# Long Distance Business Class -- A practical idea?



## MARC Rider (Feb 13, 2013)

The desirability of having an accommodation level less expensive than the sleepers, but less crowded and with a better chance of sleep than coach has been raised before here. People have talked about restoring old-style open-section pullmans, European style couchettes, and airline lie-flat business calss seats, and they have all been knocked down for various reasons. However, one of the main objections is that this is a low priority for Amtrak because of the expense and shortage of cars. But I have an idea that might be practical, although at this time, maybe only for the single-level long distance trains.

Amtrak is going to be getting a whole bunch of new viewliner cars, including coaches. This would free up a lot of Amfleet equipment. More will be freed up whenever they start replacing the Amfleets on the NEC. How about taking some of those Amfleets and configuring them as "long distance business class?" I see this as being 2+1 club seating, so the seats are wider than the long distance coach, even if the seat pitch is similar. The service might also include complimentary blankets, pillows, eyeshades and earplugs. And while the fares won't include meals, they could at least include a guarantee for dinner reservations in the diner, (The most annoying thing about my last long-distance coach trip was that I was shut out of dinner reservations.) The club seating would allow the possibility that single travelers wouldn't have to deal with a seatmate. It can be a bot weird having to sleep next to a stranger. Perhpas they could also have retractable curtains, such as in semi-prvate hospital rooms that could be deployed at night to give a bit more privacy. I could see the fares being perhaps 25-50% over coach, given that the car's capacity would be 3/4 that of a similarly configured 2+2 seat Amfleet II coach.

Would this be practical? Would it attract passengers? Think it might interest Amtrak?


----------



## zephyr17 (Feb 13, 2013)

There are coaches in the Viewliner II order? I thought it was only baggage, baggage/dorms, sleepers and diners.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 13, 2013)

zephyr17 said:


> There are coaches in the Viewliner II order?


Nope.



zephyr17 said:


> I thought it was only baggage, baggage/dorms, sleepers and diners.


Correct!


----------



## amamba (Feb 13, 2013)

Didn't I read somewhere that they are considering business class on the CS?


----------



## KrazyKoala (Feb 13, 2013)

Of course this is practical. When you have a base rate for coach, let's say $149. If given the option to upgrade to a sleeper for $439-600 or upgrade to BC for $149. I'd be taking the BC once the sleepers got too high or were sold out for sure.


----------



## LWBaxter (Feb 13, 2013)

I have wondered whether a recliner angled towards the window would work. I can see 14 fully reclining chairs fitting in the same space as 10 roomette or 28 long distance coach seats. That would make the price about the same as a roomette, assuming about half of the roomettes are single occupancy, and double a coach fare pluss meal costs.

LWB


----------



## Ryan (Feb 13, 2013)

amamba said:


> Didn't I read somewhere that they are considering business class on the CS?


You are correct, it was in the PiP released recently.
IF Amtrak can get the cars, I think that this is an idea that could work - we'll see what happens on the CS.


----------



## Shortline (Feb 14, 2013)

I could see that being a good thing. I generally don't care for LD coach even during the day, but a BC coach might be just the thing for long day trips. I certainly appreciate it on the Michigan Service trains, and liked the Quiet Car on the Hiawatha almost as much, so much more enjoyable than regular coach, in my opinion. Throw in a privacy curtain, an I might even do an overnight in a pinch.


----------



## daveyb99 (Feb 14, 2013)

How do you match the single level to the superliners. That would take a re-engineer of the car lineup (ie placing business between the transistion and engine).

And ... what extra benefits would you give ... for example, half-price meals?


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 14, 2013)

There are problems to be overcome. 1. Many LD trains stop at platforms that are shorter than the train. Sometimes those trains already have to spot twice. Spotting three times would be a pain. Likewise there is more confusion of where to board at stations that don't use PAs. 2. Equipment fungibility in the car pool is reduced; a bad-ordered BC car could not be replaced by a non-BC coach, and similarly a bad-ordered non-BC coach could not be replaced by a BC car (assuming the train is sold out or nearly so). 3. From Amtrak's POV, the marginal profitability of sleepers is so high at current prices for accommodation that there is probably more return on investment to keep sleepers positioned as the only upgrade option for LD passengers -- potentially with new sleepers coming online.


----------



## rickycourtney (Feb 14, 2013)

Amtrak is actually looking into adding Business Class service to the Coast Starlight. It was one of the initiatives listed in the Performance Improvement Plan for the route. Here's a link to the report.

They propose upgrading the lower level seating area on 5 Superliner coaches to have 12 leather seats (2x2 arrangement based upon the Acela Business Class seat.)

Passengers would also get:


Continued use of the upgraded coach pillow with the addition of a complimentary blanket.
A Food credit voucher usable in dining car (amount based on length of trip.)
Invitation to the wine and cheese tasting in the Pacific Parlour Car.
Access to Pacific Parlour Car Wi-Fi and movie theatre.
Exclusive access to the seating area with door marked for “Business Class only.”
Train attendant assigned exclusively to the car. (Would also assist coach passengers upstairs.)

Essentially it's an "upgraded coach" section to attract riders taking a day trip between LA and the bay.

Amtrak estimates it would cost about $283,000 to upgrade the cars, but would bring in an additional $1.49 million in revenue.

They also mention that the section would "allow for the market examination of a future premium coach service on long distance service."


But for overnight travelers I think they should take it a step further and look into buying airline-style "lie-flat" seats (possibly with plastic half walls around each seat for privacy.) It would also be inexpensive to add in a self-service bar similar to what the sleepers and some short-distance routes have (offer coffee, juice, newspapers and fruit.)

I think many travelers would find it to be an attractive alternative to a roomette if the price was right.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 14, 2013)

Amtrak is currently trying to work out next-gen LD coaches (among other things), but the funding isn't there to place an order. With that said, I keep forgetting how many seats near-lie-flat or lie-flat seats would allow for overnight travel.

Of course, with that said, an upgrade class aimed at day travel on the Viewliner trains (and potentially on some of the other LD trains) might have some real potential...all but one of the Viewliner trains runs through VA, which is swamped with ridership demand, and 3 of the 5 run through NC as well. And of course, there's Florida (which has a lot of intrastate traffic) and the ATL-NOL part of the Crescent...and the LSL does a healthy batch of business in upstate NY, too...

Basically, I think there's a market for this sort of thing alongside more sleeper demand. Whether it's increased day service (the Star could do a healthy run on both ends, as could the Crescent) or an intermediate overnight class, I think there's room. Amtrak just doesn't have the equipment to play with.


----------



## Blackwolf (Feb 14, 2013)

To answer your topic question with a personal opinion: *A mid-tier Business Class option is a very practical idea that would be highly successful.*

The only problem is cutting through the dogma of taking the rather minimal investment and risk to implement such a service. There are a lot of nay-sayers who would remark that Amtrak cannot afford this step be it cost of manufacturing new seats/limited rolling stock/the bad-order risk and like-class substitution/etc. I would counter that Amtrak not only has the financial capability of perusing this opportunity, but has plenty of rolling stock available. The biggest obstacle is getting the giant machine that Amtrak's corporate structure into motion.

Fortunately, the wheels are indeed moving on the Coast Starlight experiment, so we have hope on this front.

As such, any expansion of this concept will likely occur on the Superliner-equipped western routes long before any single-level trains see it. However, if it proves to be the boon I expect it to be, _when_ a new (possibly Viewliner-style) single-level coach car order is made, the placing of Business Class LD seats into the brand new cars might be in the bid cost structure.


----------



## MikeM (Feb 14, 2013)

Personally, I'd love a 2 + 1 seating option in business class, with a wider seat and near-lay flat seating. Having the option of booking a single seat by my lonesome when traveling alone would be a very attractive option for mid-length trips. Putting these on the lower level of existing superliners, as is being proposed on the CS, would gain additional revenue and provide a nice middle step. I doubt other options like open sections would garner the same degree of passenger interest, although it'd be fun to try as a train fan.


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 14, 2013)

I would love to just see Amtrak be consistent across the board with Business Class. I don't care HOW it looks, but I just want it to be the same in Georgia (Palmetto), North Carolina (Carolinian), NEC Regionals, Pacific Surfliners, and other trains. WILL SOMEONE AT AMTRAK DEFINE BUSINESS CLASS AND THEN SEE TO IT THAT IS IMPLEMENTED WITH CONSISTENCY ACROSS THE SYSTEM?

Please?


----------



## Ryan (Feb 14, 2013)

Blackwolf said:


> The only problem is cutting through the dogma of taking the rather minimal investment and risk to implement such a service. There are a lot of nay-sayers who would remark that Amtrak cannot afford this step be it cost of manufacturing new seats/limited rolling stock/the bad-order risk and like-class substitution/etc. I would counter that Amtrak not only has the financial capability of perusing this opportunity, but has plenty of rolling stock available. The biggest obstacle is getting the giant machine that Amtrak's corporate structure into motion.


Specifically what cars would you take out of service in order to convert them to a BC configuration? Where will the money come from to do the conversion?


----------



## MikeM (Feb 14, 2013)

Ryan said:


> Blackwolf said:
> 
> 
> > The only problem is cutting through the dogma of taking the rather minimal investment and risk to implement such a service. There are a lot of nay-sayers who would remark that Amtrak cannot afford this step be it cost of manufacturing new seats/limited rolling stock/the bad-order risk and like-class substitution/etc. I would counter that Amtrak not only has the financial capability of perusing this opportunity, but has plenty of rolling stock available. The biggest obstacle is getting the giant machine that Amtrak's corporate structure into motion.
> ...


Assuming you just convert the lower level of a superliner coach to the BC seating, I don't see where this is a major expense... you'd have to change outlet and lighting spacing, and procure new seats but you're not adding walls, changing the mechanicals of the car, etc. Not nearly as disruptive as creating a different type of sleeper. Not knowing how much new seats would cost, that would be the biggest question. Maybe you could repurpose an existing seat for BC seating, like Amtrak did with Metroliner seating used in current BC cars. But for consistency purposes (and to better justify the increased charge for the seat), it might be worth procuring new seats with the idea that Amtrak could slowly standardize all medium and long haul BC seating to use the new seats, addressing the "mystery meat" phenomena other writers have commented on with inconsistent product on different routes or even the same route. I don't know about everyone, but from my purposes, the typical drawback with coach is not knowing who I'm parked next to, which can be a problem when you're on the train hours longer than you'd be on a plane. Having greater separation, with 2/1 seating would be very attractive to me, even if legroom stayed the same as it is in current coach seating, assuming you could reserve a specific seat in advance.

The holy grail of BC seating in this case would be this: if you could upcharge on the seats to a midway point to a economy sleeper price, it could be an easy way to gain additional revenue with minimal capital. You reduce your capacity by 25% (assuming same number of rows, but wider seating / 2x1 seating), but if you could charge double coach pricing, you come out well ahead. Probably the biggest drawback is that lower level seating is typically used for handicap seating, so you'd have to either maintain a handicap position in the lower level seating area, or provide more than one coach so that there's still disabled seating in the train.

As a side question, does anyone know what the refresh cycle is for superliner coaches? Is there one? I know there is a cycle for mechanical fixes, but given how SII Sleepers are still running in original interior finishes, it makes me wonder if the same is true with coaches.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 14, 2013)

MikeM said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Blackwolf said:
> ...


He seemed to be implying something more than what Amtrak is already doing on the CS.


----------



## rickycourtney (Feb 14, 2013)

> Not knowing how much new seats would cost, that would be the biggest question. Maybe you could repurpose an existing seat for BC seating, like Amtrak did with Metroliner seating used in current BC cars. But for consistency purposes (and to better justify the increased charge for the seat), it might be worth procuring new seats with the idea that Amtrak could slowly standardize all medium and long haul BC seating to use the new seats, addressing the "mystery meat" phenomena other writers have commented on with inconsistent product on different routes or even the same route.


As I mentioned earlier... this is what Amtrak appears to be doing with the proposed BC on the Coast Starlight. The seats would essentially be the same as the leather seats used in Acela Business Class. There would be 12 seats in a 2x2 arrangement. It would cost approx. $56,600 per car to convert the lower level in the coaches to business class.


----------



## Blackwolf (Feb 14, 2013)

Ryan said:


> MikeM said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


That's correct, Ryan. I'm saying exactly this. Amtrak is not in the survival mode it was just 10 short years ago. The company is not looking to shut down all non-NEC operations in two weeks time. Employees are not looking at the prospects of IOU's instead of paychecks. The fleet, while not getting any younger, is not in the deplorable state of barely hanging onto the rails and is actually in relatively reliable mechanical condition for a vastly large part. Country-wide railroad ridership has not been at the numbers we're experiencing in over 50 years; better even than before Amtrak's creation. Lastly, the financial picture of the company is the best-ever in Amtrak's history. Not breaking even, but to expect Amtrak to be in the black system-wide is to also expect a manned colonization mission to Mars before the close of this decade.

Business Class standardization, followed by wide-spread implementation is one of the easiest and most obtainable ways to break some of the chains that still bind Amtrak in the past as far as rider impressions go. The best-case scenarios would include having those much-lauded fully-lie-flat business suites you find on most major airline carriers. Barring such a substantial _improvement_ to guest offerings, the next best thing would be to have those 2-1 overstuffed leather seats with no advancement of the legroom (already plenty generous) and make them widely available on every single Amtrak-controlled train. Start off with the lower level of Superliner coaches being converted. If there are substantial sell-out situations happening (not a far-fetched proposition,) then convert half of the upper level to Business Class and put up a partition between regular coach and the new cabin. For the single-level fleet, you slice half of a coach car off for general Coach and the other half for Business Class. Not every car, but enough cars to equip every single LD train with a Business Class section and have a reserve pool for bad-orders. So, you loose a percentage of general Coach seats. I'm going to be a touch cold-hearted and say "deal with it." It will not lower revenue prospects, but will actually make more with the same inventory of rolling stock. In only a few years time, the conversions will have paid for themselves in full, meaning the rest is pure profit. And improved passenger enjoyability.

The long-term solution is to have more cars, say at least 25% more cars, than the current _entire_ fleet (single and double level cars.) Preferably even more than that. Thus you have both more capacity for coach, added capacity for even more Business Class, and of course sleepers. This is still some distance into the future, but new cars have to happen. And they will. There is opportunity to be had here, and the current configuration of available accommodations do not take full advantage of those potential dollars.

Just my personal opinion, mind you. I'm a firefighter, not a railroader. But I don't take any of the reasons given as deal-killing obstacles. Even when all combined together. All it takes is will and fortitude to make it happen, the rest will follow in short order. I, for one, welcome the new BC choice for the Coast Starlight and will be using it.


----------



## Ziv (Feb 14, 2013)

I may like to have an extra bit of separation from the person next to me, but I would love to be able to lay flat at an angle if the seat was built so that I could actually sleep well. Going from 50" pitch to LFAAA is not a huge change and even the current width of seating would make it a very comfortable seat. So take out 7 rows of coach 2 x 2 seating and put in 6 rows of LFAAA 2 x 2. Amtrak loses 15% of the seats in that section and can charge 50% more than what they charge for a coach seat, plus the LFAAA would have a much higher use rate. Just sell a seat I can sleep in without doubling the ticket price.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 14, 2013)

So lets say that you take a current coach car and go from 2x2 seating to 2x1 seating and keep the same pitch.

You're reducing capacity by 25%, so you're going to have to charge 25% more for those seats just to break even. In reality you're going to have to charge more than that to pay for the conversion costs, and the fact that you're going to be losing capacity while the cars are in the shop getting reworked.

The goal of doing something like this wouldn't be simply to break even, but make more money on it. Can you charge a 30 or 35% surcharge over coach and sell enough seats to financially make sense? If you go with a lie flat style Business Class seat (which I think would be great), you're going to lose even more seats and have to charge even more of a premium to make the numbers work.

Looking at Northeast Regional prices, you're looking at $200 to go from Washington to Boston tomorrow. The upcharge for Business Class is $50, or 25%. Of course, if you look far enough out you can get that same seat for $70, with the upcharge staying the same $50, so you're looking at a 70% premium.

We'll have to wait and see how the Coast Starlight experiment works out.

But the fact is "the giant machine" is in motion. If they find that they can make enough of a profit to justify the risk, you'll see it spread out around the system.


----------



## Nathanael (Feb 15, 2013)

Blackwolf said:


> To answer your topic question with a personal opinion: *A mid-tier Business Class option is a very practical idea that would be highly successful.*


On which trains? I can't see it being popular on the Lake Shore Limited. The entire "day trip" market is covered by Empire Service (which should have business class).

It seems like it would make sense on the Crescent and the Silver Service... except that Viewliner IIs are already nicer and have longer seat pitch than corridor Business Class. I suppose you could go with 2-1 seating, but that would require fares more than 33% higher in order to be profitable, and would this actually be popular? (Note: 33 1/3% is correct for breakeven, 25% is too low.)

I guess there's an opportunity for 2-2 business class with the Superliner trains, where the coach seating is arguably not as nice as in the Viewliner IIs and the current plan is to shrink the seat pitch! However, which trains *have* day trip markets? The Coast Starlight, yes. The California Zephyr from Denver to the ski areas, or from Reno to the Bay Area -- but both sections are overcrowded and would need added cars. Definitely not the Capitol Limited. Perhaps the City of New Orleans from New Orleans to Memphis? Perhaps the Empire Builder from Chicago to Minneapolis? Perhaps the Texas Eagle in Texas?

I guess my conclusion is that there's little value to modifying existing cars from coach configurations to business class configurations. The Coast Starlight is in a special case due to the currently wasted "Arcade" section. Possibly some of the bievel coach-baggage cars could be made coach-business class if they aren't needed for baggage. But on the whole, I don't expect to see additional long-distance business class cars until Amtrak orders new long-distance bilevels. I don't expect to see any single-level long-distance business class cars.


----------



## Shortline (Feb 15, 2013)

I would pay the premium for a BC coach every time for day trips-(and do, on the Wolverine when it's not sold out!). Especially if they can do reserved seat assignments, whcih CAN be done, other rail systems do it regularly, and they do it for sleepers, so it can be done with BC seats as well.

We really need to consider it like other nations do, 3rd class, 2nd class, and first class. Call it whatever you like, Coach, Business, and Sleeper class, but it's all the same thing. There is a need for no frills, low cost train travel. That would be coach. There is a need for a non-sleeper option, that is catered to a somewhat more discriminating clientele that can, and will pay for a better level of service and comfort, and peace and quiet, and there is a need for a sleeper/private compartment option. I think this really is exactly what's needed to bring more people to the party. Whatever loss of seats they end up with, I expect will more than be made up for in revenue, especially if they do it in tiers, as the service grows, the number of BC cars/seats grow.


----------



## MikeM (Feb 15, 2013)

To Ryan's point above, you definitely would want to be charging more for BC on a long haul route than a standard coach. I could easily see fares 50% or more over standard coach, if the product is clearly differentiated and standardized. The whole idea would be to create a product that would be a "poor person's sleeper" without spending the money to invent a new car type.

It I had a dream, it'd be a slumbercoach superliner. However, there are not enough drugs in Kansas for me to believe this option would ever come to pass. So spread out distance is a close second. Making the change on the lower level only would provide some segregation and privacy for those paying the extra money.

To the other writer who would prefer lay flat vs. 2x1, if some how you could create some separation between the two seats, a screen or something that could be used, that might be an option. I just go back to several of my more memorable coach trips, sitting next to someone who hadn't showered in recent times one time, and another who came back from the lounge feeling no pain and full of things to share another time. Then again, those folks probably wouldn't spring the extra bucks for a BC seat.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 15, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> (Note: 33 1/3% is correct for breakeven, 25% is too low.)


Thanks for that, I thought that I had screwed up the math somehow.
Given that, you're definitely in the 40%-50% premium price require to make it financially viable. Is that supportable? We'll have to see what ends up happening on the west coast.


----------



## Paulus (Feb 15, 2013)

Ryan said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> > (Note: 33 1/3% is correct for breakeven, 25% is too low.)
> ...


Should be supportable, there's a 50% premium on the Surfliner's business class and I'm not aware of any patronage issues there.


----------



## PupfosterG (Feb 16, 2013)

Most LD trains have a single level baggage car preceding the Superliners. Thinking outside the box, why not a newly designed Superliner baggage car? The lower level, completely empty excepts for utilities. The upper level business class and upper level restroom facilities. This would increase the revenue seating without lengthening the train. The car end closest to the locomotive would have a conventional vestibule and a staircase to upper level. Also access to baggage compartment would be made here also. The opposite end would provide high level access to other cars. However, this would bump transition sleepers to opposite end of the train. What would the additional cost in weight to haul bi-level baggage car vs. single level baggage car? Just a few thoughts.


----------



## Bus Nut (Feb 16, 2013)

I like Ziv's suggestion. Too bad that Amtrak is moving in the opposite direction of reducing seat pitch. Nothing is written saying tray tables must be attached to the seat in front of you. Replacing 7 rows with 6 is a reduction of less than 15%, and would require a markup of less than 20% to break even. I think it likely that coach passengers would pay more than 20% additional charge for complete reclining. (Although the one time I slept in SL coach I found the reclining adequate. However, I was in my early 20s.) You could have a single coach per train with this service, and it might even keep all the overnighters together more too so when the train stops at 2:47am at the nowheresville Amshack the doors don't open and freeze you awake.

2x1 seating might make sense for shorter trip express service business class. But I think from reading a lot of threads like this that what business class people would really pay a true premium for is a nice table to spread out on. As others have said you'd need to jack the fares 33% for 2x1 and I think there would be more demand for the 1's than the 2's. With all the people that get on and off it seems more like a way to lose revenue. Busy corridor routes are usually under pressure to add more seats, not take them away. You can't make the kind of money per passenger you can on an overnight first class sleeper trip. Forget it.

What Amtrak needs to do is get with the program on using seat reservations for a small upcharge, just as they do on the national railways in Europe. Less angry passengers, less stress for conductors, more revenue. What's not to like? The poorer countries (ex Soviet bloc) use paper reservation tags on board, while the richer countries (Germany) have led signs over each seat showing if they are reserved or not. Portland, OR has a big scramble assigning seats before boarding and while that has its issues it seems to work much better than the chaos at New York Penn.


----------



## Nathanael (Feb 16, 2013)

Paulus said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Nathanael said:
> ...


The key thing to notice here is that the coach class in Long Distance cars (such as Amfleet IIs) already has seat pitch and upholstery similar to the business class in corridor service (such as Surfliners, Amfleet Is, Horizons). We know people will pay a large premium for longer seat pitch and nicer seats. Will they pay that premium when the only benefit is 2-1 seating vs. 2-2?

I guess my point is that, right now, the long distance trains really only have first class and second class; they don't really have coach class. In contrast, the corridor trains only have third class and second class; they don't have first class. I would actually prefer it if Amfleet Is were listed as "third class seating" and Amfleet IIs as "second class seating"; make it clear what you're getting.

Now, ocean liners had a bewildering number of different classes. It's possible that more classes, more market segmentation, would work. On the other hand, in the UK they used to have as many as four classes of (non-sleeper!) rail travel and it slowly got cut down to two. (There was a long period when, confusingly, the two classes were "first class" and "third class", because they eliminated "second" -- by upgrading the fittings of "third class" to be comparable to those of "second class".) It's not clear that it's worth it to have too many different classes; there are benefits from a large, uniform fleet. Slumbercoaches were dropped due to relateively low demand.


----------



## Sldispatcher (Feb 17, 2013)

I've thought business class seating: 2 x 1; with airline style food trays served is one piece of the puzzle.

For me though, to really make it work you have to remove Roomettes. Either make the Bedrooms ALL bedrooms (with upgraded amenities) or at least pull the roomettes out and replace with the business class.

personally, I'd prefer a dedicated car between the Sightseer Lounge and the Diner

Coast Starlight is the ideal place to try it.


----------



## Amtrak Cajun (Feb 17, 2013)

I wish they could do a whole business class car. That would make a good separation between the diner and sleepers. Id also like the business class seats on the upper level *whole car idea*, because the views are better on the upper level vs the lower level. Id be willing to pay for BC if the sleepers are sold out, at least you get something extra other than just coach class.

Just my 5 cents. no refunds.


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2013)

yea, the naming scheme needs to be changed.

how about:

standard coach - corridor coach

comfort coach - long distance coach and corridor BC

business class - 2+1 BC

1st class - 1st Acela

sleeper class - sleepers


----------



## Ted Bell (Feb 17, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> The key thing to notice here is that the coach class in Long Distance cars (such as Amfleet IIs) already has seat pitch and upholstery similar to the business class in corridor service (such as Surfliners, Amfleet Is, Horizons). We know people will pay a large premium for longer seat pitch and nicer seats. Will they pay that premium when the only benefit is 2-1 seating vs. 2-2?


I would pay that premium just to lie down flat to sleep at night.


----------



## KrazyKoala (Feb 18, 2013)

Guest said:


> yea, the naming scheme needs to be changed.
> how about:
> 
> standard coach - corridor coach
> ...


Honestly, they should have 3, coach, business, 1st.

"sleepers" is the most stupid thing I've heard of. That's not even a _class_ of passenger being that all the passengers on the train sleep. You buy a basic ticket, its coach. You upgrade to the highest possible accommodation, anywhere else in the world, that's called first class. Even when leaving the diner to go back to my room the blue sign on the door says "First Class Passengers Only."


----------



## fillyjonk (Feb 18, 2013)

The one thing that would have to be added to a long-distance "business" class to make it attractive to me would be some kind of "quiet car" provision, or at least enforcement of the after-10-pm quiet hours (or maybe: have half the car as a quiet car, and half for those who want to talk on cell phones).

My major problem with traveling coach LD (well, beyond having gotten a few odd seatmates) was the noise, and the fact that relatively little seemed to be done to reduce it.

A long distance business class, with a bit more incline to the seats and a "quiet" status would make me definitely think twice about taking the sleeper, if the business class were considerably (like $100 or more round trip) less.


----------



## KrazyKoala (Feb 18, 2013)

If you wanna talk past 10, you're told to go to the SSL. They need more comfortable seats.


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 18, 2013)

fillyjonk said:


> A long distance business class, with a bit more incline to the seats and a "quiet" status would make me definitely think twice about taking the sleeper, if the business class were considerably (like $100 or more round trip) less.


That could be the fear. Amtrak doesn't want to lose the revenue from sleeper services.


----------



## TimePeace (Feb 18, 2013)

A case can be made that there is not so much difference between 2x2 and 2x1 seating, with similar pitch. For LD travel, a horizontal position is a profoundly different situation, especially for those of us with sore aching joints (read: out of shape or older, or both - which describes the growing majority of Americans).

I see no need for 3, or 4, or especially 5 "classes" - (Class System, anyone? Or more harshly, "class warfare?")

My opinion: I think Amtrtak would be a better railroad if the choices (priced accordingly) included reclined seating and seating that converts to horizontal for overnight trains. Which physical configurations of cars I'll leave to others. Lots of trains in other countries have the horizonatal option that is not necessarily a private compartment.

Food service should be available to everyone on the train, with varying levels of quality and commensurate pricing. Toss out the concept of first class sleeper accommodations with meals included.

Another 2 cents worth, no change back.


----------



## jis (Feb 19, 2013)

Maine Rider said:


> Food service should be available to everyone on the train, with varying levels of quality and commensurate pricing. Toss out the concept of first class sleeper accommodations with meals included.


Just remember that meal was included in First Class Sleeper price in order to save the Dining Car. It happened when the other alternative was to simply get rid of Dining Cars altogether because not enough people were using the Dining Car anymore. This was a way to increase the revenues for Dining Cars by forcing their use. Food became part of the Accommodation charge for First Class Sleepers, and not for Slumbercoaches. Which of course made the Slumbercoach even more desirable for someone like me, who does not necessarily partake of every meal in the Diner in any case, included in charges or not.


KrazyKoala said:


> "sleepers" is the most stupid thing I've heard of. That's not even a _class_ of passenger being that all the passengers on the train sleep. You buy a basic ticket, its coach. You upgrade to the highest possible accommodation, anywhere else in the world, that's called first class. Even when leaving the diner to go back to my room the blue sign on the door says "First Class Passengers Only."


Most of the Sleeping Cars in the world are not "First Class". They are various other classes with various names, some including the word Sleeper and other not. But generally the monicker "Sleeping Car" is used quite universally to refer to cars that provide a flat horizontal sleeping surface. The abi=omination known as Lie Flat at an Angle was just an airline invention that has never been used extensively on trains, and thankfully is being discontinued in airlines too.
Just to give you an example of the different sort of Sleeping Cars available in a large very intensely used railroad system.... on the Indian Railways there are six types of Sleeping Cars:

Non A/C Sleeper

Non A/C First Class

A/C 3 Tier Sleeper

A/C 2 Tier Sleeper

A/C First Class

On certain elite trains food service is include in the base fare for those trains for all classes available in the train. On others food is not included. There is no Dining or Restaurant Car Service on any LD trains. LD trains carry one or more Pantry Cars which serve food at each passenger's seat at meal times. Food is served even on those trains that do not carry a Pantry Car using the age old procedure in which order is taken for a meal and called forward to a base station. When the train arrives at the base station all the ordered meals are picked up and served on the train. And all this works surprisingly well considering that a typical LD train has 18 to 24 cars, each car carrying somewhere between 50 and 75 passengers, all "Sleepers" on elite trains. Except for the few (one or two) First Class cars which carry as few as 20 people, all other passenger carrying cars are typically 2 or 3 tier Sleepers designated as such in English and as "Shayanyan" in Hindi, which means "Sleeping Car" or more precisely "Lying Down Car".

Oh, and as far as tickets go, the basic ticket is for each designated class using a class specific tariff. There is no separate basic ticket and accommodation charge thing as practiced in the US.


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 19, 2013)

On the other hand, there with the exception of the taktal scheme, everyone in the same class pays the same rate for the distance travelled. No peak seasons, no off-peak seasons. One irritating factor (to me as an American, and not that of an Indian) is that if you buy a ticket, and the rates increase, the TTE will collect the difference from you onboard. No such thing as a guaranteed price.

That all being said, I have always thought that IR could improve their revenue by basing the fares/tarrifs more on supply and demand than strictly paise/km. I am completely amazed at how many people are coordinated throughout over 2,000 trains DAILY with minimal mistakes.

And, jis or TE, you can correct me on this: When you get a confirmed seat, you get your seat/berth assigned. But if you are waitlisted you may not even know if you can get on the train until literally mere hours before departure.


----------



## jis (Feb 19, 2013)

VentureForth said:


> That all being said, I have always thought that IR could improve their revenue by basing the fares/tarrifs more on supply and demand than strictly paise/km. I am completely amazed at how many people are coordinated throughout over 2,000 trains DAILY with minimal mistakes.


The integrity and effectiveness of the vast reservation system is indeed mind boggling.
About fares, one needs to realize that all fare decisions, and indeed other tariff decisions on IR are political in nature. As I have mentioned before, the Railway Budget is paid more attention to than the National Budget by the man on the street, and all hell breaks loose if changes that are not seen to be justifiable by the public are put in place. The whole notion of demand based pricing is going to be so hard to explain to the common folks that no politician in their right mind would attempt that. What they might do at most is create a separate class of elite trains that are run more like an airline. But there is no way that they will significantly perturb how the 99% core of the system operates, for a long time to come. The blood bath that one had to go through to raise fares enough to put IR Passenger Service on sound financial ground is a phenomenon to behold.



> And, jis or TE, you can correct me on this: When you get a confirmed seat, you get your seat/berth assigned. But if you are waitlisted you may not even know if you can get on the train until literally mere hours before departure.


Yes, reservation for a confirmed seat or berth means an exact seat or berth identified by a specific number in a specific car identified as a car number in a specific train. And absolutely amazingly it works out almost without fail each time. That is what amazes me more than anything else.
AFAICT, and TE can correct me since he is more familiar with the current ways of IR than I am, IR sells two kinds of unconfirmed tickets. They are RAC (Reservation against Cancellation) and Waitlist. RAC confirms you on the train with a chance of getting the accommodation you wanted, but with a guarantee of at least a seat. Waitlist is like regular waiting list, i.e. if after handling all RACs any space remains then people are cleared from the waiting list in FCFS order. For more details of these facilities take a look at for example: http://www.indiamike.com/india-articles/indian-railways-rac-and-indian-railways-waitlists


----------



## TimePeace (Feb 19, 2013)

Sorry this quote isn't coming out right. Oh well.



jis said:


> Just remember that meal was included in First Class Sleeper price in order to save the Dining Car. It happened when the other alternative was to simply get rid of Dining Cars altogether because not enough people were using the Dining Car anymore. This was a way to increase the revenues for Dining Cars by forcing their use. Food became part of the Accommodation charge for First Class Sleepers, and not for Slumbercoaches. Which of course made the Slumbercoach even more desirable for someone like me, who does not necessarily partake of every meal in the Diner in any case, included in charges or not.





jis said:


> MaineRider said this:





jis said:


> I was not aware of this. Thanks for bringing that part of Amtrak history to my attention. And if it seems like a good idea to keep some "premium privilege" for those paying for private sleeper accommodations, that is no big deal. But if, as you suggest, there could be a sleeper option available which did not inclue "free" meals, but would still allow anyone to pay for a meal in the dining car when they wanted to, I'd be very happy!


----------



## Nathanael (Feb 20, 2013)

Ted Bell said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> > The key thing to notice here is that the coach class in Long Distance cars (such as Amfleet IIs) already has seat pitch and upholstery similar to the business class in corridor service (such as Surfliners, Amfleet Is, Horizons). We know people will pay a large premium for longer seat pitch and nicer seats. Will they pay that premium when the only benefit is 2-1 seating vs. 2-2?
> ...


That would be the roomette premium. In order to genuinely lie flat, rather than at an angle, you have to take up as much space as a roomette. Sooooo....


----------



## jis (Feb 20, 2013)

Nathanael said:


> Ted Bell said:
> 
> 
> > Nathanael said:
> ...


Strictly speaking a roomette premium is a premium for two passengers. There is still room for a lie flat premium for a single person and accommodation suitable for such use. A single lie flat accommodation should cost less than a roomette even if the total number of such accommodation is equal to the total theoretical maximum, i.e. number of berths in a roomette equipped sleeping car.

In other countries the notion of a couchette or that of sections with cubiucles is used to achieve a single berth availability for sale without requiring premium payment for two berths. However, as has been discussed repeatedly, Americans (i.e in the US) south of the Canadian border are inherently inimical to that concept. So some other arrangement is necessary to achieve that.


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 20, 2013)

The one thing that I wish India Rail offered that isn't (with a technical exception) is a private accomodation. There is the couple coupe in 1AC, but it can't be booked and it's at the discretion of the seat assignment personnell.

I believe there should be the following classes of service:

Coach

Business

Sectional

Premium Sleeper

First

Not all classes would be available on all services. But it would be divided as such:

No additional ameneties:

Coach

Business

Sectional

Includes meals and showers (where applicable):

Premium Sleeper

First

Coach can offer unreserved and unassigned reserved seating. All others would be reserved _and _assigned.

But that's in my little brain...


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2013)

jis said:


> In other countries the notion of a couchette or that of sections with cubiucles is used to achieve a single berth availability for sale without requiring premium payment for two berths. However, as has been discussed repeatedly, Americans (i.e in the US) south of the Canadian border are inherently inimical to that concept. So some other arrangement is necessary to achieve that.


Has any market research been done on this? I mean we have people who are accustomed to a private bedroom on here that won't go down to a couchette, but the market for a couchette is really coach passengers who want to lie flat but won't/can't pay the upcharge for a current sleeper. I am one of these coach people wanting couchettes, but a lot of times I just fly instead because not sleeping at night in coach sucks.


----------



## tricia (Feb 20, 2013)

Speaking for myself, the 2-1 configuration would make a huge difference. I'm just not willing, when traveling alone, to sleep overnight right next to a stranger. I'd definitely be willing to pay a premium to be guaranteed a seat to myself, separated from other passengers by an aisle.


----------



## KrazyKoala (Feb 20, 2013)

You have to think of the whole picture though. 1+2*4 is WAY much better than 2+2*18. The overall fact so it will, hopefully, be way much quieter.


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 20, 2013)

...Except that by that math, it will probably be harder for 12 occupants to make up the same revenue as 72 passengers. You'd have to charge 6x to break even.


----------



## KrazyKoala (Feb 20, 2013)

They aren't fillinf the upper deck with BC. Its just the lower level which holds 20 or 24... Not sure how many rows there are down there.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 20, 2013)

If you're talking about the Coast Starlight experiment, right now there are 0 seats in the space.

Superliner coaches have 12 seats on the lower level.


----------



## KrazyKoala (Feb 20, 2013)

Just a big room to run around in? Or bring a sleeping bag and sleep on the floor.

Both sound fun actually...


----------



## Ted Bell (Feb 20, 2013)

KrazyKoala said:


> Just a big room to run around in? Or bring a sleeping bag and sleep on the floor.
> Both sound fun actually...


Can you do that? I would absolutely bring a sleeping bag. Just to lie flat and sleep. I'm one of those coach passengers who can't afford a roomette (although I must admit, I finally splurged and will be traveling in style for the first time next month).

I don't want or need meals in the diner, complimentary bottles of water or wine and cheese. I don't even mind sleeping next to someone else - coach seats are HUGE compared to airline seats. But I would really love to lie down (flat/horizontal) to sleep.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 20, 2013)

KrazyKoala said:


> Just a big room to run around in? Or bring a sleeping bag and sleep on the floor.


I recommend finding the Coast Starlight Performance Improvement Plan and reading it.
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/676/676/PRIIA-section-210-FY-12-performance-improvement-plan-amtrak,0.pdf

Also, you've got the wrong station code for *N*ew *C*a*R*rollton in your signature.


----------



## Ted Bell (Feb 20, 2013)

Ryan said:


> I recommend finding the Coast Starlight Performance Improvement Plan and reading it.


Interesting reading. Thanks for the link. If I understood correctly, they want to apply "Acela-type First Class" to the lower level of the Superliners which are currently used as video game arcades. So my question is this: Does Acela-type First Class accommodate lie-flat seating?


----------



## Shortline (Feb 20, 2013)

KrazyKoala said:


> Just a big room to run around in? Or bring a sleeping bag and sleep on the floor.
> Both sound fun actually...


Saw a few people doing just that, in the baggage/coach a few trips go. I had gotten off to take a walk, and boarded back in a coach when it was time, saw a few people stretched out down there in sleeping bags.I'm not keen on sleeping on the floor, but, If they'd let me bring a cot.......


----------



## Ryan (Feb 20, 2013)

No, it doesn't.


----------



## Ted Bell (Feb 20, 2013)

Shortline said:


> KrazyKoala said:
> 
> 
> > Just a big room to run around in? Or bring a sleeping bag and sleep on the floor.
> ...


Can a superliner passenger actually access the baggage car? I don't know what you mean by baggage/coach.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 20, 2013)

It's a Superliner coach, but instead of the lower level seating area, it's a baggage storage compartment.

I would think that the door should be locked, I wouldn't want folks wandering in and out of there if my bags were stored there.


----------



## Ted Bell (Feb 20, 2013)

Ryan said:


> It's a Superliner coach, but instead of the lower level seating area, it's a baggage storage compartment.
> I would think that the door should be locked, I wouldn't want folks wandering in and out of there if my bags were stored there.


I don't think I've been on a Superliner coach with baggage storage in the lower level. Seems to me they have had a minimal amount of seating in the lower level, and a dedicated baggage car between the locomotives and the Transition Dormitory. But I could be wrong, is this common on most Long Distance trains?


----------



## jis (Feb 20, 2013)

I remember that trains like the Pioneer and Desert Wind typically did not carry a baggage car at all. They just had a Superliner Coach-Baggage Car serve the function of a Baggage Car.


----------



## Bus Nut (Feb 20, 2013)

In response to Nathanael,

The only way I would see the Slumbercoach come back would be if it were marketed agressively to college students. I can't see any other segment of the population signing up to climb in and out of the things! However, it would still be a low margin service. I think it could compete with Megabus, Boltbus because of the advantage of being horizontal instead of vertical. But other than that you'd need a coach full of overnighters to make it work so it would have to be the right corridor. I suspect that even today most state college students travel only a few hours, which would be day trips.

As long as Amtrak has such a tight congressional fist on their finances they are much better off chasing low-risk, high-return, such as adding sleepers to sold-out overnight trains which will command top dollar. Pleasing more well-heeled retired patrons will help them politically too. They will cede the cheap seats to the bus carriers.

If the economics of air travel do become very discouraging to young people but there is a sufficient youth travel market, there could be a niche for a Slumbercoach-like service down the road. In the meantime, it seems like coach patrons on long-distance are, well, happy to sleep in coach. It's quite comfortable and the same equipment can handle on/off day tripping clients as well, which makes it more efficient.

It looked like Marilyn Monroe was riding in the Slumbercoach to Florida in Some Like It Hot. :lol:


----------



## KrazyKoala (Feb 20, 2013)

Ryan said:


> KrazyKoala said:
> 
> 
> > Just a big room to run around in? Or bring a sleeping bag and sleep on the floor.
> ...


I have read it, and a bit confused on why it has not started yet. The only thing they seemed to have done is remove all the arcade games.



Shortline said:


> KrazyKoala said:
> 
> 
> > Just a big room to run around in? Or bring a sleeping bag and sleep on the floor.
> ...


I was totally kidding, no idea people actually did that. You would think those doors are locked but their really not. Ive even purposely pushed the button to find out if it was locked or not.


----------



## reppin_the_847 (Feb 20, 2013)

I think this is an excellent idea. I know that I would definitely be a fan of such a service level when I don't have the points or discretionary money to spend on a Sleeper.



MARC Rider said:


> The desirability of having an accommodation level less expensive than the sleepers, but less crowded and with a better chance of sleep than coach has been raised before here. People have talked about restoring old-style open-section pullmans, European style couchettes, and airline lie-flat business calss seats, and they have all been knocked down for various reasons. However, one of the main objections is that this is a low priority for Amtrak because of the expense and shortage of cars. But I have an idea that might be practical, although at this time, maybe only for the single-level long distance trains.
> Amtrak is going to be getting a whole bunch of new viewliner cars, including coaches. This would free up a lot of Amfleet equipment. More will be freed up whenever they start replacing the Amfleets on the NEC. How about taking some of those Amfleets and configuring them as "long distance business class?" I see this as being 2+1 club seating, so the seats are wider than the long distance coach, even if the seat pitch is similar. The service might also include complimentary blankets, pillows, eyeshades and earplugs. And while the fares won't include meals, they could at least include a guarantee for dinner reservations in the diner, (The most annoying thing about my last long-distance coach trip was that I was shut out of dinner reservations.) The club seating would allow the possibility that single travelers wouldn't have to deal with a seatmate. It can be a bot weird having to sleep next to a stranger. Perhpas they could also have retractable curtains, such as in semi-prvate hospital rooms that could be deployed at night to give a bit more privacy. I could see the fares being perhaps 25-50% over coach, given that the car's capacity would be 3/4 that of a similarly configured 2+2 seat Amfleet II coach.
> 
> Would this be practical? Would it attract passengers? Think it might interest Amtrak?


----------



## SubwayNut (Feb 20, 2013)

I've definitely done the pass out across three seats in the lounge car routine. I do it when I'm stuck on aisle seat especially when I'm across the staircase downstairs. I've always been tempted to just choose the floor.


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 21, 2013)

And I was essentially called crazy when I suggested that perhaps all those folks in Coach on the Auto Train would prefer to sleep horizontally than in a chair. Coach is only popular on the Auto Train because sleeper is too expensive for many travellers.



Bus Nut said:


> The only way I would see the Slumbercoach come back would be if it were marketed agressively to college students. I can't see any other segment of the population signing up to climb in and out of the things! However, it would still be a low margin service. I think it could compete with Megabus, Boltbus because of the advantage of being horizontal instead of vertical. But other than that you'd need a coach full of overnighters to make it work so it would have to be the right corridor. I suspect that even today most state college students travel only a few hours, which would be day trips.


As for the above quote, there are MANY college towns that are severely underserved by Amtrak. A targeted campaign would certainly bring many on board. That being said, I am 40 years old, 270 lbs, have a household income in the barely middle-middle class, and I feel that I would be a segment of the population that would LOVE to see the slumbercoach.


----------



## Ashland Train Enthusiast (Feb 22, 2013)

PupfosterG said:


> Most LD trains have a single level baggage car preceding the Superliners. Thinking outside the box, why not a newly designed Superliner baggage car? The lower level, completely empty excepts for utilities. The upper level business class and upper level restroom facilities. This would increase the revenue seating without lengthening the train. The car end closest to the locomotive would have a conventional vestibule and a staircase to upper level. Also access to baggage compartment would be made here also. The opposite end would provide high level access to other cars. However, this would bump transition sleepers to opposite end of the train. What would the additional cost in weight to haul bi-level baggage car vs. single level baggage car? Just a few thoughts.


I think this idea is worth further consideration, as I could see the merit here, in terms of getting dual functionality out of a single car. I'm not sure what the actual baggage load in the LD routes is or what the capacity difference is between the lower level of a Superliner vs. a Heritage/Viewliner baggage car, but if the numbers worked out, this might work. I'm not sure you would want this to be on the head end of the consist, and have the LD Business Class passengers having to walk through the sleepers, but I think it could work anywhere. Perhaps between the diner and the SSL?

~ DCTE


----------



## Ashland Train Enthusiast (Feb 22, 2013)

Guest said:


> yea, the naming scheme needs to be changed.
> how about:
> 
> standard coach - corridor coach
> ...


I think tied in with this is that if LD BC was implemented, there would need to be a standardization of what "Business Class" really is, as many posts here have pointed out that on different trains, the features are completely different. For instance, on the NEC, when I last rode BC (exuding 66 and 67), all it was was curtains on the windows and a bit more space between seats; no service or anything. For some of the mid-distance routes like the Pennsylvanian, Carolinian, and Palmetto, it's the same car (60 seat AFI BC iirc), but in addition, there's a dedicated attendent, and in my experience, at-seat beverage service every several hours. On some other routes like 66/67, the Empire Service, and iirc some of the Chicago Corrider trains, BC is the comfortable 1 x 2 seating with the leather chairs. And then there's Acela Business class, which is different in it's own right.

I'm not sure exactly what the appropriate terminology is, but I think basically that there are 3 or so tiers of service (for seat service, I'm excluding sleepers here, as I think they are a category all to themselves).  I think of them less in terms of the name of the service, but rather the type of car/seating used:

2x2 short haul seating (Amfleet I coach)

2x2 greater space seating/footrests/etc (Amfleet II/Amfleet I BC/Acela Business Class)

2x1 seating, more space, tables, etc (ex Metroliner BC/Acela First Class)

If I was to think about an LD business class, I would put it in the came category as the third group there, whatever you'd call that, with similar amenities. Perhaps not full meals covered like with Sleepers, but maybe a complementary drink service (of the alcoholic variety) or something else like that in addition to the seats?

~ DCTE


----------



## KrazyKoala (Feb 22, 2013)

You could connect the transleeper to the engine, and then the BC, to the coaches, SSL, dinerN then sleeper. I do agree, you take out the shower and bathrooms downstairs there would be just as much room since they only utilize ground space only in the baggage car and not have shelves for some reason.


----------



## Nathanael (Feb 22, 2013)

KrazyKoala said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > KrazyKoala said:
> ...


If you read Amtrak's monthly reports, you'll get a clue why it hasn't started yet. Amtrak has been having trouble finding time to get the Superliners off the road and into the shops to do the retrofits. The Beech Grove shops are therefore running a bit behind. There's a desparate need for spare cars so that cars can get their "shop time".


----------



## Nathanael (Feb 22, 2013)

DC Train Enthusiast said:


> I'm not sure exactly what the appropriate terminology is, but I think basically that there are 3 or so tiers of service (for seat service, I'm excluding sleepers here, as I think they are a category all to themselves). I think of them less in terms of the name of the service, but rather the type of car/seating used:
> 2x2 short haul seating (Amfleet I coach)
> 
> 2x2 greater space seating/footrests/etc (Amfleet II/Amfleet I BC/Acela Business Class)
> ...


I agree that a clearer naming of service classes would help I'm not sure whether you've described the seat classes fully. The Amfleet II class is definitely designed for sleeping passengers, with an emphasis on footrests and reclining, whle the Acela Business Class and Amfleet I BC are designed for awake passengers.

The sleeper classes are, of course,

- roomette

- bedroom

- family bedroom

- bedroom suite


----------



## jis (Feb 22, 2013)

Frankly, I don't understand this obsession with standardized class naming and amenities across the Board. Generally transportation companies do not do this. They specialize service toc ater to specific market needs.

For example Business Class on a few hours long daytime flight typically is very different accommodation from Business Class in multi hour, possibly overnight international flights. Even within the US JFK to LAX premium flights have different amenities from the run of the mill domestic flight. So why should Amtrak forego th possibility of catering to local corridor needs oin a focused way just to make everything uniform?


----------



## Ispolkom (Feb 22, 2013)

Bus Nut said:


> The only way I would see the Slumbercoach come back would be if it were marketed agressively to college students. I can't see any other segment of the population signing up to climb in and out of the things! However, it would still be a low margin service. I think it could compete with Megabus, Boltbus because of the advantage of being horizontal instead of vertical. But other than that you'd need a coach full of overnighters to make it work so it would have to be the right corridor. I suspect that even today most state college students travel only a few hours, which would be day trips.


Maybe, but when I was a college student I traveled from Minot to Chicago in Coach on the Empire Builder. That's 20 hours, but I would never have sprung for even a slumbercoach because a) when you're young you can sleep anywhere, and b) I had better uses for that money.


----------



## Ashland Train Enthusiast (Feb 22, 2013)

jis said:


> Frankly, I don't understand this obsession with standardized class naming and amenities across the Board. Generally transportation companies do not do this. They specialize service toc ater to specific market needs.
> For example Business Class on a few hours long daytime flight typically is very different accommodation from Business Class in multi hour, possibly overnight international flights. Even within the US JFK to LAX premium flights have different amenities from the run of the mill domestic flight. So why should Amtrak forego th possibility of catering to local corridor needs oin a focused way just to make everything uniform?


I'm a bit confused by what you're trying to say here, as you first seem to be against standardization across the board, but then refer to an example that is standardized in my opinion too much, calling two different service offerings by the same name, which is exactly what I am advocating getting away from.

I think the difference with Amtrak is that unlike an airline, which his distinct and unique flights and plane configurations between distinct endpoints, with Amtrak, you end up with quite a bit of overlap on routes, so the casual traveler doesn't have that same distinction. I'm not saying that Amtrak should at all forego catering to local corridor needs, but rather to have general standards for specific seat types. A quick search shows that for different routes, airlines like United do have different naming schemes to set the expectations for travelers to expect a different standard.

For example, a traveler going from say NYP to RVR has a variety of options to chose from, from a NER to a Medium-distance train like the Carolinian or Palmetto to an LD, and understand that there are very different accommodations as you mentioned above. As it exists currently, having the catch-all term "business class" to mean a variety of things could lend to false expectations for a traveler who is only used to the 2x1 ex Metroliner seating when they take a different service, as we have seen posted here before.

While I am advocating for a level of uniformity here, it's less about trying to squeeze everything into as few boxes as possible, but rather taking stock of the groupings I stated earlier, and figuring out based on the route served how to categorize the offering to set appropriate expectations to the passengers is all.

~ DCTE


----------



## jis (Feb 22, 2013)

The fact that Amtrak manages to call both the 2x1 ex Metroclubs and the 28xxx 2x2 ex-Metroliner Coach both BC is more an artifact of its inability to buy and furnish enough cars with enough 2x1 seats. I think. BC demand is way higher than Amtrak can afford to buy actual seats to satisfy the demand using 2x1 seating. The only rational way to rationalize this at present unrotunately is to simply get rid of the 2x1 seating arrangemnt altogether on single level trains and replace them with standard ex-Metroliner Coach 2x2 seating with slightly greater pitch than standard corridor coach seats. That is why for now I'd rather let the sleeping dog lie so that at least on some routes we still get tio enjoy 2x1.

It is fine to plan all kinds of nice uniformity, but with Amtrak's current budgetary and inventory situation, if since they can apparently command the same BC fare using 2x1 or 2x2 seating, the rational thing to do is to get rid of the 2x1 seating altogether. but I would not want to put ideas in their head.

The train length and slot situation on the NEC will remain a bottleneck even if Amtrak could get hold of as many cars as it wants, so it is not like suddenly Amtrak will jump in with western style low density coach and BC seating on NEC trains. There will always be a significant difference between Corridor and LD Coach seats - that is part of my original point.


----------



## Blackwolf (Oct 10, 2013)

*"CRACKS OPEN AN OLD TOPIC"*​
I've unfortunately had to neglect my train travel habits since January, an unfortunate reality that has no end in sight at the moment. This being said, I am curious to know if _anyone_ has an idea where the plan to place Business Class on the Coast Starlight has ended up? Last was heard, Amtrak was actively in the process of taking Acela leather BC seats and preparing to place them in the lower level of the former Coachclass/Arcade car. But it's been six months since that was news.

The market still eagerly awaits!


----------



## zephyr17 (Oct 10, 2013)

Blackwolf said:


> *"CRACKS OPEN AN OLD TOPIC"*​ I've unfortunately had to neglect my train travel habits since January, an unfortunate reality that has no end in sight at the moment. This being said, I am curious to know if _anyone_ has an idea where the plan to place Business Class on the Coast Starlight has ended up? Last was heard, Amtrak was actively in the process of taking Acela leather BC seats and preparing to place them in the lower level of the former Coachclass/Arcade car. But it's been six months since that was news.
> 
> The market still eagerly awaits!


Remember that on Amtrak timescales, 6 months is just the blink of an eye.


----------



## rickycourtney (Oct 10, 2013)

Blackwolf said:


> Last was heard, Amtrak was actively in the process of taking Acela leather BC seats and preparing to place them in the lower level of the former Coachclass/Arcade car. But it's been six months since that was news.


While I'm very supportive of Amtrak doing an experiment with Businessclass on long-distance trains... the more I think about it... the more I think using the Acela-style seats is the wrong way to go.

Amtrak should look into installing lie-flat seats (like the ones found in business and first class on most long-distance flights). They're a much better option for sleeping than a reclining seat... at a lower price than a roomette designed for two.

I realize that this would create yet another type of Businessclass seat... but I argue that airlines have customers used to this inconsistency (most transcon flights only have reclining first class seats, but international flights have lie-flat first class seats.)


----------



## Barciur (Oct 10, 2013)

This is the first time I read this topic so I must ask this question.

Somebody mentioned couchettes, European style. Has anything like that ever existed here? if yes, why was it eliminated? that seems like a wonderful idea. Much better than coach, shoulld be much cheaper than a private roomette.


----------



## jis (Oct 10, 2013)

Barciur said:


> This is the first time I read this topic so I must ask this question.
> 
> Somebody mentioned couchettes, European style. Has anything like that ever existed here? if yes, why was it eliminated? that seems like a wonderful idea. Much better than coach, shoulld be much cheaper than a private roomette.


Americans apparently prefer more privacy than Europeans do when they are sleeping horizontally, or so it is claimed. But then again even Sections had disappeared in the US before Amtrak started, and there one has considerable privacy with judicious use of curtains.

Then again the same Americans seem to have no problem in sleeping on lie flat seats in International Business or First Class on planes. So honestly I have no clue, except that I know that there are strong feeling about this matter.


----------



## Barciur (Oct 10, 2013)

That is interesting... and weird. In Europe, as far as I know, majority of sleepers are shared. You get 3 sleeping beds in a sleeper room, and then there are dual options and single. It's weird.

I would definitely take an option of a couchette, because I can't afford a sleeper and that would be way way more comfortable.


----------



## Anderson (Oct 11, 2013)

Honestly, I'd rather stick with a private room given the choice, but there are definitely times when I might take a couchette/section due to cost considerations. If Amtrak's sleeper fares go up another 25% in real terms, I'd start looking into it more seriously.

Part of the problem is that Amtrak just doesn't have the cars to do a lot of experimenting with and they can fill what they have (and then some)...it's not like they've got the cash and cars to take ten Viewliners to renovate and toss in such an option on the Silvers. Another part the fact that Amtrak really seems to want to keep standardized accommodations across most or all trains, and having almost all sleepers fall into two categories certainly helps with being able to interchange equipment. I can't see them doing something like this on one overnight train, single-level or bilevel, and not doing it for most of the others in the same category.


----------



## Alika (Oct 25, 2013)

rickycourtney said:


> Blackwolf said:
> 
> 
> > Last was heard, Amtrak was actively in the process of taking Acela leather BC seats and preparing to place them in the lower level of the former Coachclass/Arcade car. But it's been six months since that was news.
> ...


I'm with you, Ricky. While Amtrak's service improvement plan indicates they're planning to install Acela-style business class seating on the Starlight, I think it would make more sense to install a lie-flat seat in recognition that this is an (up t0) overnight service. While I slept in European couchettes when I lived abroad in college, there are ...well... lots of things I did in college that I don't do anymore, and that would likely be one of them. As one who rides the Starlight at least once or twice a year, there are times when I'm not travelling with family and just want somewhere with some privacy and a flat surface on which to sleep. 

Since Amtrak uses in-floor tracks (similar to the airlines) to bolt down their seats, it seems they'd be able to patronize vendors who currently provide the premium seating product to the airlines. I'm reasonably familiar with the airlines' premium offerings these days, and I've read the complaints about side-by-side sleeper seats that don't allow the window passenger direct access to the aisle. For that reason, I think the herringbone-style business class offerings of Delta, Air Canada, and Virgin Atlantic (and maybe others?) might fit the bill. While each seat would have direct aisle access and partitions high enough to provide reasonable seated/sleeping privacy, their diagonal nature means that providing a 78" sleeping surface would not take up 78" of seat pitch. It also could allow for increased privacy and better window viewing.

While the above arrangement is more comfortable, Amtrak would not be able to fit in as many of these seats compared to their Acela business-class seating. Prices for lie-flat business class (perhaps Amtrak could use their forthcoming"Amtrak America" sub-brand to call it "Amtrak America Business") could be keyed to somewhere between 75% more than coach and half of the going Roomette bucket price, so as to not cannibalize the sleepers while still pulling in enough cash to cover the cost of about 2 coach fares.

All the above being said, I think it's more likely that Amtrak will just buy additional Acela business-class seats from their existing supplier and add them to the former Arcade space. Only equipment and fairly standard installation costs would be incurred and no revenue lost means a win-win in their book. If I read their service improvement plan correctly, they will likely charge a rate similar to other business-class offerings on the Pacific Surfliner route. That's a great deal for customers, but good luck finding an available seat between LA and San Luis Obispo. The newly opened Metropolitan Lounge in LA also is a value add for this business-class ticket.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 25, 2013)

The problem with sections is that they take up the same space per person as Amtrak's current roomettes.

For example, I think there were 18-section "lightweight" railcars in the US that would've carried 36 passengers each. There were also 22-roomette "lightweight" railcars that carried only 22 passengers because back then Roomettes were only for one passenger. So in those days, riding a section was cheaper than a roomette.

But Amtrak slapped an extra berth into each roomette, so now that same 22-roomette car would have a capacity of 44 passengers, more than the 36 of the all-section car because the all-section car had extra public restroom(s) while the roomettes had personal toilets. Thus, in Amtrak's current configuration, a section fare would be at least the same or higher than a roomette fare.

Amtrak dosen't let you share roomettes, but from a design perspective it would not be feasible to add sections to Amtrak trains.

IMO, installing airline-style lie-flat seats is a much better idea. Not fully-flat, but something with 60"-70" of pitch and about 24" width, three-across.


----------



## buddy559 (Oct 26, 2013)

It would really make a difference as to what amenities were provided. I think the simple upgrade of an available shower to the business class would really add a lot of value. Perhaps instead of 2 coach bathrooms in that car, they could have 2 shower/ toilet combo rooms.

Also offer the available option of a pre pay meal ticket. Only available prior to travel so catering could be adjusted. Perhaps only offer that to 50% of the seats so as not to add too much strain on dining car. This addition may well lock coach passengers out of the diner depending on the load, so perhaps they could offer a few upgraded options to the cafe service to fill the void, and add additional appealing options to non meal ticketed business pax.


----------



## Alika (Oct 26, 2013)

buddy559 said:


> It would really make a difference as to what amenities were provided. I think the simple upgrade of an available shower to the business class would really add a lot of value. Perhaps instead of 2 coach bathrooms in that car, they could have 2 shower/ toilet combo rooms.
> 
> Also offer the available option of a pre pay meal ticket. Only available prior to travel so catering could be adjusted. Perhaps only offer that to 50% of the seats so as not to add too much strain on dining car. This addition may well lock coach passengers out of the diner depending on the load, so perhaps they could offer a few upgraded options to the cafe service to fill the void, and add additional appealing options to non meal ticketed business pax.


At least with the Starlight, I don't think the addition of only 12 business-class seats will impact the Diner enough to shut out the Coach passengers. I don't think Amtrak plans on adding a shower to the biz-class car either. From their Performance Improvement Plan, it appears they've already decided on most of what they want to offer in this new class of service, at least initially:


[SIZE=11pt]Service will be marketed as Coast Starlight Business Class [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in order to use existing ticketing and available designations. If successful, the possibility exists for a re-branding of this service as a [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]Premium Coach [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]or other designation at a later date. Service features include: [/SIZE]


[SIZE=11pt] Continued use of the upgraded coach pillow with the addition of a complimentary blanket. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt] A Food credit voucher usable in dining car at a designated minimum amount of $5 per meal based on length of trip and resulting number of meals. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt] Invitation to the wine and cheese tasting in the Pacific Parlour Car. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt] Access to Pacific Parlour Car movie theatre. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt] 2x2 Leather seating based upon the Acela Business Class seat.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt] Exclusive access to the seating area with door marked for “Business Class only”.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt] Train attendant assigned exclusive to the car. (Currently the Starlight train attendant (TA) staffing calls for 2 TAs for 3 cars and 3 TAs for 4 cars. The TA with a single car assignment will be responsible for the car containing the [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]Coast Starlight Business Class [/SIZE]accommodations.)




[SIZE=11pt] Child fares are to be offered consistent with existing Surfliner Business Class revenue [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]structure. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt] Overall revenue structure between Los Angeles and San Luis Obispo and Seattle and [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Eugene will be fully complementary with existing Business Class offerings. [/SIZE]


I don't necessarily agree with the decision, but I suppose I can see why they'd want to use the existing Acela-style business-class seats in this pilot project. If enough customers feel the above features are offered at a reasonable price point, then Amtrak won't feel any pressure to improve the seating. That said, if I'm not mistaken, Acela Business Class does not offer legrests or steep recline. Since the standard coaches already offer these features, I'm guessing Amtrak will at least have to enhance this Acela seat to meet or surpass those the coach seats. Hmm.


----------



## Nathanael (Oct 26, 2013)

I've been wondering why there has been no move to actually do the Business Class retrofit of the cars in the Coast Starlight. It seems like one of the quickest possible retrofits, it actually generates revenue, and the pressure on the fleet seems to have reduced in recent months. Maybe after Thanksgiving?


----------



## CHamilton (Feb 17, 2015)

From the Amtrak's Coast Starlight group on Facebook:



> In the March issue of Trains magazine is an article (pg 22) discussing premium-priced service and the positive effect on growing Amtrak revenue. One paragraph states: "Busines Class has thus far been limited to daytime travel..... That may change in mid-2015, when the
> Coast Starlight could introduce yet another business-class variation. Details have yet to be finalized, but Starlight route director Mike Dwyer says, "Twelve seats have already been installed in the cars by Los Angles shop forces. The business-class passenger would have access to the Pacific Parlour Car, and my thoughts are to offer Wi-Fi, as well as a food coupon, which can be used in the diner and lounge."


----------



## neroden (Feb 17, 2015)

Interesting. I'll tell you what's more interesting: the retrofit was done at LA shops. I would have expected this sort of thing to be done at Beech Grove.


----------



## rickycourtney (Feb 17, 2015)

neroden said:


> Interesting. I'll tell you what's more interesting: the retrofit was done at LA shops. I would have expected this sort of thing to be done at Beech Grove.


I'm honestly not that surprised. The cars that were converted were the former "kiddie car" coaches that were captive to Los Angeles... and the Los Angeles yards are VERY protective of the equipment used on the Starlight.

I'm sure they are capable of doing work like this (just swapping out seats) and they would rather do it in house than send it to Beech Grove where the work is subject to the delays that often seem to come with Beech Grove.


----------



## afigg (Feb 18, 2015)

Saw the report on the Coast Starlight premium/BC seats getting installed in Trains Magazine a couple of weeks ago, but never got around to posting that here. It is good to see that at least one of the easier to implement revenue enhancement recommendations in the PRIIA mandated PIP reports will be implemented. In the FY12 PIP report on the CS, the 12 premium/BC seats were projected to bring in $1.5 million in additional revenue with 14,400 additional passengers. To get to 14.4K passengers with 12 seats, they are obviously counting om seat turnover with 2 main markets - LA to Bay area and Portland to Seattle - during each trip.

I wonder if a large part of the reason for the delay in adding the BC seats has been the need to modify the reservation software. The current on-line interface present 4 columns: Saver, value, Flexible, Premium. On the overnight LD trains, the premium option covers roomettes, bedrooms, family bedroom, while on the day trains, the premium option is usually the BC or First class seats. My guess is that the new CS BC seats will be inserted in the switchable Premium list, but many potential customers may miss that they could book BC seats.


----------



## jis (Feb 18, 2015)

Moreover, this revenue will be generated and credited to the PPC. So it is all good for the continuance of the PPC too.


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 18, 2015)

neroden said:


> Interesting. I'll tell you what's more interesting: the retrofit was done at LA shops. I would have expected this sort of thing to be done at Beech Grove.


Why?

Ricky already eluded to this, but Amtrak California is just about Amtrak in name only. I wonder if they let Amtrak touch any of their stock.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 18, 2015)

What does Amtrak California have to do with the Coast Starlight?


----------



## jis (Feb 18, 2015)

VentureForth said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting. I'll tell you what's more interesting: the retrofit was done at LA shops. I would have expected this sort of thing to be done at Beech Grove.
> ...


Coast Starlight and the PPCs that run on them are Amtrak National Network property and have nothing to do with Amtrak California. So this has everything to do with Amtrak and nothing to do with Amtrak California.


----------



## PaulM (Feb 18, 2015)

From the Amtrak's Coast Starlight group on Facebook:



> The business-class passenger would have access to the Pacific Parlour Car, ...


This in itself would be a big selling point. I've made several day trips on the CSL and always spring for a roomette because of the parlour car. This would make more sense to me.

Whether it's a big seller or not will, of course, depends on whether Amtrak actually markets it rather than go with a stealth introduction that leaves even rail fans wondering what's happening.


----------



## Blackwolf (Feb 18, 2015)

I will do my best at grabbing a test ride if/when this actually becomes available.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 19, 2015)

jis said:


> Moreover, this revenue will be generated and credited to the PPC. So it is all good for the continuance of the PPC too.


Will it? I don't doubt that some sort of "meal credit" allowance will get credited to the diner/PPC, but I'd be more than a little surprised if the whole of the surcharge actually made its way to the PPC. Moreover, I'm not even sure how they're going to punch this into Arrow (since no train at present has both an upgrade seat class _and_ a sleeper option). It is entirely possible that this goes in as a sleeper-type upgrade and "Stupid Roomette Tricks" are replaced with "Stupid Business Class Tricks" (wherein the reduction of the coach fare by upgrading exceeds the nominal cost of the upgrade). I suspect this would get sorted pretty easily over time, but I'm not putting it past Amtrak to blunder into that and have some real hilarity go on (wherein Amtrak allocates a share of a surcharge from a ticket that is actually reduced in cost to the PPC).

Barring that...a good chunk of the revenue will likely be allocated as "premium accommodation" revenue and not go straight to the PPC.

That said, I'm glad to see this going forward. For a while I was worried that this had been scrapped. I'll also note that this probably helps explain the _size _of the cuts to coach capacity on the CS this winter. The noise there also indicates that the PPCs should be coming back.


----------



## rrdude (Feb 19, 2015)

I tell ya, thee ONLY reason I have used the roomette option on LAX to anywhere-in-the-bay-area-including-SAC, is to have access to the PPC.

The last two trips I took north on the CS, I dumped my bag in the roomette upon boarding, and didn't touch it, or sit in the roomette, again until arrival. ("NO", I did not hog a swivel seat, there was ALWAYS at least one or two open, and i migrated to the tables and couch seating frm time-to-time)

I just hope they keep the swivel seats, well, "swiveling" in the refurb.


----------



## jis (Feb 19, 2015)

Well, of course Amtrak can play whatever games it wants with the revenue. But at the base level, a bunch of revenue which would be absent if the said car is not running, should rightfully be counted as revenue generated by that car, no? Or is Amtrak so dishonest or inept in its accounting that they can't even allocate where the revenue came from correctly? Note that I am not talking about F&B account vs. passenger revenue account. I am talking of revenue generate by a car in any and all accounts.

Of course, with Amtrak, I suppose anything is possible.


----------



## fairviewroad (Feb 19, 2015)

PaulM said:


> From the Amtrak's Coast Starlight group on Facebook:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





rrdude said:


> I tell ya, thee ONLY reason I have used the roomette option on LAX to anywhere-in-the-bay-area-including-SAC, is to have access to the PPC.


These two comments would suggest that one possibility of adding a BC on the Starlight would be a net LOSS in revenue. If someone books a BC seat _instead_ of a daytime roomette, then presumably they are paying less money to Amtrak. IF that roomette is then filled by someone else, then it's a net gain. But if it stays empty, then it's a net loss. Of course, that loss could be offset by people upgrading to BC who otherwise would have stayed in coach. And then, of course, you have the factor of additional people using the PPC, which would diminish its relative value and would potentially drive some premium passengers away.

Presumably Amtrak is taking all that into account when deciding whether the projected numbers add up.


----------



## jis (Feb 19, 2015)

Each time I have traveled on the CS, it is not like the PPC was overwhelmed. Actually it was rather sparsely populated and seemed like it could do with a somewhat larger clientele anyway.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 19, 2015)

The only times I've seen the PPC crowded was when a group, including AUers (LOL) was aboard and on Summer and Holiday weekends!

Normally its easy to get Meal Reservations to eat in the PPC, but last October on the way to the Gathering a Group booked all of the slots, so we had to have Lunch and Dinner in the Diner!

As for the Business Class seats, I would be a customer for this class of service ( wonder how/if AGR will book this?) if riding between LAX and the Bay area, but if going farther would book a roomette!


----------



## rubber duck (Feb 19, 2015)

Why not just redesign whole train--- 1st class, business class, family class(bawling ,screaming kids) pet class and on and on and on?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Feb 19, 2015)

Per The Railway Gazette:

CAF is building new cars for the Caledonian SleeperTrains.

"The order covers four 16-coach rakes each comprising five types of coach, plus 11 spare vehicles. Future operator Serco says the cars will provide a mixture of travel options including first class en-suite berths, standard berths, cradle seats for standard class guests and pod flat-beds for affordable comfort. There will also be a luxurious new brasserie club car, and improved accessibility. Edinburgh-based designer Ian Smith is responsible for creating a contemporary style for the coaches."

No pictures yet. I look forward to see what a pod sleeping space look like.


----------



## neroden (Feb 20, 2015)

rickycourtney said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting. I'll tell you what's more interesting: the retrofit was done at LA shops. I would have expected this sort of thing to be done at Beech Grove.
> ...


This statement amplifies on how interesting this is. It is a further indication that Beech Grove kind of sucks. I've seen a lot of evidence of that in the monthly reports: Bear and Wilmington both get stuff done ahead of schedule, LA, Albany and Chicago tend to meet schedule, Beech Grove is always behind. And it doesn't seem to be because Beech Grove has harder work: Bear and Wilmington get some ridiculous assignments.

I'm not sure Beech Grove is as essential as everyone thinks it is. I guess it would be expensive to move the equipment.


----------



## fairviewroad (Feb 20, 2015)

jimhudson said:


> I would be a customer for this class of service ( wonder how/if AGR will book this?) if riding between LAX and the Bay area


Shouldn't be an issue. AGR already has a one zone BC award. It can currently be redeemed on The Palmetto and The Carolinian.

I believe all other BC service exists only in the Northeast Zone or on Special Routes.


----------



## Big Iron (Feb 20, 2015)

Would an overnight BC create a possible "lounge lizard" situation in the PPC?


----------



## chakk (Feb 24, 2015)

Airlines charge a lot more than double the coach fare for a lie-flat seat in Business Class. Wouldn't Amtrak do the same?


----------



## chakk (Feb 24, 2015)

Not only lounge lizard situation, but does the PPC attendant have to check credentials of every person sauntering forward from the coaches to confirm their right-of-entry to the PPC?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 25, 2015)

chakk said:


> Not only lounge lizard situation, but does the PPC attendant have to check credentials of every person sauntering forward from the coaches to confirm their right-of-entry to the PPC?


Won't the Biz Class seats be downstairs where the theater is in the PPC or will they be where the Kiddie Arcade used to be in a Coach???


----------



## Big Iron (Feb 25, 2015)

chakk said:


> Airlines charge a lot more than double the coach fare for a lie-flat seat in Business Class. Wouldn't Amtrak do the same?


I haven't gone back and read the entire thread so shame on me. I was thinking the biz class seats would be coach type seats and not lie flat seats thus encouraging some to go upstairs and lounge lizard.


----------



## g (Feb 25, 2015)

Though I never use it, I'd hate to see the Theater go.


----------



## afigg (Feb 25, 2015)

jimhudson said:


> Won't the Biz Class seats be downstairs where the theater is in the PPC or will they be where the Kiddie Arcade used to be in a Coach???


The 12 new business class seats will be in the now former Arcade space on the lower level of a coach car. The BC seats are Acela seats, so they won't be lie-flat seats. Should not be that difficult for the PPC attendant to check for BC eTickets for a total of 12 people coming from the coach cars.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 25, 2015)

Thanks for the info on where the Biz Class seats will be located!

Acela seats aren't that comfortable compared to the Metroliner type seats that are used in the BC Cars that have 2x1 Seating!

I'm surprised Amtrak wouldn't use these! Also that they won't be placed downstairs in the theater space on the PPC so BC Pax would have easier access to the PPC!!


----------



## afigg (Feb 25, 2015)

jimhudson said:


> Thanks for the info on where the Biz Class seats will be located!
> 
> Acela seats aren't that comfortable compared to the Metroliner type seats that are used in the BC Cars that have 2x1 Seating!
> 
> I'm surprised Amtrak wouldn't use these! Also that they won't be placed downstairs in the theater space on the PPC so BC Pax would have easier access to the PPC!!


I may be wrong about them installing Acela seats. I checked the Trains Magazine article which discussed the BC seats on the CS and it does not say what type of seats they installed. If the market is to premium class seats, 2x1 seating using extra Metroliner style seats or even Acela FC seats would be a better pick for the market.


----------



## winterskigirl (Feb 28, 2015)

You might get your wish when the Pacific Parlour Car comes back in service from maintenance.


----------



## jnismith (Feb 28, 2015)

As someone who looks to travel business class when on a long haul flight (at the least cost possible or using miles), the issue to me is can I sleep. And the answer is, only in a lie flat seat when I have the width to turn over. This pretty much means a space of at least 6ft by 2ft. (United take note). I don't really care about anything else, e.g., aisle or window, food. But on a train trip, it's a little bit more difficult. If I was just going from New York to Chicago, and it was mid-winter so not much to see, then stack me up, give me a space to lie down and I don't care about anything else. But if I am going somewhere which is going to take 24 hours, then I want a view, a shower, and really a bit of privacy.

So to me, there are different solutions for different types of long distance trains and certainly, I can't see much advantage to a business class seat on the long distance westbound trains out of Chicago. For the LSL and Capitol, maybe, but it you can get a roomette for $250 on the Capitol, then there is not too much of a gap between that and coach, so I'm not sure if there is a need for a third tier of service.


----------

