double. That’s what I like. On Amtrak, it seems as though the total upcharge for a roomette is the same whether one person is paying all of it or if two people are splitting it.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

jis said:


> As the diagram spells out, they were called Duplex Rooms. Honestly I did not come up with the seemingly odd name. Pullman did!



Oh I see! So the duplex roomettes were staggered full size roomettes vs. the slumbercoach “solo and double” rooms. 

Interesting!


----------



## joelkfla

crescent-zephyr said:


> Oh yeah, I mixed up the terms. So they were just called single and double rooms?


From North Coast Limited Train Service Guide |


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> Oh I see! So the duplex roomettes were staggered full size roomettes vs. the slumbercoach “solo and double” rooms.
> 
> Interesting!


Apparently so. I admit that I have forever been confused, and the best explanation I have found so far aligns with what you say.

The Slubmbercoach doubles were not vertically staggered like the Duplex. They were all at the standard floor level AFAICT. They were somewhat like the current Amtrak Roomettes AFAICT.


----------



## jis

This photo has been posted earlier in this thread:







It shows a Slumbercoach with 24 singles in duplex arrangement and 8 doubles (the four windows at the same level at the far end). It has a capacity of 40 (=24 + 8x2). Slumbercoaches came with several mixes of accommodation with several different capacities.


----------



## joelkfla

Here's a shaky quick view of the lower and upper duplex Cabins for 1 on a VIA Chateau car:


And an also shaky more extensive view of the lower duplex, showing berth deployment:


----------



## TheCrescent

Those Via rooms seem ancient! But I’d be fine with a cabin for one. Thanks for posting.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

TheCrescent said:


> Those Via rooms seem ancient! But I’d be fine with a cabin for one. Thanks for posting.


At the same price (or more)as an Amtrak Roomette?

I'm wondering if they still operate those. As a railfan id love to ride in one (and a section) just to say I did it!


----------



## PaTrainFan

TheCrescent said:


> Those Via rooms seem ancient! But I’d be fine with a cabin for one. Thanks for posting.


 Absolutely ancient, and I love it! I can't wait to take The Canadian to re-experience those rolling time capsules.


----------



## MARC Rider

I would think that a possible reason why Amtrak isn't providing budget sleepers might be the acquisition costs. Based on what I've read in this group about the number of working Sightseer Lounges needed to resume service on the Capitol and Texas Eagle (6 per train), they would need to have 36 single level budget sleepers for the 6 single level trains (Meteor, Star, LSL, Cardinal, Crescent, and 66/67), and they would need 42 new budget sleepers for the seven double-decker Superliner trains (CZ,SWC,TE,SL,CONO,CL,EB). We saw what a drama it was just to get 25 new sleeping cars from the Viewliner 2 order, imagine the pain involved in ordering almost 80 additional sleeping cars. As for costs, it's really hard to find web sources that tell you how much a new passenger railcar costs, but this page (Amtrak Cuts Deal with Siemens for ‘Venture’ Trainsets, Replacing Cascades Equipment) claims that WSDOT is paying about $150 million for 48 Siemens Venture cars for the Cascades service. That comes out to $3.1 million per car. I don't know whether sleeper cars are more expensive to build than coaches, but it would seem that outfitting all of Amtrak's overnight trains with budget sleepers would cost about $240 million. In order to decide whether this is a good allocation of capital, you would have to figure out whether the additional business generated would pay for the purchase price (not to mention the incremental operating costs) in a reasonable time frame. It's quite possible that, given the fact that the current sleepers sell pretty well, Amtrak management sees no need to incur this large upfront cost in order to provide that kind of service.


----------



## joelkfla

crescent-zephyr said:


> At the same price (or more)as an Amtrak Roomette?
> 
> I'm wondering if they still operate those. As a railfan id love to ride in one (and a section) just to say I did it!


VIA has 3 types of sleepers: Chateaus, Manors, and Renaissance. The duplex roomettes are in the Chateaus. Their website says they run primarily on the Montréal-Gaspé and Winnipeg-Churchill routes, but I don't know whether the website is completely up to date.

The Canadian between Toronto & Vancouver primarily runs Manor sleepers, which are from the same period but have single-level roomettes. The website says Chateaus may be added for extra capacity in the spring & summer.

The Ocean between Montréal-Halifax runs Renaissance sleepers, which are newer cars from England.

VIA also has the Park cars that run on the end of the Canadian. They are sleeper-dome-observation lounge cars, providing high-priced Prestige sleeper service as well as an accessible room.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> Duplex Rooms are not room for two. See the diagrams I have posted on the previous page, and the discussion pointed to in the same post.
> 
> Duplex rooms are vertically staggered single rooms of a slightly more luxurious proportions than Slumbercoach singles.


IIRC the full line of sleeper designation's, they were: Single Slumbercoach rooms, in 'standard' 24-8 type Slumbercoaches, and Double Slumbercoach rooms. In the 16-10 type Slumbercoaches, the Singles's 1,2,3, and 4 were in the rooms designed for two, but only had one bunk. The rest of the singles were of the "duplex" design, staggered up or down alternately. All of the singles's regardless of design, were sold at the same rate.

"First Class" or Pullman accommodations, started with Upper Berth's, then Lower Berth's, than full Section's (Upper and Lower sold together), then Duplex Roomettes (simiar to Single duplex Slumbercoaches but slightly larger and more plush, then Roomettes, than Duplex Single Rooms (with beds cross-wise to the car, but staggered up or down, followed by Double Bedrooms, Compartments, Drawing Rooms, Master Rooms, Bedroom Suites (Two Double Bedrooms), or Double Bedroom/Compartment combinations. 

The Slumbercoaches could be purchased with a coach fare, and the room charge. The "First Class" accommodations required a First Class fare, plus the room charge. 

There were also other fare plans for "Tourist Sleepers", usually in older First Class equipment, sold at coach fare plus room charge, mainly by those roads that did not obtain any Slumbercoaches...


----------



## Willbridge

railiner said:


> IIRC the full line of sleeper designation's, they were: Single Slumbercoach rooms, in 'standard' 24-8 type Slumbercoaches, and Double Slumbercoach rooms. In the 16-10 type Slumbercoaches, the Singles's 1,2,3, and 4 were in the rooms designed for two, but only had one bunk. The rest of the singles were of the "duplex" design, staggered up or down alternately. All of the singles's regardless of design, were sold at the same rate.
> 
> "First Class" or Pullman accommodations, started with Upper Berth's, then Lower Berth's, than full Section's (Upper and Lower sold together), then Duplex Roomettes (simiar to Single duplex Slumbercoaches but slightly larger and more plush, then Roomettes, than Duplex Single Rooms (with beds cross-wise to the car, but staggered up or down, followed by Double Bedrooms, Compartments, Drawing Rooms, Master Rooms, Bedroom Suites (Two Double Bedrooms), or Double Bedroom/Compartment combinations.
> 
> The Slumbercoaches could be purchased with a coach fare, and the room charge. The "First Class" accommodations required a First Class fare, plus the room charge.
> 
> There were also other fare plans for "Tourist Sleepers", usually in older First Class equipment, sold at coach fare plus room charge, mainly by those roads that did not obtain any Slumbercoaches...


To compete with the NP Slumbercoaches the GN offered sleeper travel at Coach rail fares instead of First Class during off-seasons on the _Western Star._ In 1969 the Star carried one sleeper (16 roomettes, 4 dbl bedrooms).


----------



## Mailliw

I think any "budget sleeper" option is going to come from the _opposite _direction, eg a Business Class product with 2:1 cradle recliners.


----------



## jpakala

Having had both single and double Slumbercoach rooms I can report that the double have greater square footage than Superliner roomettes if only because the ceilings were higher. The sink & toilet did not really take up much space and the beds were about the same width. The single rooms were considerably smaller than duplex roomettes, and indeed 16 duplex roomette 4 bedroom cars substituted at least when I went from Pittsburgh to Chicago in 1964 on the B & O RR.


----------



## chickpea

joelkfla said:


> I disagree. It's more suitable for a single rider, and much cheaper than a bedroom, which is more appropriate for 2.
> 
> I think the size and design are comparable to the original 1-person Roomette, as still seen on the VIA Canadian. Amtrak just added a 2nd bunk to allow for 2 riders.



Agree with @joelkfla - having crossed the country three times on 7 services in roomettes, I would ONLY want to share it with someone I was close to, and even then it would be a tight fit. Roomettes are ideal for a solo traveler. The cost may be a bit high, but I found it fairly reasonable in winter: factor in hotels and meals out and flights, the extra for the train (safer, more relaxing, amazing views) was TOTALLY worthwhile IMHO. That said, summer prices seem a fair bit higher, understandably as it is peak, so I couldn't use the train though I wanted to. I still think it is worthwhile and I hope there are more roomettes in my solo future!


----------



## chickpea

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> I'm not sure how couchettes would be received here in the US, especially the aspect of being booked into a room shared with strangers.



I'd say that may be an age-related thing. For example: youth hostels... yes older people use them, but only if they are interested in a budget option with shared space. I traveled all over Europe with a friend in couchettes and they were the perfect option. That was many years ago and I wouldn't do it now unless the compartment was just me and family or friends. It was an EXCELLENT budget option though and actually I wish they had more like it in the UK & US, especially for younger folks. (I am guessing the average age of this forum isn't 18-22-ish ;-))


----------



## GAT

crescent-zephyr said:


> But a roomette on via rails Canadian is $1826 USA for Toronto to Vancouver. A roomette on Amtrak from Washington DC to Seattle is (US) $1654.


Comparing apples to apples, Via Toronto to Vancouver takes four nights (about 86 hours or over 3-1/2 days on one train. Amtrak WAS to SEA takes three nights and a train change (CL a tad over 20 hours and EB 58 hours for a total of 78 hours or 3-1/4 days, longer if you factor in CHI transfer time). Taking into account VIA's single train experience, plus extra night meals and accommodation, plus (IMHO) significantly superior meals and onboard amenities, VIA is very competitive. Of course, it all depends on what prices you can snag for your desired travel dates. And we haven't even tried to factor in on-time performance.


----------



## railiner

jpakala said:


> Having had both single and double Slumbercoach rooms I can report that the double have greater square footage than Superliner roomettes if only because the ceilings were higher.


I think you might be comparing cubic feet, not square feet in this instance?
IIRC, the Amtrak Roomettes (formerly known as “Economy Bedrooms”, are fractionally longer than Double Slumbercoach Rooms. 
In any case, I believe Viewliner Roomettes are certainly larger in square or cubic foot measure, than Double Slumbercoach Rooms…


----------



## crescent-zephyr

George said:


> Comparing apples to apples, Via Toronto to Vancouver takes four nights (about 86 hours or over 3-1/2 days on one train. Amtrak WAS to SEA takes three nights and a train change (CL a tad over 20 hours and EB 58 hours for a total of 78 hours or 3-1/4 days, longer if you factor in CHI transfer time). Taking into account VIA's single train experience, plus extra night meals and accommodation, plus (IMHO) significantly superior meals and onboard amenities, VIA is very competitive. Of course, it all depends on what prices you can snag for your desired travel dates. And we haven't even tried to factor in on-time performance.


If we are talking over all travel experience it’s a different conversation. The poster I was replying to was saying Amtrak should offer something like a “cabin for 1” - to which I was pointing out a cabin for 1 and an Amtrak roomette are the same thing and priced similarly (with via being a bit more expensive in this example).


----------



## TheCrescent

Thinking further about this, if any extra sleeping cars are profitable enough to make the investment worthwhile, Amtrak should be able to borrow the money to pay to buy them. Unless Amtrak has already granted a lien to another lender on all of its assets.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

TheCrescent said:


> Thinking further about this, if any extra sleeping cars are profitable enough to make the investment worthwhile, Amtrak should be able to borrow the money to pay to buy them. Unless Amtrak has already granted a lien to another lender on all of its assets.


That brings up another issue... the railroad industry is really a mess. Amtrak didn’t do anything wrong when they ordered new Viewliner cars and yet it took them forever to actually get delivered.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Revisiting this thread, I think I didn’t make something clear when I was suggesting “all roomette cars” as the answer. 

If Amtrak wants to attract more passengers who are interested in a lower priced sleeper product, I feel like the answer is all-roomette sleepers as that would add to the number of roomettes and in theory lower the price. 

The cost of designing a new car for slumbercoach service would be really high, and the number of rooms probably wouldn’t be any more than an all roomette car (maybe fit 2 extra?) with modern laws. 

Of course, the viewliners already have mostly roomettes, so maybe we just need more sleepers in general on trains?


----------



## TheCrescent

crescent-zephyr said:


> maybe we just need more sleepers in general on trains?


I think so:

1. Given railroads’ overhead, versus the relatively low marginal cost of transporting another person, simply filling more seats or beds would go a long way to help Amtrak become operationally profitable.

2. With some marketing, more affordable tickets and maybe some schedule adjustments, I believe that there is a much larger potential market for sleeping car rooms than Amtrak currently meets.

I would be curious to see what would happen if Amtrak ran a train that consisted of a typical Amtrak consist plus a budget coach (high-density commuter train seating), plus two more sleeping cars, including some couchettes, Slumbercoach rooms and a handful of premium-class rooms (like Via’s luxury rooms on the Canadian), and if Amtrak heavily marketed the train and offered frequent flyer miles from an airline as a benefit. I’m guessing that it would get plenty of business.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

TheCrescent said:


> a handful of premium-class rooms (like Via’s luxury rooms on the Canadian),


This is something that could, in theory be attempted by using existing equipment. Take the most newly refurbished equipment and add truly luxurious bedding, etc. and pair that with a SSL or Viewliner Diner car and use it like a Parlour Car with a classy bar, good wine and cheese selections, espresso machine, etc. 

Put it on one route (like the starlight?) and see if people are willing to pay extra for the extra experience.


----------



## west point

IMO first Amtrak has to serve as many potential passengers as possible. All these one-off proposals take equipment that could be better served for any number of trains. If you want to provide any of these services being premium requires 1 car for each train set + one at each end of a route to make the service reliable. 

None of us know what the demand for seats will be for the next 5 years.

First all cars are either operating on trains or being in maintenance for various required depot items. Second there are open space above say 10% every day on all trains. That means reasonable fares not the outrageous fares in sleepers.
Then some of these proposals can be tried.


----------



## MARC Rider

west point said:


> IMO first Amtrak has to serve as many potential passengers as possible. All these one-off proposals take equipment that could be better served for any number of trains. If you want to provide any of these services being premium requires 1 car for each train set + one at each end of a route to make the service reliable.
> 
> *None of us know what the demand for seats will be for the next 5 years. *
> 
> First all cars are either operating on trains or being in maintenance for various required depot items. Second there are open space above say 10% every day on all trains. That means reasonable fares not the outrageous fares in sleepers.
> Then some of these proposals can be tried.


Frankly, I'd be happy if they could just restore pre-Covid, Pre Flex meal service levels, increase the supply of current types of accommodations, and charge less (like what they were pre Covid, adjusting for inflation, of course), which I suppose would happen if they could get all the current rolling stock operating. Well, maybe get service levels back to where they were circa 2010.


----------



## TheCrescent

west point said:


> IMO first Amtrak has to serve as many potential passengers as possible. All these one-off proposals take equipment that could be better served for any number of trains. If you want to provide any of these services being premium requires 1 car for each train set + one at each end of a route to make the service reliable.
> 
> None of us know what the demand for seats will be for the next 5 years.
> 
> First all cars are either operating on trains or being in maintenance for various required depot items. Second there are open space above say 10% every day on all trains. That means reasonable fares not the outrageous fares in sleepers.
> Then some of these proposals can be tried.


The new service types I mention ought to be done with additional equipment. They would not displace any current cars.

We can look at airline numbers to see how travel has mostly bounced back from its pandemic lows. And in any event, Amtrak runs much shorter trains than it did in the past on long-distance routes, even though many areas of the US (such as the Carolinas and Atlanta) have far higher populations than they did 20-30 years ago.

There is ample demand for additional seats and rooms on long-distance trains.


----------



## Larry H.

TheCrescent said:


> I think so:
> 
> 1. Given railroads’ overhead, versus the relatively low marginal cost of transporting another person, simply filling more seats or beds would go a long way to help Amtrak become operationally profitable.
> 
> 2. With some marketing, more affordable tickets and maybe some schedule adjustments, I believe that there is a much larger potential market for sleeping car rooms than Amtrak currently meets.
> 
> I would be curious to see what would happen if Amtrak ran a train that consisted of a typical Amtrak consist plus a budget coach (high-density commuter train seating), plus two more sleeping cars, including some couchettes, Slumbercoach rooms and a handful of premium-class rooms (like Via’s luxury rooms on the Canadian), and if Amtrak heavily marketed the train and offered frequent flyer miles from an airline as a benefit. I’m guessing that it would get plenty of business.


I have never understood the idea of Amtrak to turn away sleeper customers for years and years and make no effort to do anything about it. But as someone a few pages back said when does Amtrak management ever seem to consider passenger loads and meet the needs. The old railroads always had back up cars so that when a holiday, or summer or winter demands, depending on where they are going, could haul more passengers. I would love to know what the amount of unfilled request for sleeper space comes to on each route. I would bet is significant. Another problem there is that turning away passengers simply makes them jaded against rail travel. In Canada its not unusual at all to see consist of 20 cars or more, and the trains reflect it by having more paying customers. Something we don't see anymore either are all sleeper trains and all coach trains, each running seperately. An all sleeper train with decent food and lounges should be a real draw for some customers.


----------



## joelkfla

Larry H. said:


> Something we don't see anymore either are all sleeper trains and all coach trains, each running seperately. An all sleeper train with decent food and lounges should be a real draw for some customers.


Why would an all-sleeper train be more of a draw than a mixed train with decent food, and maybe a sleeper-only lounge?


----------



## PaTrainFan

Larry H. said:


> Something we don't see anymore either are all sleeper trains and all coach trains, each running seperately. An all sleeper train with decent food and lounges should be a real draw for some customers.


 We haven't seen this since the 1960s. Hard to imagine such a thing could be revived successfully.


----------



## TheCrescent

PaTrainFan said:


> We haven't seen this since the 1960s. Hard to imagine such a thing could be revived successfully.


Agreed in that an all-sleeping car train would mean at least 6 sleeping cars (given typical 8-car Amtrak consists).

The only reason I can think of to have an all-sleeper train is because the railroad gets so much sleeping car business that there’s not enough space in the consist for a coach.

If Amtrak could generate enough business to fill that many sleeping cars, that would be great.


----------



## zephyr17

PaTrainFan said:


> We haven't seen this since the 1960s. Hard to imagine such a thing could be revived successfully.


Well, VIA runs the Canadian in the summer with something like 15 sleepers and one or two coaches, so that is pretty close.


----------



## TheCrescent

Larry H. said:


> I would love to know what the amount of unfilled request for sleeper space comes to on each route. I would bet is significant.


I agree. Wouldn’t the number of Viewliner II sleepers indicate the amount of additional sleeping car business that Amtrak expected to get pre-Covid on Eastern trains? And if Slumbercoaches and couchettes were added, that would be a lot more.


----------



## CCC1007

TheCrescent said:


> I agree. Wouldn’t the number of Viewliner II sleepers indicate the amount of additional sleeping car business that Amtrak expected to get pre-Covid on Eastern trains? And if Slumbercoaches and couchettes were added, that would be a lot more.


I think it was more likely what Amtrak could prove to their creditors, since they borrowed money to purchase them.


----------



## railiner

Probably the best candidate for an all-sleeper train would be the Auto-train since all passengers go from endpoint to endpoint, and its schedule is perfect for it…


----------



## shelzp

Some couples or friends traveling together like to get their own roomettes across the hall from each other.


----------



## CCC1007

railiner said:


> Probably the best candidate for an all-sleeper train would be the Auto-train since all passengers go from endpoint to endpoint, and its schedule is perfect for it…


There is a reason that auto train runs with 4 coaches along with 7 sleepers, as of this last weekend. (I watched it pass the railcam at Folkston, GA.)


----------



## joelkfla

CCC1007 said:


> There is a reason that auto train runs with 4 coaches along with 7 sleepers, as of this last weekend. (I watched it pass the railcam at Folkston, GA.)


And the reason is?


----------



## crescent-zephyr

joelkfla said:


> And the reason is?


I’m guessing they have 4 coaches worth of passengers who wish to ride in coach. 

How many airplanes operate as “all first class” ? It’s a strange business model to suggest.


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> I’m guessing they have 4 coaches worth of passengers who wish to ride in coach.
> 
> How many airplanes operate as “all first class” ? It’s a strange business model to suggest.


Unusual, but they do exist, or have existed.

I once flew on a Lufthansa flight operated by PrivatAir from Stuttgart to Newark which was all business class in a Boeing 737 BBJ. It was one of the most wonderful flights I have been on. The other was the Newark - Singapore nonstop by Singapore Airlines in its previous incarnation using a special performance Airbus 340-500. That was another out of this world flight for me.

Coming back to railroads, India has dozens of overnight trains that are Sleeper only, with no Coach style sitting accommodation and often they are 20+ cars, all Sleepers. So they do exist and are not really all that odd. Of course there are different classes of Sleepers in those trains.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

jis said:


> Unusual, but they do exist, or have existed.
> 
> I once flew on a Lufthansa flight operated by PrivatAir from Stuttgart to Newark which was all business class in a Boeing 737 BBJ. It was one of the most wonderful flights I have been on. The other was the Newark - Singapore nonstop by Singapore Airlines in its previous incarnation using a special performance Airbus 340-500. That was another out of this world flight for me.
> 
> Coming back to railroads, India has dozens of overnight trains that are Sleeper only, with no Coach style sitting accommodation and often they are 20+ cars, all Sleepers. So they do exist and are not really all that odd. Of course there are different classes of Sleepers in those trains.


Amtrak LD coach is luxurious compared to the lower class sleepers on the trains in India. 

I’m not surprised that such airplanes exist, but I would still say they are extremely uncommon. I’d guess 95% of all commercial airplanes are either mixed classes or all coach.


----------



## joelkfla

crescent-zephyr said:


> Amtrak LD coach is luxurious compared to the lower class sleepers on the trains in India.
> 
> I’m not surprised that such airplanes exist, but I would still say they are extremely uncommon. I’d guess 95% of all commercial airplanes are either mixed classes or all coach.


I'd guess that that's a low guess. I'd guess more like 99.9%.


----------



## railiner

joelkfla said:


> And the reason is?


Probably insufficient sleepers to meet demand


----------



## TheCrescent

crescent-zephyr said:


> I’m guessing they have 4 coaches worth of passengers who wish to ride in coach.
> 
> How many airplanes operate as “all first class” ? It’s a strange business model to suggest.


United and American have had transcontinental flights that have no coach seats, even recently: they’re all first class (fancier than regular domestic first class), business or premium economy.

I think that at least United added coach seats to its p.s. flights though.

What I’m seeing is fewer and fewer coach seats on planes, and more premium seats: first, business, premium economy, etc. 

Amtrak is the one mass carrier (other than bus lines) that isn’t significantly upgrading and expanding its premium classes.


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> Amtrak LD coach is luxurious compared to the lower class sleepers on the trains in India.
> 
> I’m not surprised that such airplanes exist, but I would still say they are extremely uncommon. I’d guess 95% of all commercial airplanes are either mixed classes or all coach.


Hey I am not arguing for anything. I just got thinking if I have seen examples and listed some. It was not meant to irritate anyone. I don't think there is a need to rise up in defense of what is obviously the most prevalent operating mode these days.  It is what it is.

But continuing on the theme of examples, In the past US has had Sleeper only trains too. As a matter of fact many of the train services that people seem to sing the glory of were Sleeper only trains (20th Century, Broadway, Super Chief etc.), and most devolved into Sleeper+Coach trains before disappearing. And if the quality of Indian Sleepers is the feeble argument then there are other Sleeper only train examples in the world which are way more luxurious than anything Amtrak has to offer in any class, and also sometimes for a lower fare. One example is the Moscow - St. Petersburg Krasnaya Strela. There are others. And some trains are predominantly Sleeper with a Coach or two thrown in for short turn passengers too (the Caledonian Sleeper comes to mind).

The trend today in the US is more towards Coach only trains than Sleeper only trains. But usually it is a mix. Currently there are no new Sleepers on order, and it is unlikely that any will be ordered before the second half of this decade.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

TheCrescent said:


> What I’m seeing is fewer and fewer coach seats on planes, and more premium seats: first, business, premium economy, etc.
> 
> Amtrak is the one mass carrier (other than bus lines) that isn’t significantly upgrading and expanding its premium classes.


Amtrak has been trying out a “business class” product on long distance trains so that is something.

I think the roomette is a great “economy” sleeper - it’s just they are in demand now and there aren’t enough sleepers on trains. That was a great benefit of the trans-dorms - it added quite a few available roomettes to each train. Without the dorm, now the obs crew is taking away from the limited number of roomettes.


----------



## CCC1007

joelkfla said:


> And the reason is?


There is demand for ~300 beds of capacity in Sleeper and ~300 seats in coach. They have the capability to add two more cars to the train if they have demand for more


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> Amtrak has been trying out a “business class” product on long distance trains so that is something.
> 
> I think the roomette is a great “economy” sleeper - it’s just they are in demand now and there aren’t enough sleepers on trains. That was a great benefit of the trans-dorms - it added quite a few available roomettes to each train. Without the dorm, now the obs crew is taking away from the limited number of roomettes.


Amtrak really needs to acquire some new dedicated Business Class equipment for LD service. All its current attempts at doing LD Business Class has been feeble and spotty at best, with little expectation of reliable continuity.

Rumor has it that the Trans Dorms will evolve from their mothballs over the next two years or so and be restored to all LD service from which they were withdrawn. But of course we will see what actually happens. Anyhow, if that comes to pass, we will have a significant infusion of Roomettes on the Western trains.


----------



## TheCrescent

crescent-zephyr said:


> Amtrak has been trying out a “business class” product on long distance trains so that is something.
> 
> I think the roomette is a great “economy” sleeper - it’s just they are in demand now and there aren’t enough sleepers on trains. That was a great benefit of the trans-dorms - it added quite a few available roomettes to each train. Without the dorm, now the obs crew is taking away from the limited number of roomettes.


True although Amtrak got rid of business class on the Crescent. It seemed as though business class was a regular Amfleet II coach- any wonder why few people bothered to pay more for it?


----------



## crescent-zephyr

I do think a business class that included meals, soft drinks, blanket and pillow would do well in LD even with current equipment. 

I agree the trial of BC on LD trains has been inconsistent. Even now on the coast starlight they may or may not allow you to purchase a meal from the diner. 

Question! Are there extra Trans dorms? I wonder if they could try a transdorm out as an “economy sleeper” with the unrefurbished roomettes? Try it out on one particular train and see how it goes.


----------



## jebr

George said:


> Comparing apples to apples, Via Toronto to Vancouver takes four nights (about 86 hours or over 3-1/2 days on one train. Amtrak WAS to SEA takes three nights and a train change (CL a tad over 20 hours and EB 58 hours for a total of 78 hours or 3-1/4 days, longer if you factor in CHI transfer time). Taking into account VIA's single train experience, plus extra night meals and accommodation, plus (IMHO) significantly superior meals and onboard amenities, VIA is very competitive. Of course, it all depends on what prices you can snag for your desired travel dates. And we haven't even tried to factor in on-time performance.



VIA's up to 4 full days on the train (Toronto - Vancouver is 4 days 1 hour 15 min.) The Canadian is a wonderful on-board experience, but it's terrible as a transportation method. Pre-COVID Amtrak did the entire trip as well, albeit with transfers, and it ran daily and took less time than VIA did/does. Even today you could catch the afternoon GO Train to Niagara Falls, do local transfers down to Depew (taxi probably best, though appears to be basically possible via walking/bus,) and then take Amtrak to Vancouver from there. That would still be a later departure on the first day, you'd arrive earlier (evening of day 4 instead of morning of day 5,) and you don't have to worry about the day of the week (except perhaps for the GO Train - though I think they do a bus service daily as well if the train doesn't run.) IMO, the Canadian government should be ashamed at how far they've let their passenger rail network fall, even with the Canadian. I'd much rather have Amtrak's frequencies and service levels than what's available north of the border.


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> Question! Are there extra Trans dorms? I wonder if they could try a transdorm out as an “economy sleeper” with the unrefurbished roomettes? Try it out on one particular train and see how it goes.



I think after one accounts for Protect, PM/BO and Overhaul, there is just about enough to equip every Superliner train with one, and not much more.

The problem with the most popular Western trains is that you require 4 to 6 cars (+ requisite protects) to equip the train with any additional service. That many cars are not easy to come by.


----------



## ehbowen

TheCrescent said:


> Agreed in that an all-sleeping car train would mean at least 6 sleeping cars (given typical 8-car Amtrak consists).
> 
> The only reason I can think of to have an all-sleeper train is because the railroad gets so much sleeping car business that there’s not enough space in the consist for a coach.
> 
> If Amtrak could generate enough business to fill that many sleeping cars, that would be great.


A significant number of all-Pullman trains operated 'teamed' with all-Coach trains. I'm thinking the _Super Chief_ and _El Capitan_, the _City of Los Angeles_ and the _Challenger_, the _Spirit of St. Louis_ and the _Jeffersonian_. Even if not a premium all-coach train, there was virtually always a coach-and-Pullman alternative within an hour of the train's time slot. So, in essence, we're talking about a single two-section train operating under two separate identities.


----------



## ehbowen

TheCrescent said:


> United and American have had transcontinental flights that have no coach seats, even recently: they’re all first class (fancier than regular domestic first class), business or premium economy.
> 
> I think that at least United added coach seats to its p.s. flights though.
> 
> What I’m seeing is fewer and fewer coach seats on planes, and more premium seats: first, business, premium economy, etc.
> 
> Amtrak is the one mass carrier (other than bus lines) that isn’t significantly upgrading and expanding its premium classes.


It wasn't used in scheduled revenue service, but I know that Northwest had at least one 727 fitted for all first class at extended seat spacing in the 1997-98 time frame. I went aboard it while I was working at Hobby Airport. It was mainly used for charters for professional sports teams (especially basketball).


----------



## Dakota 400

ehbowen said:


> the _Super Chief_ and _El Capitan_, the _City of Los Angeles_ and the _Challenger_,



I remember those and saw brochures that described the trains. The City of Los Angeles and the Super Chief were definitely advertised as a First Class product. The El Capitan and the Challenger, if I recall correctly, was advertised as a "classier" coach product.

Before the arrival of the jets, some airlines used their newest model planes as an all First Class product. I remember a SAS ad that promoted their DC-7C that way. There were even berths available. Even before that, the Boeing Stratocruisers of Pan Am had those and I am pretty certain there was no Economy Class available.


----------



## ehbowen

Asking for some direction: I know that Amtrak used to offer an "accessible Roomette" in a converted Heritage sleeping car on the _Broadway Limited/Three Rivers_ near the end of its run. I'd like to see the floor plan and footprint of this accommodation; would it be possible to shoehorn it into a Slumbercoach-type floor plan passenger car? Just curious.


----------



## west point

TheCrescent said:


> The new service types I mention ought to be done with additional equipment. They would not displace any current cars.
> There is ample demand for additional seats and rooms on long-distance trains.


As I vaguely remember original plan was an option that would have increase the number of V-2 sleepers to 75 for a total car buy of 130 V-2s of various configurations. Believe money was a problem?.


----------



## Mailliw

The Canadian is a tourist land cruise that pays the bare minimum of lip service to being a transportation method linking ruralcommunities. There's stuff VIA does well, but it's not a good model for Amtrak to emulate.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Mailliw said:


> The Canadian is a tourist land cruise that pays the bare minimum of lip service to being a transportation method linking ruralcommunities. There's stuff VIA does well, but it's not a good model for Amtrak to emulate.


I met many Canadians traveling for non-tourist related reasons. (Work, going back to school, visiting family).

But I also agree, I would rather have a coach only Amtrak train running daily vs. the Canadian style of 2 days a week with crazy amounts of padding built in to the schedule.


----------



## ehbowen

ehbowen said:


> Asking for some direction: I know that Amtrak used to offer an "accessible Roomette" in a converted Heritage sleeping car on the _Broadway Limited/Three Rivers_ near the end of its run. I'd like to see the floor plan and footprint of this accommodation; would it be possible to shoehorn it into a Slumbercoach-type floor plan passenger car? Just curious.


Never mind, found one here. Not very detailed, but close enough to answer my question. It would require reconfiguring the Slumbercoach floor plan, but I think you could do it if you really wanted to. Might have to sacrifice a single room or two. Best done as a new build! (Hint, hint!)


----------



## BalmyZephyr

joelkfla said:


> Why would an all-sleeper train be more of a draw than a mixed train with decent food, and maybe a sleeper-only lounge?


I would prefer the mixed train because then you get to talk to strangers from more walks of life, in the cafe or observation cars.


----------



## jpakala

I'd never realized any airplanes were all frist-class, but I do remember late 1950s United Airlines timetables showing flights only for men. The one I recall specifically was to Chicago from an east coast city (probably NYC and perhaps more than one city, but I cannot recall).


----------



## west point

In the recip engines airline business many of the flights were first class only. Especially NEC to Florida.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

west point said:


> In the recip engines airline business many of the flights were first class only. Especially NEC to Florida.


What is recip engines airline business?


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> What is recip engines airline business?


I suspect "reciprocating engines", the rest is what it is.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

jis said:


> I suspect "reciprocating engines", the rest is what it is.


Oh I see. I guess the questions then (to the OP of course) when was this and was it a public flight or private for employees.


----------



## ehbowen

There was at least one startup airline in the deregulation era (which name I cannot recall at the moment) which tried to make a go of all-first-class service. Didn't fly for very long (pun intended). Seems the high-up muckety-mucks who could authorize themselves to use such a service would rather go by private jet...but they enjoy relegating the people under them, the ones who actually do the work, to cattle-car class. The days in which a newly hired Harvey Girl could look forward to a company-paid first class Pullman ticket for the trek westward to begin her new career as a waitress are long, long in the past.


----------



## Dakota 400

crescent-zephyr said:


> Oh I see. I guess the questions then (to the OP of course) when was this and was it a public flight or private for employees.



The SAS DC-7C flights to which I referred was a public flight. Boeing stratocrusers operated by Pan Am were certainly public flights.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> As I vaguely remember original plan was an option that would have increase the number of V-2 sleepers to 75 for a total car buy of 130 V-2s of various configurations. Believe money was a problem?.


The total car buy was 130 cars - 70 Baggage, 10 Dorm Baggage, 25 Diner, 25 Sleeper. The original order was for 55 Baggage, 25 Dorm Baggage, Diner and Sleeper. 15 Dorm Baggage cars got converted to Baggage for the final breakdown of the 130 car order.

In effect it added 10 lower priced roomettes per Sleeper, since one is now blocked for storage in each car. Assuming all cars deployed that would be a net addition of 250 lower priced rooms. Actually 17 of the 25 are on trains in service each day, so that is 170 net additional less expensive rooms, with a potential capacity of 340 customers, but many operate with a single customer per room. The remaining 8 cars are in Protect, PM/BO and overhaul. They have an unusually high level of BOs, which will hopefully go down as teething troubles are resolved. As far as one can surmise none are in Mothballs at this time, since pretty much all of them have been seen on the road over the last several months. All Mothballed single level Sleepers are V1s.


----------



## Stremba

It has probably been suggested before, but would it not be pretty simple from a logistical perspective to offer two classes of sleeper accommodation, one including meal service as is currently offered and one that does not? Presumably Amtrak would be able to offer the non-dining sleeper options at a lower price.


----------



## joelkfla

Stremba said:


> It has probably been suggested before, but would it not be pretty simple from a logistical perspective to offer two classes of sleeper accommodation, one including meal service as is currently offered and one that does not? Presumably Amtrak would be able to offer the non-dining sleeper options at a lower price.


That would be the end of dining cars on the Eastern trains, because nobody would pay an upgrade for Flex meals.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Stremba said:


> It has probably been suggested before, but would it not be pretty simple from a logistical perspective to offer two classes of sleeper accommodation, one including meal service as is currently offered and one that does not? Presumably Amtrak would be able to offer the non-dining sleeper options at a lower price.


It would be simple to offer a first class seat on an airline or Acela with no meals / alcohol as well.
(Edit for intent: there is a reason this isn’t done.) 

I feel like money wise, Amtrak just needs more sleepers - since they don’t have enough supply.


----------



## Bonser

jis said:


> Unusual, but they do exist, or have existed.
> 
> I once flew on a Lufthansa flight operated by PrivatAir from Stuttgart to Newark which was all business class in a Boeing 737 BBJ. It was one of the most wonderful flights I have been on. The other was the Newark - Singapore nonstop by Singapore Airlines in its previous incarnation using a special performance Airbus 340-500. That was another out of this world flight for me.
> 
> Coming back to railroads, India has dozens of overnight trains that are Sleeper only, with no Coach style sitting accommodation and often they are 20+ cars, all Sleepers. So they do exist and are not really all that odd. Of course there are different classes of Sleepers in those trains.


And the pre Amtrak era countless trains were all sleeper, e.g. The B'way Limited, 20th Century, etc.


----------



## MccfamschoolMom

Stremba said:


> It has probably been suggested before, but would it not be pretty simple from a logistical perspective to offer two classes of sleeper accommodation, one including meal service as is currently offered and one that does not? Presumably Amtrak would be able to offer the non-dining sleeper options at a lower price.


Back around 40 years ago or so, I rode in Slumbercoach from Boston to Chicago, which sounds like the non-dining sleeper accommodations you'd like to see. Since I booked the Slumbercoach ticket at the last minute, I got a 2-person Slumbercoach compartment (basically like a Viewliner I roomette nowadays, with sink & toilet in the compartment). A colleague heading home from the same conference who had booked in advance was in a 1-person Slumbercoach compartment, and those were kind of stacked in 2 layers along the corridor (like Lego bricks) _-_ .


----------



## Ragman

MccfamschoolMom said:


> Back around 40 years ago or so, I rode in Slumbercoach ...



I just looked at the Wikipedia page about it. Interesting concept..... I would consider it if it was still around.


----------



## zephyr17

MccfamschoolMom said:


> Back around 40 years ago or so, I rode in Slumbercoach from Boston to Chicago, which sounds like the non-dining sleeper accommodations you'd like to see. Since I booked the Slumbercoach ticket at the last minute, I got a 2-person Slumbercoach compartment (basically like a Viewliner I roomette nowadays, with sink & toilet in the compartment). A colleague heading home from the same conference who had booked in advance was in a 1-person Slumbercoach compartment, and those were kind of stacked in 2 layers along the corridor (like Lego bricks) _-_ .


Called a "duplex". Slumbercoach singles were usually duplexed, but full Pullman "First Class" roomettes could be duplexed as well. There are still duplex roomettes up in Canada on the unconverted Chateau series sleepers. They were never Slumbercoaches.


----------



## railiner

zephyr17 said:


> Called a "duplex". Slumbercoach singles were usually duplexed, but full Pullman "First Class" roomettes could be duplexed as well. There are still duplex roomettes up in Canada on the unconverted Chateau series sleepers. They were never Slumbercoaches.


There was also a relatively rare accommodation for one that was a step above a regular Pullman Roomette...the Duplex Single Room. It had the bed crosswise in the car. You can think of it as sort of a "Deluxe Bedroom for One".


----------



## zephyr17

railiner said:


> There was also a relatively rare accommodation for one that was a step above a regular Pullman Roomette...the Duplex Single Room. It had the bed crosswise in the car. You can think of it as sort of a "Deluxe Bedroom for One".


Never seen one of those. Closest I've ever come is the duplex roomette on VIA's Chateaus (which I dislike and much prefer the "standard" roomettes in the Manors).


----------



## railiner

zephyr17 said:


> Never seen one of those. Closest I've ever come is the duplex roomette on VIA's Chateaus (which I dislike and much prefer the "standard" roomettes in the Manors).


Yes…the Duplex Roomette was considered a notch below the standard Roomette in the Pullman heirarchy…


----------



## Larry H.

When we traveled across Canada in the 70s they still had upper and lower births, seats during day and beds with curtains at night. That seemed to work pretty well for those who wished them.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Larry H. said:


> When we traveled across Canada in the 70s they still had upper and lower births, seats during day and beds with curtains at night. That seemed to work pretty well for those who wished them.


Still does on the Canadian!


----------



## crescent-zephyr

The Open Section doesn't take up much (if any) less room than a roomette, an Amtrak Roomette is basically an enclosed section after all. The one benefit for solo passengers is that you are only paying for 1/2 the section and one berth and indeed an upper berth section on the Canadian is significantly cheaper than a roomette when riding the Canadian. 

Of all of the ideas thrown around, open sections would probably make the most sense since there wouldn't be any major changes to the structure of the car (so no new design fees) and open sections on a Viewliner would actually be very apealling since the upper berth would have a window. 

I wouldn't want to travel long distances in a section when there wasn't an actual lounge though, as sharing space facing a complete stranger isn't always ideal. On the Canadian, you have the Park Car and at least one other lounge car and/or dome to spend your time in but on a few amtrak trains, you really have nowhere to go when it's not mealtime.


----------



## zephyr17

Larry H. said:


> When we traveled across Canada in the 70s they still had upper and lower births, seats during day and beds with curtains at night. That seemed to work pretty well for those who wished them.


They still do.


----------



## lstone19

crescent-zephyr said:


> The Open Section doesn't take up much (if any) less room than a roomette, an Amtrak Roomette is basically an enclosed section after all. The one benefit for solo passengers is that you are only paying for 1/2 the section and one berth and indeed an upper berth section on the Canadian is significantly cheaper than a roomette when riding the Canadian.


It wasn't until I rode the Canadian and saw both sections and real roomettes ("Cabin for One" in ViaSpeak) that I realized that the Superliner Roomette is just an enclosed section where the single traveler has the entire space (a product which Pullman did offer for sections). For the single traveler, the true roomette was a far superior product to what Amtrak calls a roomette.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

lstone19 said:


> For the single traveler, the true roomette was a far superior product to what Amtrak calls a roomette.


I disagree, I prefer the Amtrak roomette.


----------



## jpakala

We will reserve an Amtrak Viewliner roomette for two but not a Superliner roomette because its lower ceiling means very tight space for the upper berth, no window, and less luggage space in the roomette, not to mention no sink (Viewliner I also have toilet). Pullman & other former roomettes and duplex roomettes were for one person, included sink, toilet, and ample luggage space.


----------



## joelkfla

lstone19 said:


> For the single traveler, the true roomette was a far superior product to what Amtrak calls a roomette.


How so? The only significant differences I can think of are the location of the toilet, and the bed folding into the wall Murphy style.


----------



## zephyr17

joelkfla said:


> How so? The only significant differences I can think of are the location of the toilet, and the bed folding into the wall Murphy style.


Well, as one who has traveled many thousands of miles in both Amtrak and VIA roomettes, I also much prefer VIA's traditional roomette for three primary reasons:

1. The bed is MUCH better. It is wider and roomier at the head. It has a real mattress. I find it much easier to sleep on VIA's roomette berth and my sleep is more restful. It is also at exactly the same level as the window, so I can look out at night without propping myself up or craning my neck. The "Murphy" style bed with the release lever is much easier to handle myself, rather than the pull and push at the same time and watch your fingers abominable Amtrak mechanism.

2. The solid door makes me able to completely darken the room for night viewing. That is impossible now on Amtrak since they have gotten rid of the old "blackout" style curtains and replaced them with much thinner ones, especially on the Superliner I refurbs with the nuclear dawn aisle lighting.

3. Actual opaque, traditional railroad pull-down window blind. When I know there is going to be a late night stop with a lot of light, such as a late zero dark thirty arrival in Winnipeg, I pull it down and the room remains completely dark and my sleep is not disturbed. As opposed to, say, Sacramento, where the brilliant platform lights flooding in through the thin curtains always wakes me up.

I don't care about the in room "combolet" toilet. At night, I mostly go down to washroom at the other end of the car to answer nature's call anyway like I do on Amtrak, so that is pretty much a wash for me.


----------



## Mailliw

Here's a really interesting design from a trio of Nordic universities. The dual module design is innovative, but it's the interior layout as a whole that intrigued me. Basically it's a capsule hotel style setup like Nightjet's new couchette cars, but with double units and most importantly for the North American market an ensuite accessible compartment. Be advised this a pdf file, I'm not sure how to just screenshot the floor plan. 
"ADLNE project newsletter"


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Mailliw said:


> Here's a really interesting design from a trio of Nordic universities. The dual module design is innovative, but it's the interior layout as a whole that intrigued me. Basically it's a capsule hotel style setup like Nightjet's new couchette cars, but with double units and most importantly for the North American market an ensuite accessible compartment. Be advised this a pdf file, I'm not sure how to just screenshot the floor plan.
> "ADLNE project newsletter"



“This sample railcar contains 30 beds in single and dual-berth compartments.”

The viewliner I also has 30 beds, so this design does not add capacity.


----------



## ehbowen

Mailliw said:


> Here's a really interesting design from a trio of Nordic universities. The dual module design is innovative, but it's the interior layout as a whole that intrigued me. Basically it's a capsule hotel style setup like Nightjet's new couchette cars, but with double units and most importantly for the North American market an ensuite accessible compartment. Be advised this a pdf file, I'm not sure how to just screenshot the floor plan.
> "ADLNE project newsletter"


It's intriguing, but if I were in a position to "pull the trigger" on economy overnight service I'd opt for a modified Slumbercoach floor plan as suggested in my post up-thread. I could change my mind if someone were to build a prototype and it proved to be comfortable, practical, and popular with passengers.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Something I just noticed on this slumbercoach diagram - https://collections.carli.illinois.edu/digital/collection/nby_pullman/id/3736

It says "upper double" and "lower double" - were these duplexed bedrooms? I didn't realize those existed, I thought the only duplex rooms were the singles.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

So taking out the H room... an all-roomettee Viewliner could probably hold 20 roomettes for a total of 40 beds. 
Taking out the doubles, an all-single Slumbercoach could probably hold 36 rooms for a total of 36 beds. 

I personally feel like the Amtrak Roomette is the ideal design that lets them sell the roomette for 1 or 2 people. It's not like the duplex rooms double the capacity of the car. 

If it was easy for Amtrak to have different types of rolling stock, I suppose each train could have 1 Viewliner with H room, 2 bedrooms, and 18 duplexed solo rooms (vs. the 12 roomettes currently.) OR..... 6 roomettes on 1 side and 9 duplexed solo rooms on the other side? 

Interesting ideas.


----------



## railiner

crescent-zephyr said:


> Something I just noticed on this slumbercoach diagram - https://collections.carli.illinois.edu/digital/collection/nby_pullman/id/3736
> 
> It says "upper double" and "lower double" - were these duplexed bedrooms? I didn't realize those existed, I thought the only duplex rooms were the singles.


Now that is an interesting design that I don't recall ever seeing before...perhaps just a concept? To my knowledge, no Slumbercoach ever has any beds cross-wise in a car...if it did, it would be sort of like a Pullman Duplex Single Room design, which were only in full Pullman cars with other Pullman types, not in a Slumbercoach.


----------



## chickpea

crescent-zephyr said:


> I wouldn't want to travel long distances in a section when there wasn't an actual lounge though, as sharing space facing a complete stranger isn't always ideal. On the Canadian, you have the Park Car and at least one other lounge car and/or dome to spend your time in but on a few amtrak trains, you really have nowhere to go when it's not mealtime.


Having spent many hours on European trains that share space with strangers, I still like it as a budget option. (The way 'youth' hostels vs hotels work?) But of course these days, with a pandemic still romping through the globe, that isn't ideal. I *really* want to try a sleeper up here in Canada, having only ridden VIA coach... but haven't the $$ or time yet.


----------

