# Bedroom Pricing increasing everywhere!!!!!!&#3



## amfan (May 26, 2010)

Looks like all bucket pricing has changed or no longer exist. (I hope these aren't the lowest bucket prices!!!!!!) Will the points needed to purchase bedrooms increase be coming soon also? I would think Chase wouldn't like that as it would severely decrease the need for their card as it would take twice as long to accumulate points enough to do so. May force some of us to change our habits to other ventures???


----------



## Ryan (May 26, 2010)

What routes/dates are you looking at - looking at the Cap Limited for random dates in the fall, things still look "normal".


----------



## dlagrua (May 26, 2010)

amfan said:


> Looks like all bucket pricing has changed or no longer exist. (I hope these aren't the lowest bucket prices!!!!!!) Will the points needed to purchase bedrooms increase be coming soon also? I would think Chase wouldn't like that as it would severely decrease the need for their card as it would take twice as long to accumulate points enough to do so. May force some of us to change our habits to other ventures???


If bucket pricing goes away let it. We will just refuse to pay high bucket fares, so let Amtrak discover for themselves that higher buckets mean less revenue,

If higher bucket prices only is really the new rule, then Amtrak just won't have many customers left. It will be a cold day in hell before we pay $400-$600 for a bedroom on an overnight trip. We'll just start driving again and say to hell with them but before we reach a conclusion lets try to get a handle on the fare structure.

In years past, railroads kept the sleeper prices low to attract passengers to the rails but the big difference was that they had the equipment to support any and all demand.


----------



## Ryan (May 26, 2010)

I'm not sure why you keep beating that drum, Amtrak isn't that dumb. If they're going to start practicing more aggressive revenue management in order to maximize the revenue on their limited space, good for them!


----------



## Ispolkom (May 26, 2010)

Ryan said:


> What routes/dates are you looking at - looking at the Cap Limited for random dates in the fall, things still look "normal".


Looking at April 25, I thought the low price for a roomette CHI-WAS was up a couple of dollars, and I know the roomette price MSP-MOT is up two dollars from $88 to $90. Still, nothing enormous. CHI-EMY is $1195 for a bedroom, but unlike others I've never see good prices for bedrooms on the California Zephyr.


----------



## GaSteve (May 26, 2010)

amfan said:


> Looks like all bucket pricing has changed or no longer exist. (I hope these aren't the lowest bucket prices!!!!!!) Will the points needed to purchase bedrooms increase be coming soon also? I would think Chase wouldn't like that as it would severely decrease the need for their card as it would take twice as long to accumulate points enough to do so. May force some of us to change our habits to other ventures???


I checked #20 the other day and a bedroom was actually less than a roomette about 3 months out. <_<


----------



## Larry H. (May 26, 2010)

Ryan said:


> I'm not sure why you keep beating that drum, Amtrak isn't that dumb. If they're going to start practicing more aggressive revenue management in order to maximize the revenue on their limited space, good for them!


Yep as usual the supporters of screwing the public who have paid for this service in the first place seems to be the response of many Amtrak apologist. I agree that 400.00 a night is more than enough to pay for a room with in many cases almost nothing else of value to show for it. Budget airlines ( which many here like to point to as great models) seem to have found that offering a cheaper fare encourages more riders not less. In the long run creating more revenue. Which makes more an empty train which high priced rooms or one with less expensive rooms that are full?

Problem being here is that due to the extremely limited amount of rooms on nearly all long distance trains there is no doubt always going to be those with "deep" pockets that can pay no matter what the cost. Seems like the government is then pursuing that same policy they seem to hate of letting the perks go to those with money.


----------



## jis (May 26, 2010)

Larry H. said:


> Seems like the government is then pursuing that same policy they seem to hate of letting the perks go to those with money.


There is no credible evidence, none at all, that the government hates to let the perks go to those with money. <_<


----------



## haolerider (May 26, 2010)

Larry H. said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure why you keep beating that drum, Amtrak isn't that dumb. If they're going to start practicing more aggressive revenue management in order to maximize the revenue on their limited space, good for them!
> ...


I am always amazed at the conspiricy theories that abound when pricing is discussed. Bedrooms are the classic case of low supply and high demand. To price them low to attract riders would not be good revenue management. They are in demand because of their limited numbers and because this is the beginning of the summer season. I don't think you will see any of the air carriers lowering their First Class pricing to attract passengers - it just doesn't make sense. A bedroom is not a perk, it is a product and as such is sold at whatever the traveling public will pay. Your comment about "screwing the public that have paid for this service" is also nonsense. No one is screwing anyone! If you haven't got the money to buy a bedroom then purchase a roomette and if you can't do that, buy a coach ticket. I am not an apologist for Amtrak, in fact, if this were a Southwest, Jet Blue or AirTran forum, I would still defend their right to charge whatever they can get for their highest rated product. End of story!


----------



## Trogdor (May 26, 2010)

This is (like all the others about "Amtrak fares are too high!") turning into a ridiculous thread.

A few days ago, I was checking California Zephyr service CHI-EMY for the month of June. In over half the days that I checked, all sleepers were sold out. On the remaining dates, there were maybe one or two rooms left.

If Amtrak could throw two or three more sleepers onto that train, they probably would, and those cars would sell out. However, they can't. The equipment simply isn't there. So, what reason is there for Amtrak to lower the fare? Things in low supply and high demand cost more. That's the way it is.

Lowering the fares will not increase the ridership counts, because there isn't any room to accommodate more people. It will only cost Amtrak much-needed revenue, therefore lowering the cost recovery of the train, increasing the required subsidy, and increasing the likelihood that Amtrak's opponents will demand that the "money-losing venture" be shut down.

It sure would be nice if some folks would take an economics class before posting on here, rather than basing their entire position on "I'm not going to pay more than $X, therefore Amtrak should never charge more than $X when I'm looking to book a trip." Never mind that lowering the fare to $X would not only lower the revenue, but it would also cause the trains to sell out even faster, meaning that by the time you got around to checking fares, you _still_ wouldn't be able to get a room.


----------



## wayman (May 26, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> If bucket pricing goes away let it. We will just refuse to pay high bucket fares, so let Amtrak discover for themselves that higher buckets mean less revenue, If higher bucket prices only is really the new rule, then Amtrak just won't have many customers left. It will be a cold day in hell before we pay $400-$600 for a bedroom on an overnight trip.


I hate to break it to you, but while Amtrak Unlimited folk may be Amtrak's most knowledgeable and enthusiastic patrons, we're a very small fraction of their total ridership. Whether you're personally willing to pay that much or not doesn't matter a whit. Whether everyone on this entire message board is willing or not doesn't matter. Lots of people are probably willing, and it only takes several dozen per train to fill the sleepers. Amtrak has doubtless done the calculations (assuming they actually have changed their pricing policy -- all we have to go on is scattered anecdotal evidence so far).

Who knows, it may hugely alter the demographics of Amtrak sleeper ridership. It may kill off the use of Amtrak sleeper accommodations by Americans using Amtrak as a mode of transportation, in favor of foreigners using it as a "rail cruise" almost exclusively. But I doubt it will reduce revenue. And (though it's unfortunate for many of us) Amtrak is actually a business, with very limited resources and a mandate to do the best they can revenue-wise. If this move increases revenue, it is the correct thing for Amtrak to do.

In an ideal world, they would be able operate like a revenue-maximizing business _and_ have the freedom to acquire enough sleeper cars to fill all demand at a variety of pricing levels. We know that with a bucket system making low fares available, Amtrak's sleeper cars still break even above the rails.

But we don't live in that world. We live in a world where Amtrak has only two or three sleepers per train, ever. And we live in a world where luxury vacations have become much more the thing to do than they were in, say, the 1940s. Perhaps Amtrak has realized there's a better way to run their business to maximize their revenue given their resources, by taking advantage of the potential for larger sleeper profits to offset other losses.

If their plan works (if in fact this is their plan at all -- we have no idea), perhaps they will gain some leverage to ask for more sleeper cars per train. Who knows. Of course, that would take a decade. That doesn't work well for you. But it may work very well for Amtrak.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (May 26, 2010)

Ispolkom said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > What routes/dates are you looking at - looking at the Cap Limited for random dates in the fall, things still look "normal".
> ...


I have. I have bedrooms booked on the CZ from California to Chicago, then on the CL to Washington, then biz class on NEC all the way to Connecticut for 2 pax for only $100 more than that. Last year I got a similar price.


----------



## Ryan (May 26, 2010)

Larry H. said:


> Yep as usual the supporters of screwing the public who have paid for this service in the first place seems to be the response of many Amtrak apologist.


The only thing that I support is Amtrak earning as much revenue as possible. The more revenue, the better their chances at expansion (both in more routes and longer trains). I'm not sure the label of "Amtrak apologist" fits either - I'm perfectly willing to throw them under the bus when they screw up, but I also realize that they operate here in the real world, with real constraints.


> Which makes more an empty train which high priced rooms or one with less expensive rooms that are full?


The train is going to be full either way - what makes more revenue, a sold out train with cheap rooms or a sold out train with expensive rooms?


> Problem being here is that due to the extremely limited amount of rooms on nearly all long distance trains there is no doubt always going to be those with "deep" pockets that can pay no matter what the cost. Seems like the government is then pursuing that same policy they seem to hate of letting the perks go to those with money.


Sounds like sour grapes to me. If you want cheap, take the dog or ride coach (or stay home).


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2010)

Still cheaper than a first class airline ticket, and much nicer too.


----------



## sunchaser (May 26, 2010)

Amtrak is subsidized by the Fed (taxpayers) & still does not make enough to cover the remaining costs at the fare box.

As much as I would prefer for the prices to stay lower, I don't know how they could do it without a lot more sleepers.

Then, why should they lower the prices?

Amtrak should make money, not lose money, or at least break even.

Really, the question is, do you want to pay a lower price for sleepers by having higher taxes, or higher when you buy your tickets?

We are really paying more than we think for riding Amtrak through taxes, and others who never ride pay for it too.


----------



## dlagrua (May 26, 2010)

sunchaser said:


> Amtrak is subsidized by the Fed (taxpayers) & still does not make enough to cover the remaining costs at the fare box. As much as I would prefer for the prices to stay lower, I don't know how they could do it without a lot more sleepers.
> 
> Then, why should they lower the prices?
> 
> ...



I am not advocating that Amtrak lower prices, although as the equipment ages, the accomodations do deteriorate over time, so the consumer gets less for their money. I just believe that prices are already high enough and that raising them any higher will hurt both the consumer and the railroad. Yes Amtak is subsidized by the taxpapers but with all the jobs that Amtrak has created to run and maintain it, there is a giant return to the federal government in incomes taxes from their employees. Say they pay their SCA's $800 per week, about $160 goes back in taxes. Therefore on the balance sheet, the labor rates are calculated at a before tax rate, never mentioning who receives the income taxes. The statement may not show it but Amtrak may actually be making momey. Now figure in all the people that need to be employed by the companies that supply the food, sanitation services, fuel, uniforms,etc. These jobs that were created especially to support income tax are income tax revenue streams for the federal government as well.

Finally take a look at the Amtrak NE corridor run. They recently lowered prices and now every train is full or nearly full. On this route and to the cities that they serve, Amtrak has more passenger traffic than the airlines do.


----------



## pebbleworm (May 26, 2010)

I recently booked bedrooms at (my best guess) second bucket for a round trip on the Southwest Chief at xmas, so the variable fares are still there.


----------



## printman2000 (May 26, 2010)

I will not get into the argument of how much is too much. That is an individual thing.

Something weird is going on.

If I price a roomette from Lamy, NM to Chicago on March 1, 2011, it is low bucket of $220. If you do any date after March 1st, you will see it is $465. (info accurate as of May 26, 2010) More than double the low bucket price.

For some reason, they are starting the price very high for March 2, 2011 and on.

Possible explanations...

- March 2, 2011 is when a new, high price for rooms starts.

- They are starting room prices high when first released and will lower them eventually

- Could be rooms are already being bought and pushing the price up. (not likely, since it is EVERY day after March 1st).

Doing a quick comparison to the CZ, I do not see the same thing happening so it may be just a SWC thing.


----------



## printman2000 (May 26, 2010)

printman2000 said:


> I will not get into the argument of how much is too much. That is an individual thing.
> Something weird is going on.
> 
> If I price a roomette from Lamy, NM to Chicago on March 1, 2011, it is low bucket of $220. If you do any date after March 1st, you will see it is $465. (info accurate as of May 26, 2010) More than double the low bucket price.
> ...


I just looked at the EB and going from Seattle to Chicago in a roomette costs $220 at low bucket. That is crazy cheap for a 45 hour trip. The above trip on the SWC is only 24 hours. By the way, the March 2 date does not seem to apply to the EB either. Must just be a SWC thing. Hopefully it will work out before I book my next years trip.


----------



## MikefromCrete (May 26, 2010)

Everybody seems to be getting excited about something that may not even be happening. Amfan complains about super high fares, but the other posters claim the same or slightly higher fares. If Amfan would tell us what route or routes he is talking about, then maybe a comparison could be made. As other posters have said there are only a certain number of bedrooms available due to a lack of equipment, so if demand is high then the prices will rise. If the rooms aren't sold at a high fare, they'll drop. Right now all the facts aren't available.


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2010)

printman2000 said:


> I will not get into the argument of how much is too much. That is an individual thing.
> Something weird is going on.
> 
> If I price a roomette from Lamy, NM to Chicago on March 1, 2011, it is low bucket of $220. If you do any date after March 1st, you will see it is $465. (info accurate as of May 26, 2010) More than double the low bucket price.
> ...


March is the beginning of the busy spring break season when many of us northerners head to the southwest for school breaks. Amtrak has been at this for a while, so I think they know they can expect high demand for sleepers during this time and are adjusting bucket allocations accordingly and perhaps having no lowest bucket rooms available at all. Makes perfect business sense to me.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 26, 2010)

sunchaser said:


> Amtrak should make money, not lose money, or at least break even.


Nobody expects I-10 to "break even" so why should they expect Amtrak to? Does DB or JR break even? How about our airports, have they broken even? Why should Amtrak be held to a standard the rest of our infrastructure isn't held to? And, honestly, no budget of ours has any hope of breaking even until the war is over.


----------



## wayman (May 26, 2010)

MikefromCrete said:


> Everybody seems to be getting excited about something that may not even be happening. ... Right now all the facts aren't available.


Exactly: conditions are perfect for a heated argument on the internet :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## haolerider (May 26, 2010)

wayman said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > Everybody seems to be getting excited about something that may not even be happening. ... Right now all the facts aren't available.
> ...


Absolutely, as I have said before - "all it takes is a computer and an internet connection and anyone can be an instant expert"

and for goodness sakes, please do not challenge the "experts"!


----------



## amtrakwolverine (May 26, 2010)

Checking the SWC anytime in april the price for a roomette was over 600$ while a bed room and family bedroom were over 1000$ however checking again in feb 2011 the roomette was 301$. there high due to spring break. we will not know if the "new" price is permanent until after spring break but we can't book that far out yet.


----------



## Ryan (May 26, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> I am not advocating that Amtrak lower prices, although as the equipment ages, the accomodations do deteriorate over time, so the consumer gets less for their money. I just believe that prices are already high enough and that raising them any higher will hurt both the consumer and the railroad. Yes Amtak is subsidized by the taxpapers but with all the jobs that Amtrak has created to run and maintain it, there is a giant return to the federal government in incomes taxes from their employees. Say they pay their SCA's $800 per week, about $160 goes back in taxes. Therefore on the balance sheet, the labor rates are calculated at a before tax rate, never mentioning who receives the income taxes. The statement may not show it but Amtrak may actually be making momey. Now figure in all the people that need to be employed by the companies that supply the food, sanitation services, fuel, uniforms,etc. These jobs that were created especially to support income tax are income tax revenue streams for the federal government as well. Finally take a look at the Amtrak NE corridor run. They recently lowered prices and now every train is full or nearly full. On this route and to the cities that they serve, Amtrak has more passenger traffic than the airlines do.





daxomni said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak should make money, not lose money, or at least break even.
> ...


I think that we'd all agree on the fact that Amtrak should endeavor to bring in as much revenue as possible, regardless if that results in a profit, loss or perfect breakeven. While that's an entertaining discussion on it's own, I think that it's a separate issue from a discussion on how to best maximize revenue.


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Finally take a look at the Amtrak NE corridor run. They recently lowered prices and now every train is full or nearly full. On this route and to the cities that they serve, Amtrak has more passenger traffic than the airlines do.


Comparing coach to sleeper/first class is apples and oranges.


----------



## sunchaser (May 26, 2010)

Ryan said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > I am not advocating that Amtrak lower prices, although as the equipment ages, the accomodations do deteriorate over time, so the consumer gets less for their money. I just believe that prices are already high enough and that raising them any higher will hurt both the consumer and the railroad. Yes Amtak is subsidized by the taxpapers but with all the jobs that Amtrak has created to run and maintain it, there is a giant return to the federal government in incomes taxes from their employees. Say they pay their SCA's $800 per week, about $160 goes back in taxes. Therefore on the balance sheet, the labor rates are calculated at a before tax rate, never mentioning who receives the income taxes. The statement may not show it but Amtrak may actually be making momey. Now figure in all the people that need to be employed by the companies that supply the food, sanitation services, fuel, uniforms,etc. These jobs that were created especially to support income tax are income tax revenue streams for the federal government as well. Finally take a look at the Amtrak NE corridor run. They recently lowered prices and now every train is full or nearly full. On this route and to the cities that they serve, Amtrak has more passenger traffic than the airlines do.
> ...


:lol: I'm glad you are entertained! :lol:

Want more revenue?

Raise the prices, add more sleepers, raise the prices, add more runs, add new routes!!!

In my limited times of booking, & from this board, there are a few ways to avoid paying 'too much'.

Book at non peak, non holiday time periods.

Book early, if you want a bedroom & it's too much, book a roomette.

Watch for specials & sales.

If you have booked a roomette & wanted a bedroom, check online regularly for a better deal.

You can also wait & attempt to do an onboard upgrade for a sleeper, which is not a guarantee.

You can buy a grundle of AGR points & use them.

Since Amtrak is pretty much the only game in town with a few exceptions, if you want to ride the train, you must make the choice on pricing. Is it worth it to you?


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (May 26, 2010)

haolerider said:


> Absolutely, as I have said before - "all it takes is a computer and an internet connection and anyone can be an instant expert"


I am not an instant expert. I am a permanent expert.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (May 26, 2010)

Guest said:


> March is the beginning of the busy spring break season when many of us northerners head to the southwest for school breaks.


When I was a student, I would more likely be checking out possible baggage car prices, than bedroom prices.


----------



## haolerider (May 26, 2010)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> haolerider said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely, as I have said before - "all it takes is a computer and an internet connection and anyone can be an instant expert"
> ...


Well Done!

By the way, what is the Trails to Rails Program?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 26, 2010)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > March is the beginning of the busy spring break season when many of us northerners head to the southwest for school breaks.
> ...


Same here. There were no $500 sleeper tickets in my student years. Maybe he's referring to Alaskans looking for a place to spend their drilling license kick-back checks?


----------



## Ryan (May 26, 2010)




----------



## GG-1 (May 26, 2010)

Ryan said:


> I think that we'd all agree on the fact that Amtrak should endeavor to bring in as much revenue as possible, regardless if that results in a profit, loss or perfect breakeven. While that's an entertaining discussion on it's own, I think that it's a separate issue from a discussion on how to best maximize revenue.


Aloha

Some time ago I was in discussions with a traveling show and rates. While I no longer remember the exact numbers the jist was something like an increase in the price of tickets of 7% leads to a drop in revenue of 10%. Much better to increase sales, some way, until the theaters are at capacity.


----------



## Big Iron (May 26, 2010)

daxomni said:


> Cho Cho Charlie said:
> 
> 
> > Guest said:
> ...


I liked the $33.00 slumbercoach fares back in the 80's.


----------



## dlagrua (May 26, 2010)

> Since Amtrak is pretty much the only game in town with a few exceptions, if you want to ride the train, you must make the choice on pricing. Is it worth it to you?


Amtrak is not the only travel game in town. There are the airlines, busses, and automobiles. Deciding whether or not to take Amtrak is a value judgement. They already have the sleepers priced at a premium, IMO the prices are sky high. If we drive we can stay at a great hotel for $125 most anywhere along the major highways and in a room with a king bed. If I have to pay more than $250-$300 + rail fare for a little onboard cubby hole of a bedroom it becomes a bad value. If the prices go up we'll just start driving more. Amtrak doesn't have something so great that they can price gouge for it and expect to fill the trains. Who do they think they are? They can keep their friggin room.


----------



## Trogdor (May 26, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> > Since Amtrak is pretty much the only game in town with a few exceptions, if you want to ride the train, you must make the choice on pricing. Is it worth it to you?
> 
> 
> Amtrak is not the only travel game in town. There are the airlines, busses, and automobiles. Deciding whether or not to take Amtrak is a value judgement. They already have the sleepers priced at a premium, IMO the prices are sky high. If we drive we can stay at a great hotel for $125 most anywhere along the major highways and in a room with a king bed. If I have to pay more than $250-$300 + rail fare for a little onboard cubby hole of a bedroom it becomes a bad value. If the prices go up we'll just start driving more. Amtrak doesn't have something so great that they can price gouge for it and expect to fill the trains. Who do they think they are? They can keep their friggin room.


I think, what you meant to say with your last line was, "someone else will take the room instead of me." Because, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the sleepers are going out largely full.

So, obviously somebody doesn't think it's price gouging. So, have fun on the road. Keep that money in your pocket. Amtrak will just sell the room to someone else. They're not going to give you a discount because you're special.


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2010)

daxomni said:


> Cho Cho Charlie said:
> 
> 
> > Guest said:
> ...


I wouldn't let me elementary student go baggage . . . I would pay for them to go with me in a sleeper.


----------



## zephyr17 (May 26, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> > Since Amtrak is pretty much the only game in town with a few exceptions, if you want to ride the train, you must make the choice on pricing. Is it worth it to you?
> 
> 
> Amtrak is not the only travel game in town. There are the airlines, busses, and automobiles. Deciding whether or not to take Amtrak is a value judgement. They already have the sleepers priced at a premium, IMO the prices are sky high. If we drive we can stay at a great hotel for $125 most anywhere along the major highways and in a room with a king bed. If I have to pay more than $250-$300 + rail fare for a little onboard cubby hole of a bedroom it becomes a bad value. If the prices go up we'll just start driving more. Amtrak doesn't have something so great that they can price gouge for it and expect to fill the trains. Who do they think they are? They can keep their friggin room.


Completely your decision. I do the same thing -- I love riding trains, but it has to be within a certain price range, and even then other modes are almost always cheaper than an Amtrak sleeper. For me, the value proposition is not for the transportation alone. With that said, there are others that will pay more, and if Amtrak can capture that revenue, more power to them. If I'll only buy a room for $250, but they can sell it to someone else at $500, why shouldn't they? I've seen fares fluctuate -- that is what yield management is all about, maximizing the yield. It isn't stuck in the high range and won't stay there if they have a car full of unbooked high-bucket rooms. Some of those rooms will then become low-bucket rooms.

Who they think they are is a business, or they try to be. They are trying to maximize the revenue for their product, as any prudent business should. We bash Amtrak management a lot here, should we bash them for trying to maximize revenue, which on any rational basis they should be doing?

It's a free market. We are free to buy their product at the price offered or not. They are entitled to charge what the market will bear.


----------



## AlanB (May 26, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> > Since Amtrak is pretty much the only game in town with a few exceptions, if you want to ride the train, you must make the choice on pricing. Is it worth it to you?
> 
> 
> Amtrak is not the only travel game in town. There are the airlines, busses, and automobiles. Deciding whether or not to take Amtrak is a value judgement. They already have the sleepers priced at a premium, IMO the prices are sky high. If we drive we can stay at a great hotel for $125 most anywhere along the major highways and in a room with a king bed. If I have to pay more than $250-$300 + rail fare for a little onboard cubby hole of a bedroom it becomes a bad value. If the prices go up we'll just start driving more. Amtrak doesn't have something so great that they can price gouge for it and expect to fill the trains. Who do they think they are? They can keep their friggin room.


Well it would appear that many people don't agree with you on this matter. Ridership in sleepers for the first 6 months of this year is up more than 20,000 or 7.4%. Revenue from sleepers is up about $1.3 million or 1.9%.

I'm personally not thrilled either to have to pay more, but it does appear that people are indeed willing to do so. And with Congress and other critics demanding that Amtrak do better, if sleepers are selling for higher prices, Amtrak is going to sell them for higher prices. People clearly are not being driven away by the prices.


----------



## GaSteve (May 26, 2010)

Big Iron said:


> I liked the $33.00 slumbercoach fares back in the 80's.


Hear , hear ! I did that quite a few times, especially on the Crescent while I was relocating from Philly to Atlanta.


----------



## sunchaser (May 26, 2010)

Trogdor said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > > Since Amtrak is pretty much the only game in town with a few exceptions, if you want to ride the train, you must make the choice on pricing. Is it worth it to you?
> ...


I did not mean Amtrak is the only *travel choice*. It's pretty much the only *train choice*.

So it still comes down to the value of the sleeper. How much is it worth to you? I certainly can't afford large price hikes for travel anymore than anyone else, so I will continue to do the price dance, checking multiple dates, etc.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 26, 2010)

Quick, everyone panic. Dear lord, odd price trends happen all the time. Stop worrying your little heads off. You're right, pricing things only in the highest bucket will drive off riders, I think. Ok, then Amtrak will lower the prices. Problem solved.

Amtrak won't keep this up if nobody buys the damned things. Plain and simple.


----------



## sechs (May 27, 2010)

Sounds like another reason to join AGR. Sleepers always cost the same number of points there....


----------



## amtrakwolverine (May 27, 2010)

sechs said:


> Sounds like another reason to join AGR. Sleepers always cost the same number of points there....


providing they give you a sleeper on the right train on the right day in the right direction.


----------



## dlagrua (May 27, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Quick, everyone panic. Dear lord, odd price trends happen all the time. Stop worrying your little heads off. You're right, pricing things only in the highest bucket will drive off riders, I think. Ok, then Amtrak will lower the prices. Problem solved.
> Amtrak won't keep this up if nobody buys the damned things. Plain and simple.


In the final analysis I guess that's the bottom line. Give us your price and we will see if it makes sense to us.

I differ with a few posters views here in that I don't view Amtrak passengers as the same group who ride the Orient express for the luxury and unique experience, but as everyday people with limited budgets who prefer this form of transportation and ride as a convenience. The AT is probably the prime example of this, where seniors, the elderly, college students, and middle class travelers go South with their car. Even in the sleeepers I didn't see too many people that fit the description of affluent. A good percentage of passengers had gray or white hair!

I believe that it is in Amtraks best interest to serve their core market and not try to run it, thinking that they are the Orient Express.


----------



## AlanB (May 27, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Quick, everyone panic. Dear lord, odd price trends happen all the time. Stop worrying your little heads off. You're right, pricing things only in the highest bucket will drive off riders, I think. Ok, then Amtrak will lower the prices. Problem solved.
> ...


And yet Amtrak's Auto Train does aspire to be more like that Orient Express. It's the flagship train on the East Coast and its Bedroom prices are comparable with the other LD's. In fact, the AT brings in just as much revenue with its sleepers as does the Empire Builder. Granted the Auto Train for part of the year runs with twice as many sleepers, other times with 5, but then the AT is a one night ride while the EB is a two night ride.


----------



## oldtimer (May 27, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> The AT is probably the prime example of this, where seniors, the elderly, college students, and middle class travelers go South with their car. Even in the sleeepers I didn't see too many people that fit the description of affluent. A good percentage of passengers had gray or white hair!


Take it easy with that remark on hair color, as mine is flesh tone!

 :lol:


----------



## zephyr17 (May 27, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Quick, everyone panic. Dear lord, odd price trends happen all the time. Stop worrying your little heads off. You're right, pricing things only in the highest bucket will drive off riders, I think. Ok, then Amtrak will lower the prices. Problem solved.
> ...


Nobody is going to mistake Amtrak for a luxury rail cruise. Not even Amtrak. I don't think they are going for that market. I agree, the folks I see in Amtrak sleepers generally solidly middle class, skewing older.

But their pricing model appears to be working most of the time with their market. Sleepers are running with a pretty high load factor, although that is not scientific, just my own observations, and anecdotal evidence. It would be interesting to see real data on that.

People are paying to ride sleepers at the price offered. Why should they sell them for less? If service standards slip, it will drive their customers away (it already happened when timekeeping on 11/14 was horrendous a couple of years ago) and will have to sell for cheaper rates. I am content to let the market decide.


----------



## AlanB (May 27, 2010)

zephyr17 said:


> But their pricing model appears to be working most of the time with their market. Sleepers are running with a pretty high load factor, although that is not scientific, just my own observations, and anecdotal evidence. It would be interesting to see real data on that.


I don't have any data that shows what occupancy percentages were, although perhaps if I have some time later today I could calculate some based upon the numbers that I have and knowing how many sleepers per train there are. However, here are the ridership numbers for the last 7 years that show sleeper occupancy is indeed going ever higher, despite the higher prices. And of course we all know that on many trains it's impossible to book a sleeper at certain times of the year.

Note: This data is presented in Amtrak's fiscal year format, that being from October to September. So for example the first year of 2003 represents October 2002 through September 2003.

2003 - 611,308

2004 - 600,021

2005 - 605,010

2006 - 580,149

2007 - 591,023

2008 - 622,243

Note the drop in sleepers occupancy between 2003 & 2004 was due to the loss of several sleepers in various wrecks during that period. Back before all the wrecks including the big one on the AT, Amtrak had 175 sleepers, plus all trains still had dorm cars. Today there are only 160 sleepers listed as active, and no dorm cars on the single level trains which means that revenue rooms are lost to the crew. Note: I didn't include the Superliner Trans/Dorms in those counts, there are 41 of those cars in service both in 2003 and today. Most trains in 2003 did not sell rooms in the Trans/Dorm, whereas most do sell rooms today.

And the drop in sleepers between 2005 & 2006 was due to the cutting of the Three Rivers and its Heritage sleepers, and the loss of the Sunset east due to Katrina. Take out those anomalies and ridership has continued to increase over the years.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (May 27, 2010)

AlanB said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> > But their pricing model appears to be working most of the time with their market. Sleepers are running with a pretty high load factor, although that is not scientific, just my own observations, and anecdotal evidence. It would be interesting to see real data on that.
> ...


add the TSA to the mix and ridership will drop


----------



## Donctor (May 27, 2010)

Trogdor said:


> This is (like all the others about "Amtrak fares are too high!") turning into a ridiculous thread.
> A few days ago, I was checking California Zephyr service CHI-EMY for the month of June. In over half the days that I checked, all sleepers were sold out. On the remaining dates, there were maybe one or two rooms left.
> 
> If Amtrak could throw two or three more sleepers onto that train, they probably would, and those cars would sell out. However, they can't. The equipment simply isn't there. So, what reason is there for Amtrak to lower the fare? Things in low supply and high demand cost more. That's the way it is.
> ...


Speak da truf.


----------



## Donctor (May 27, 2010)

sunchaser said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > dlagrua said:
> ...



I do the "price dance" too, but I do so with the knowledge that Amtrak losing _my_ business does not mean that Amtrak actually loses any business.

Except for a few days on the Eagle.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 27, 2010)

AlanB said:


> And yet Amtrak's Auto Train does aspire to be more like that Orient Express.


Wait, you mean the Orient Express that went under a few years ago? I sure hope they're not trying to follow _that_ path.


----------



## Donctor (May 27, 2010)

AlanB said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Except on the Auto Train, everyone is riding from one end to the other. (That may not mean anything, because the only "real" place between Chicago and the Pacific Northwest is MSP.)


----------



## goodnightjohnwayne (May 27, 2010)

daxomni said:


> Does DB or JR break even?


Actually, the Germans and Japanese broke up their national railways, and now the highly unprofitable regional services are subsidized by regional governments, not national governments.

Of course, the same is true for most mass transit and commuter rail systems in the United States.


----------



## Big Iron (May 27, 2010)

GaSteve said:


> Big Iron said:
> 
> 
> > I liked the $33.00 slumbercoach fares back in the 80's.
> ...


I made a round trip in the mid 80's to CHI on the Cap and Card with a single slumber coach and roomette for $326.00 (miss that dome car). In 2010 I did the same, roomettes both ways for $416.00. Not to shabby with 25 years of inflation in between.


----------



## nferr (May 27, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> > Since Amtrak is pretty much the only game in town with a few exceptions, if you want to ride the train, you must make the choice on pricing. Is it worth it to you?
> 
> 
> Amtrak is not the only travel game in town. There are the airlines, busses, and automobiles. Deciding whether or not to take Amtrak is a value judgement. They already have the sleepers priced at a premium, IMO the prices are sky high. If we drive we can stay at a great hotel for $125 most anywhere along the major highways and in a room with a king bed. If I have to pay more than $250-$300 + rail fare for a little onboard cubby hole of a bedroom it becomes a bad value. If the prices go up we'll just start driving more. Amtrak doesn't have something so great that they can price gouge for it and expect to fill the trains. Who do they think they are? They can keep their friggin room.


But now you're paying for a hotel room, plus all your meals also. That adds up for two people. Not to mention you're sitting in one spot all night versus continuing your journey on an overnight train. So depending on where you're traveling it might be two nights in a hotel room versus one night on a sleeping car. Plus it's a hundred times more relaxing traveling by sleeper than driving IMO.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (May 27, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> > Since Amtrak is pretty much the only game in town with a few exceptions, if you want to ride the train, you must make the choice on pricing. Is it worth it to you?
> 
> 
> Amtrak is not the only travel game in town. There are the airlines, busses, and automobiles. Deciding whether or not to take Amtrak is a value judgement. They already have the sleepers priced at a premium, IMO the prices are sky high. If we drive we can stay at a great hotel for $125 most anywhere along the major highways and in a room with a king bed. If I have to pay more than $250-$300 + rail fare for a little onboard cubby hole of a bedroom it becomes a bad value. If the prices go up we'll just start driving more. Amtrak doesn't have something so great that they can price gouge for it and expect to fill the trains. Who do they think they are? They can keep their friggin room.




and you fail to take in the account the cost of fuel and wear and tear on the car so while you think "i can stay in a hotel for 99 a night and drive for 1/4 the cost" you have the hotel your meals the gas for the car wear and tear and it takes 3 times as long cause unless you got a passenger who will sleep in the car while you drive you got to pay for meals for the 2 of you. at least with amtraks rooms meals are free and while im sleeping in a 1000 room that room IS MOVING so im still traveling while im sleeping. HOW MANY HOTELS DO YOU KNOW THAT MOVE WHILE YOU SLEEP. so while your sleeping in your 99 dollar room i'll be passing your hotel while giving you the finger cause i'll get to the destination first.


----------



## Cristobal (May 27, 2010)

amtrakwolverine said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > > Since Amtrak is pretty much the only game in town with a few exceptions, if you want to ride the train, you must make the choice on pricing. Is it worth it to you?
> ...


And likely in a much better, and more relaxed mood. 

(Except for the mild depression that follows the end of a great trip by train.)


----------



## amtrakwolverine (May 27, 2010)

Cristobal said:


> (Except for the mild depression that follows the end of a great trip by train.)


only cure for that depression is to ride more trains


----------



## dlagrua (May 27, 2010)

Cristobal said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > dlagrua said:
> ...



OK lets look at some hard numbers. Trip from Lorton VA to Orlando FL on the AutoTrain One way for two. Average price for fare (for two) and a bedroom is $650

Now lets look at the automobile. My Chrysler 300 cost $18,000 (used) with 18,000 miles on the OD. I figure that the car is good for at least another 100,000 miles. Cost of wear and tear is then ,18 per mile. I do all my own repair work. So far in 40,000 miles of driving I have spent $25 on 8 oil changes ($200) brakes ($80) and not much else. So repairs and maintenance cost me $280.00 so far or another 7 cents per mile.

My total cost then per mile is 25 cents. My car gets 25 MPG on the highway so lets do the math.

From Mapquest this trip is 817 miles. and 12.8 hours of driving

Cost of car + maintenace and repair $204.00 817miles

Cost of gasoline $2.75 per gallon/ 25 mpg 89.87 32.68 gallons at 2.75

Cost of lodging (decent motel, one evening) 100.00

Cost for dinner 38.00

Cost for breakfast 15.00

Total cost to drive $446.87

Total savings one way $203.13 (updated error)

Still the comparison doesn't look too bad against a medium bucket fare and you save the time behind the wheel and rest up. I believe the A/T bedroom cost adds about $250.00 for this comparison. At these prices I'd rather take the AutoTrain ( we have 6 trips on it to date)

Now when you start moving up to routes like the LSL or CST and encounter only high bucket $800 bedrooms then it is far more economical to drive but if you can be happy in a roomette then the equation changes dramatically.


----------



## AlanB (May 27, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> OK lets look at some hard numbers. Trip from Lorton VA to Orlando FL on the AutoTrain One way for two. Average price for fare (for two) and a bedroom is $650
> Total cost to drive $446.87
> 
> Total savings one way $406.26


Color me confused but if it's costing $650 for the AT and $446.87 to drive, how the heck are you saving $406.26?

By my calculations you'd be saving $203.13, and that's not taking into consideration that you'd need to buy at least one lunch on the road to, which you didn't include in your calculations. And you're also assuming that you don't get stuck in any traffic which would reduce your gas mileage and increase the costs.


----------



## MikeM (May 27, 2010)

AlanB said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > OK lets look at some hard numbers. Trip from Lorton VA to Orlando FL on the AutoTrain One way for two. Average price for fare (for two) and a bedroom is $650
> ...


Thanks for asking, I was wondering that myself. Unless maybe he forgot to include marriage counseling after traffic tieups on the trip down and back perhaps?


----------



## Donctor (May 27, 2010)

MikeM said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > dlagrua said:
> ...


No, the marriage counseling would make driving _more_ expensive than the train.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (May 28, 2010)

also you don't have to put up with back seat drivers in the front seat.


----------



## RTOlson (May 28, 2010)

Big Iron said:


> I made a round trip in the mid 80's to CHI on the Cap and Card with a single slumber coach and roomette for $326.00 (miss that dome car). In 2010 I did the same, roomettes both ways for $416.00. Not to shabby with 25 years of inflation in between.


Based solely on inflation, that trip in the mid-80s would've cost $660.51 in 2010 dollars, according to the feds' inflation calculator. And vice versa, the 2010 trip would've cost $205.32 in ’85 bucks.


----------



## DowneasterPassenger (May 28, 2010)

RTOlson said:


> Based solely on inflation, that trip in the mid-80s would've cost $660.51 in 2010 dollars, according to the feds' inflation calculator. And vice versa, the 2010 trip would've cost $205.32 in ’85 bucks.


Could someone please make a graph of inflation adjusted average coach and sleeper rail fare for a cross-country trip, for say, the last 100 years?

Kinda like this one for house prices:

http://static.businessinsider.com/~~/f?id=...20&maxY=474

I wish I could have bought a house in 1920.


----------



## DesertRat (May 28, 2010)

SanJoaquinRider said:


> RTOlson said:
> 
> 
> > Based solely on inflation, that trip in the mid-80s would've cost $660.51 in 2010 dollars, according to the feds' inflation calculator. And vice versa, the 2010 trip would've cost $205.32 in ’85 bucks.
> ...


I dunno that the 1920 prices are all that low in comparision to today. People earned cents per hour back then. Even in the 60s, I believe, a dollar per hour was a big deal.


----------



## Ryan (May 28, 2010)

They are, that's the whole point of the chart being inflation-adjusted.


----------



## amamba (May 28, 2010)

dlagrua, those estimates are all very well and good for you, someone who can do their own car maintainence. But for the average American who does not, let's use the IRS mileage rate of $0.50/mile. 817 miles of driving x $0.50 mile = $408.50.

Now add in your (very conservative) hotel cost ($100) and food costs ($53) and the total cost of doing the trip, one way via car = $561.50. That makes that AT a pretty good buy for the averageAmerican


----------



## dlagrua (May 28, 2010)

amamba said:


> dlagrua, those estimates are all very well and good for you, someone who can do their own car maintainence. But for the average American who does not, let's use the IRS mileage rate of $0.50/mile. 817 miles of driving x $0.50 mile = $408.50.Now add in your (very conservative) hotel cost ($100) and food costs ($53) and the total cost of doing the trip, one way via car = $561.50. That makes that AT a pretty good buy for the averageAmerican



Those IRS mileage numbers are average, not factual or actual for more people. If you drive a nice used car as I do the per mile rates are less. Factoring in not doing my own work would have brought what was required on the car up only about $480.00 in the required repairs and maintenance over 40,000 miles or less than .02 per mile. So over 817 miles the cost of reapir and maintenance goes up about $16.50 thats insignificant.

As for lunch, you don't get lunch on the AutoTrain so that cost doesn't factor into the equation.


----------



## Ryan (May 28, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> So far in 40,000 miles of driving I have spent $25 on 8 oil changes ($200) brakes ($80) and not much else. So repairs and maintenance cost me $280.00 so far or another 7 cents per mile.


It's unrealistic to think that over the long haul this is the only maintenance that you'll have to do (which is why the IRS rate is so much higher). Toss in a busted transmission or something like that, and the math changes a bunch.


> Those IRS mileage numbers are average, not factual or actual for more people.


By definition, this statement is false.


----------



## dlagrua (May 28, 2010)

Ryan said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > So far in 40,000 miles of driving I have spent $25 on 8 oil changes ($200) brakes ($80) and not much else. So repairs and maintenance cost me $280.00 so far or another 7 cents per mile.
> ...



OK then consider that over 100,000 miles of driving, by the IRS std rate of .55 it will cost you $55,000 to drive??? Not going to argue the point but it sounds alot higher than it costs me to drive.


----------



## AlanB (May 28, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> amamba said:
> 
> 
> > dlagrua, those estimates are all very well and good for you, someone who can do their own car maintainence. But for the average American who does not, let's use the IRS mileage rate of $0.50/mile. 817 miles of driving x $0.50 mile = $408.50.Now add in your (very conservative) hotel cost ($100) and food costs ($53) and the total cost of doing the trip, one way via car = $561.50. That makes that AT a pretty good buy for the averageAmerican
> ...


First, just try arguing with the IRS. You won't win.

Second, the IRS rate includes wear & tear on your car in addition to the other things mentioned. It also does include an allowance for interest, something that you may or may not have had with your purchase.

Finally, the fact that you don't get lunch on the AT isn't relevant. The point is to make the trip whole. You can't make the same drive without having 3 meals, unless you're planning to be very hungry at some point along the way.

Not to mention the fact that while one doesn't get lunch on the AT, you do get snacks upon boarding, as well as a nice wine tasting.


----------



## amamba (May 28, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> amamba said:
> 
> 
> > dlagrua, those estimates are all very well and good for you, someone who can do their own car maintainence. But for the average American who does not, let's use the IRS mileage rate of $0.50/mile. 817 miles of driving x $0.50 mile = $408.50.Now add in your (very conservative) hotel cost ($100) and food costs ($53) and the total cost of doing the trip, one way via car = $561.50. That makes that AT a pretty good buy for the averageAmerican
> ...


I never mentioned lunch, I used your own conservative estimates for breakfast and dinner and hotel. Although I'm still not sure where I can get a nice sit down breakfast for $15. Seriously, the last time I went to IHOP I spent more like $25 or $30 for breakfast with tip for me and my husband (coffee, orange juice, and an entree for both of us, that is all, and comparable to the diner breakfast on amtrak).

Additionally, the IRS rate takes into account the depreciating value of your car - and it does depreciate with every mile that you drive it. I think the IRS rate is pretty spot on for my vehicular costs.


----------



## dlagrua (May 29, 2010)

OK folks I'll concede that the AutoTrain (if booked a bit early) is the better buy. If we go with the IRS per mile rate we do come closer to my figures which listed the gas expense separately. So 817 miles at .50 or .55 costs you $400, then add in the lodging food, (Tolls to get to Lorton etc) and dinner and the train is attractive. The big plus though is that you don't have the headache of driving 13 hours. The guy who drives the beat up jalopy and stays at Motel 6 will disagree with us though but I believe that s not indicative of most of us here.

We have taken six trips on the AutoTrain, so we obviously agree that this is the way to go. Whether the bedroom fare is a bit more more than driving/lodging or not hasn't factored in so far. At this point in life comfort and stress free transportation take precedence over hours behind the wheel. In the final analysis I'll agree with everything said on costs except for one. The AutoTrain breakfast is a "Continental" and as such is the most basic breakfast offered on any route. Its only worth maybe $5-$7 per person as they only give you coffee, juice, cereal, & rolls.


----------



## amamba (May 29, 2010)

Wow, I didn't realize that the AT breakfast was only continental. Learn something new every day! I wonder why that breakfast is so sparse compared to the other LD routes?


----------



## Ryan (May 29, 2010)

No time - the train is often early (!), so there isn't time for meal service for the entire train.


----------



## AlanB (May 29, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> The AutoTrain breakfast is a "Continental" and as such is the most basic breakfast offered on any route. Its only worth maybe $5-$7 per person as they only give you coffee, juice, cereal, & rolls.


They also have fruit, usually bananas; as well as bagels, muffins, & the aforementioned rolls.


----------



## GAT (Jun 1, 2010)

Just adding a slightly different perspective here, and maybe the conversation can head off in a new direction. Because Amtrak is so heavily subsidized, one can ask what is the government's reason for doing so? I would suggest it is to help people get from A to B, especially in cases where there are no air connections. If indeed that is the reason (and I don't know if it is), then they achieve that admirably by providing reliable and comfortable coach service that is way more appealing than bus travel in most peoples' opinion. And they do so at a very reasonable cost. To my thinking, $148 from EMY to CHI plus meals is not bad for the quality of transportation offered.

OK, if that's the rationale for subsidizing Amtrak - providing basic reliable and comfortable transportation - then everything else Amtrak offers needs to be considered as optional upgrades and should be priced as such, i.e. as high as the market will bear. That's the only way a subsidized Amtrak can begin justifying offering those optional extras. They should be available only if they can reduce the taxpayers' expense to the maximum. Put another way, if the total capital cost and operating cost of 100 additional sleepers were to be more than offset by additional revenues, you bet there'd be more sleepers as soon as possible. But they'd still be sold at as high a price as the market will bear, at least until the need for subsidies was totally eliminated, because the taxpayers are not in the business of subsidizing more than the basic travel necessities.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 1, 2010)

George,

Unfortunately the revenue from sleepers only covers the operating costs, there isn't enough left over to cover the capital costs of new cars. Which is of course why Amtrak must get Federal dollars to buy new cars.

But the sleepers at present do generate a small operating profit of about $40 Million in 2004; I suspect that number is higher now with the better revenue management practices currently in use. And there have been major changes to how revenue management handles the pricing of the sleepers in the last 6 years.

But returning to that sleeping car profit idea subsidizing coach, the USDOT Inspector General determined back in 2004 that on LD trains without sleepers the Federal subsidy of coach passengers was $0.1888. On trains with sleepers the Federal subsidy was $0.1817. So in effect because of the revenue generated by sleepers, Federal taxpayers paid an average of $0.1870 to subsidize coach travel in this country.

More info on those numbers can be found here.


----------



## GAT (Jun 3, 2010)

AlanB said:


> George,
> Unfortunately the revenue from sleepers only covers the operating costs, there isn't enough left over to cover the capital costs of new cars. Which is of course why Amtrak must get Federal dollars to buy new cars.
> 
> But the sleepers at present do generate a small operating profit of about $40 Million in 2004; I suspect that number is higher now with the better revenue management practices currently in use. And there have been major changes to how revenue management handles the pricing of the sleepers in the last 6 years.
> ...


If I read you correctly, Alan, you are saying that sleeper OPERATIONS make a profit that brings down the cost of transporting coach passengers, but that if you factor in the capital cost of the sleepers, they lose money at current sleeper prices. If that's the case, and if the market won't bear sleeper prices sufficient to cover the capital costs, then Amrak shouldn't be offering sleepers, IF my theory about their mission is correct. So I must conclude congress gave Amtrak a bigger mission than just getting passengers from A to B in coach.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 3, 2010)

George said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > George,
> ...


Geroge,

That's an analysis of just one year which was how I was thinking about things. However, if Amtrak wasn't taking that $40M operating profit to help subsidize coach pax, then with train cars having a 40+ year life generally, Amtrak probably could have saved enough money to buy new sleepers.

The other issue here however is that we're also only talking about operating costs, overhead costs would take some of that $40M too. Just how much I have no idea, and therefore can only speculate as to whether or not there would be enough left to buy new cars.

However, my understanding of things is that Congress charged Amtrak with running a National rail network. They didn't specify coach or sleepers in that mandate. And without sleepers, there would be no dining car and quite possibly no cafe cars either. That would make coach only service very unattractive to most people.


----------



## dlagrua (Jun 3, 2010)

I've mentioned this before ands will mention it again. Amtrak loses money on paper. Amtrak employs thousands of workers. These workers pay Federal Income tax and in many cases pay state income tax as well. Amtrak also serves to create 1000's jobs in support services and products like those working to provide waste services, fuel, and food deliveries. If you look at the big picture and all of the federal income tax that the federal government is taking in , Uncle Sam isn't doing too badly. Those "subsidies" that Amtrak gets are just the federal government giving back to Amtrak income taxes that they confiscated from their employees paychecks.

Amtrak also saves wear and tear on highways that saves the government money and is almost a "Green" form of transportation that has minimal effect on the environment.

Getting back to the sleeper and dining sevice; if Amtak did not offer it you can say goodbye to most of the long distance runs. Do you believe that many people would take the EB or CZ and ride for three days sitting up in a chair eating crackers? We wouldn't. As for cost of sleeper service, its already high, far higher than air travel. There is only a limit to how much Amtrak can charge before people say no thanks, and I believe they are already at that limit.


----------



## Trogdor (Jun 3, 2010)

Your argument about Amtrak employees paying income taxes doesn't go very far.

Amtrak's annual budget (at least, as of a few years ago) is about $3 billion. If we were to assume that every last penny of that $3 billion were payroll costs (and, obviously, it isn't), and assume that every Amtrak employee paid 25% of that in taxes (in reality, it's likely less), the total federal income taxes paid would be $750 million.

The federal government's subsidy to Amtrak exceeds that by several hundred million dollars per year.

As far as the argument about Amtrak being green and reducing the wear on highways, it's technically true, but 1) most politicians don't care, and 2) the impact on highways (outside of a few short-distance corridors) is negligible. It probably wouldn't impact the actual lifespan of any of the highways. Don't get me wrong, there are many reasons that Amtrak should be subsidized and continue to exist, including providing people alternatives, and I do believe that highway budgets should be reduced, and highways through large cities should actually get smaller or be removed completely, but long-distance sleeping car trains in and of themselves aren't going to take a significant number of people off the highways.



> Getting back to the sleeper and dining sevice; if Amtak did not offer it you can say goodbye to most of the long distance runs. Do you believe that many people would take the EB or CZ and ride for three days sitting up in a chair eating crackers?


Straw man argument. This topic isn't about eliminating sleeping car or food service, and nobody is proposing such.



> As for cost of sleeper service, its already high, far higher than air travel. There is only a limit to how much Amtrak can charge before people say no thanks, and I believe they are already at that limit.


Again, they are at *your* limit. But given how quickly inventory is flying off the "shelves" so to speak, especially during peak time, and that most sleepers are full, somebody must still think they're a good deal.



> So I must conclude congress gave Amtrak a bigger mission than just getting passengers from A to B in coach.


I think it's a fallacy to believe that congress has given Amtrak any mission at all. If they had, then there wouldn't be these large debates every year or two about whether or not we need Amtrak, whether or not Amtrak is doing its job or if they're just a waste of money, whether or not we should have long-distance trains, etc.

The closest to a "mission" Amtrak has been given by congress is to run trains (and, recently, the only real mission congress has been giving Amtrak has been to study the possibility of running trains). Amtrak has had to pretty much figure the rest out by itself.


----------



## dlagrua (Jun 3, 2010)

> Again, they are at your limit. But given how quickly inventory is flying off the "shelves" so to speak, especially during peak time, and that most sleepers are full, somebody must still think they're a good deal.


Yes the price of sleepers are at my limit but are you saying that other Amtrak travelers don't have the same concerns about cost as I do? Do we assume that the pockets of the Amtrak traveler is so deep that he just pays the price no matter what it is?

I would think not. The point is that Amtrak is but one means of long distance transportation. As such there are alternatives and unless it is assumed that there is no competition then Amtrak prices need to make sense.

At times the sleepers do sell out but I have been on trains where many sleepers were available. You may disagree but I still maintain that the prices of the bedrooms are at the highest level where they still can be sold. If we had sales data perhaps that would tell the story.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jun 3, 2010)

If nobody's buying the bedrooms at the high prices, Amtrak will lower the rates. This is the summer season, the mot popular time for travel, especially on the western trains.


----------



## printman2000 (Jun 3, 2010)

I need everyone to not buy tickets for the Southwest Chief anytime after March 2, 2011.  Hopefully they will bring the prices down to reasonable. Right now they are releasing them at high bucket.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jun 3, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> I still maintain that the prices of the bedrooms are at the highest level where they still can be sold.


I hope so. If they can sell them for a higher price and don't, Amtrak is foregoing revenue they can ill afford to lose.

Amtrak has access to their own sales statistics, and, despite all our Amtrak bashing, probably has a better handle on it that a few people on a board comparing their experience. At least they have data available to them, we do not. Supposition, speculation, and a few individual experiences are no substitute for data.

My own experience, having travelled over 100K miles on western LD sleepers, is that the load factor is consistently pretty high. So I seriously doubt they are overpriced. But I lack the data as well.


----------



## MJL (Jun 3, 2010)

So -- a dumb question -- why doesn't Amtrak run more sleeper cars, especially on the popular routes like EB?


----------



## Ryan (Jun 3, 2010)

They don't have any, and Congress hasn't given them the money to buy them.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jun 3, 2010)

MJL said:


> So -- a dumb question -- why doesn't Amtrak run more sleeper cars, especially on the popular routes like EB?


There aren't any more. They are running the wheels off everything they have.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 3, 2010)

MJL said:


> So -- a dumb question -- why doesn't Amtrak run more sleeper cars, especially on the popular routes like EB?


Including the transition-sleeper dorm cars used on various Amtrak routes, Amtrak has 201 active sleeping cars, and about 12 wrecks, most of them so far beyond fixing, contemplating fixing them would be farcical. They are currently working on fixing the ones that are simply uneconomical to fix. Yes, you read that right.

Of those 201 cars, I believe 10 of them are on rotating protection duty during peak periods, and another 15 are our of service for periodic maintenance. The rest of them are either currently out on the road, in the yard being cleaned, or sitting overnight preparing to go out the next day because scheduling prevents same day turns. Amtrak's system utilization of their sleepers is essentially 100%. And yes, those protection cars are very much needed.


----------



## sleepybobcat (Jun 4, 2010)

If I were running Amtrak, I'd probably raise the bedroom prices as well....(as least on some routes)

I have been planning a trip for a family of 3.... (either 1 bedroom, or two roomettes)

Unfortunately, all bedroom types were completely sold out on 3 of the long-distance

routes during the two week period I was looking at, starting in late June to mid-July.


----------



## MikeM (Jun 4, 2010)

This whole discussion of pricing the rooms at whatever the market will pay overlooks one key political constraint. Suppose I'm a typical middle class taxpayer who wants to ride a train, but has no specific rail lust (unlike most of us). I go out, look at Amtrak services, and realize that the cost for sleeper accommodations is way higher than any hotel I'd ever stay at in my normal life. Ok, so I decide to fly (It's cheaper!) or drive.

Now fast forward to when someone says Amtrak doesn't pay it's own way and is a financial black hole. Having been stiffed in my effort to take the train, I probably will be thinking that Amtrak has absolutely no right to federal funding since their sleeper travel just caters to rich people who can afford $1200 for a sleeper. Why should I kick in any tax revenue to support something that doesn't do anything for "middle class Americans"?

I agree that Amtrak is probably right to utilize a revenue management profile to enhance revenues, and subsidization of variable costs from sleepers allows dining car services to remain on many trains. However, it does have to be kept in reason if we're going to maintain political support for trains going forward. Who is going to take the time to get involved and support enhanced / enlarged train service if it has no tangible connection to typical taxpayers?

In the meantime, we really need to be discussing getting more cars in service faster, and trying to have more than two sleepers on major long distance trains. That way, we would get the benefit of extra contribution margin on multiple cars, which is better for Amtrak than alienating major chunks of the traveling public.


----------



## sleepybobcat (Jun 4, 2010)

MikeM said:


> Now fast forward to when someone says Amtrak doesn't pay it's own way and is a financial black hole. Having been stiffed in my effort to take the train, I probably will be thinking that Amtrak has absolutely no right to federal funding since their sleeper travel just caters to rich people who can afford $1200 for a sleeper. Why should I kick in any tax revenue to support something that doesn't do anything for "middle class Americans"?


I agree with you... but on the other hand, I don't expect to be able to buy a new Cadillac at 50% off MSRP

just because the U.S. taxpayers have bailed out GM. IIRC, the US government poured roughtly *60 billion*

dollars into GM. *60 billion dollars is a little more than the total Federal subsidy to Amtrak for the next 15 to 20 years... *

wait.... on second thought, I think that every American, as an indirect owner of GM, should be given a steep

discount when purchasing a GM vehicle!


----------



## jmbgeg (Jun 4, 2010)

printman2000 said:


> I need everyone to not buy tickets for the Southwest Chief anytime after March 2, 2011.  Hopefully they will bring the prices down to reasonable. Right now they are releasing them at high bucket.


Likewise, would everyone with a deluxe bedroom who paid high bucket for June EB travel cancel their reservation so I can find some space? LOL.


----------



## MikeM (Jun 4, 2010)

sleepybobcat said:


> MikeM said:
> 
> 
> > Now fast forward to when someone says Amtrak doesn't pay it's own way and is a financial black hole. Having been stiffed in my effort to take the train, I probably will be thinking that Amtrak has absolutely no right to federal funding since their sleeper travel just caters to rich people who can afford $1200 for a sleeper. Why should I kick in any tax revenue to support something that doesn't do anything for "middle class Americans"?
> ...


I don't think it's such an issue as offering a steep discount below cost, just don't go all nuts and turn all long distance trains into VIA's Canadian (on the pricing side - no danger of that on the service and amenity side...).

As for GM, I am afraid they've done too much discounting in the past, and not enough focus on quality and amenities. The wife has a Cadillac which she loves, we purchased a two year old car used, low mileage, and we've in under a year had four warranty repairs on it. The company and dealer have stood behind the car, and in truth it's a pleasure to drive on road trips. But in the same time, my little Honda Element (aka the Nerd Wagon) hasn't had anything other than oil changes and typical scheduled repairs, despite more mileage traveled. I hope that the government intervention buys the company the breathing room to make competitive product, almost all of our vehicles have been US made, and I'd like to keep it that way.


----------



## Donctor (Jun 4, 2010)

MikeM said:


> Now fast forward to when someone says Amtrak doesn't pay it's own way and is a financial black hole. Having been stiffed in my effort to take the train, I probably will be thinking that Amtrak has absolutely no right to federal funding since their sleeper travel just caters to rich people who can afford $1200 for a sleeper. Why should I kick in any tax revenue to support something that doesn't do anything for "middle class Americans"?


Did it ever occur to you that space might cost less if you book further in advance? There is no roomette that has a low bucket of $1200.

You do not suddenly know what you're talking about just because you are pissed that you didn't plan ahead.


----------



## MikeM (Jun 4, 2010)

Amtking said:


> MikeM said:
> 
> 
> > Now fast forward to when someone says Amtrak doesn't pay it's own way and is a financial black hole. Having been stiffed in my effort to take the train, I probably will be thinking that Amtrak has absolutely no right to federal funding since their sleeper travel just caters to rich people who can afford $1200 for a sleeper. Why should I kick in any tax revenue to support something that doesn't do anything for "middle class Americans"?
> ...


I know to plan ahead. My neighbor, who tried to book six weeks out on the CZ and got hit with this rate, didn't know to, and made sure the whole neighborhood knew about the "rich train slobs". Then again, I've had situations where I have tried to book a bedroom from Newton to Chicago four months out, and the rate was, and stayed at or above $570 for one night's accommodation.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2010)

Amtking said:


> MikeM said:
> 
> 
> > Now fast forward to when someone says Amtrak doesn't pay it's own way and is a financial black hole. Having been stiffed in my effort to take the train, I probably will be thinking that Amtrak has absolutely no right to federal funding since their sleeper travel just caters to rich people who can afford $1200 for a sleeper. Why should I kick in any tax revenue to support something that doesn't do anything for "middle class Americans"?
> ...


If you go back to the beginning you will see that this discussions is about the fact that planning ahead to get the low price is not working so well anymore.


----------

