Will Americans ever take sleepers again?

[northnorthwest]

Let's imagine a fantasy land here in the USA where Amtrak has amazing funding and there is an extensive rail system with many more options, higher speeds, modern equipment, on time service, etc.

Let's imagine in that world there is extensive, modern, affordable (you can define it) options for overnight travel between cities of a certain distance in beautiful sleepers. For example, the northeast to ATL, east coast cities to CHI, LA to SF, etc....

If such a system were in place, would people take advantage of it?

For me I see the advantages of a pleasant and relaxing train trip overnight, allowing time to work/relax/eat while en route, not having to rush to some early morning flight outside the downtown core near where I live, avoiding the airport hassles, etc. Basically returning to a more civilized way of life.

But would the general public really ever come back to overnight rail? Or will the speed or the plane always win out no matter what?

 

[Guest]

Sleepers are way too expensive. It's really not justifiable unless you've retired and want view the country on rails.

 

[Blackwolf]

I'm American. I'm young. I'm far from retirement. I'm not rich. But I exclusively take sleepers when traveling long distance on Amtrak.

They are plenty justifiable. There IS a sizable market for the service. If anything, the service could and should be expanded in the form multiple frequencies on established lines all offering a mix of Coach, mid-line (so-called Business Class) and Sleeper.

I see those whining about the costs of sleeper service in a similar light to those looking to get the Ritz at Motel 6 prices. Especially when, in the same breath, they bemoan the profitability of the service over all.

 

[Paulus]

Why would I, and by extension the average traveler, want to take an extra couple of days off of work and pay two to three times the airfare?

 

[Mark]

I wish Amtrak offered the couchettes that European City Night Line's offer. There are rooms with 4 or 6 beds to a room that fold into seats when not in use. They allow travelers to lay down overnight without having to pay for an entire sleeper. They're essentially hostels on wheels. I'd love an Amtrak option to lay down horizontally with no frills - share space, no dining meals included. I'd like to think that could be offered affordably.

 

[MARC Rider]

Sleepers are way too expensive. It's really not justifiable unless you've retired and want view the country on rails.

I'm not retired, and I actually use sleepers for business travel. I'd use them more if there were more routes and the OTP issues were resolved.

I use them on the Silvers, the Capitol Limited, the Cresent (I ride to Greenville,but NY/WAS to Atlanta is also practical.)

Basically, if you can leave at the end of a workday and arrive in the morning, you save a night in a hotel room, and it's a lot less stressful than a predawn flight.

As for longer trips, yes, at times six days on a train for a coast to coast round trip is impractical, but there are plenty of people who do this as a road trip, which takes even more time.

As for the expense, assuming we have the fantasy presented by the original poster, that would mean that Amtrak has been able to obtain all the additional sleeper capacity it needs. Thus, fares will be lower because the company can make more money from the increased patronage. Part of the reason why sleepers are so expensive now is because the trains are running full, and there's no more capacity. Supply and demand and all that. Although an additional fantasy could be that Amtrak is able to offer an intermediate level of overnight service between sleeper and coach, either Euro style couchettes or some kind of lie-flat coach.

 

[northnorthwest]

Yes, before we get further along with this and complaints that are immaterial to my question, please be sure to read the fantasy scenario I presented.

My question is really about whether most Americans (or enough, at least) would be "comfortable" with doing an overnight train trip in a sleeper situation of some type.

And again, this question is about trips that can be done in one overnight trip, boarding in the evening/dinner (when the workday is over) and arriving in the morning/breakfast (before the next workday starts).

 

[Paulus]

Yes, before we get further along with this and complaints that are immaterial to my question, please be sure to read the fantasy scenario I presented.

My question is really about whether most Americans (or enough, at least) would be "comfortable" with doing an overnight train trip in a sleeper situation of some type.

And again, this question is about trips that can be done in one overnight trip, boarding in the evening/dinner (when the workday is over) and arriving in the morning/breakfast (before the next workday starts).

Any trip where you can do that, you could also board a plane in the evening and relax in a much nicer hotel. Or sleep in your own bed and catch an early flight if that's your preference. I'm sure some people would be willing to do that, but enough to make it worthwhile?

 

[professional critic]

As far as sleeper prices go they are a far cry from lodging at the Ritz Carlton or Waldorf Astoria. Amtrak sleepers are typically beat up and not maintained or often cleaned well. IMO they are way overpriced but apparently some are willing to pay the high prices!! They are more private and easier to sleep in than coach but that's about it.

 

[Alexandria Nick]

I can never take more than a week off work at a time. I'm far from unique. It's just not feasible for me, even if it was the low low price of a dollar.

 

[TVRM610]

the sleepers are already selling out... doesn't that tell you there is a market for this service? It doesn't really matter who wants to buy it... if they are selling out SOMEONE is paying for it. When I ride Amtrak I see a little bit of everyone. I'm not sure why some posters have said only retired people ride in sleepers... that's far from the case. (I'm far from retirement!).

The Silver Trains, the Capitol, the Lake Shore, and the Crescent all have great markets for sleepers. They all connect busy markets. They all make good time too... I feel like these routes could sell out several more sleepers each.

The Western Trains will always be a different animal... Chicago to LAX is always going to make more sense via Air for example.

 

[TinCan782]

On a trip LA to Temple, TX on the Texas Eagle, we had a "young" couple in a roomette in our sleeper (the 2230 "though" sleeper). Way younger than us! He worked for BNSF in Temple.

 

[neroden]

Let's imagine in that world there is extensive, modern, affordable (you can define it) options for overnight travel between cities of a certain distance in beautiful sleepers. For example, the northeast to ATL, east coast cities to CHI, LA to SF, etc....

If such a system were in place, would people take advantage of it?

People already do. The fact that sleepers are constantly sold out on the Lake Shore Limited is a sign of this.
However, to be really attractive, a sleeper has to hit exactly the right time window -- the single overnight, so that you get the advantage of sleeping while you travel. (For instance: Buffalo to Chicago or Syracuse to Chicago.) Most of them actually don't hit that window. NY to Chicago is a less attractive citypair for a sleeper on the schedule, but the cities involved are so huge it attracts a lot of people too.

Convoluted multi-day sleeper trips are never going to be commonplace again, though some people will take them. As MARC Rider explains, they compete with the "road trip", which people still do for some reason.

 

[neroden]

Yes, before we get further along with this and complaints that are immaterial to my question, please be sure to read the fantasy scenario I presented.

My question is really about whether most Americans (or enough, at least) would be "comfortable" with doing an overnight train trip in a sleeper situation of some type.

And again, this question is about trips that can be done in one overnight trip, boarding in the evening/dinner (when the workday is over) and arriving in the morning/breakfast (before the next workday starts).

Any trip where you can do that, you could also board a plane in the evening and relax in a much nicer hotel.

This is simply a false statement. And that's an important thing to realize, Paulus.
The rise of the hub system on airlines has meant bizarre indirect routings with slow transfers; the major airports are an hour outside of town in Denver, Chicago, and New York... there are a number of places where you can go overnight by train, but your alternative is a 5-6 hour trip by multiple planes.

So you can board a plane in the evening and trudge into your nice hotel at midnight. Or board a plane just after lunch and make it to your nice hotel in the evening. Or sleep in your own bed, catch an early flight, and arrive at lunchtime.

.... or you can take the train. Many people, given those options, will choose to take the train.

Yes, this is due to a markedly inferior airline system to the one we had in the past; and a theoretical state-subsidized airline system with lots of direct flights (and no TSA) could steal most of the business back. That isn't what seems to be happening, though.

 

[neroden]

the sleepers are already selling out... doesn't that tell you there is a market for this service? It doesn't really matter who wants to buy it... if they are selling out SOMEONE is paying for it. When I ride Amtrak I see a little bit of everyone. I'm not sure why some posters have said only retired people ride in sleepers... that's far from the case. (I'm far from retirement!).

The Silver Trains, the Capitol, the Lake Shore, and the Crescent all have great markets for sleepers. They all connect busy markets. They all make good time too... I feel like these routes could sell out several more sleepers each.

The Western Trains will always be a different animal... Chicago to LAX is always going to make more sense via Air for example.

Having ridden on several trains repeatedly now, my anecdotal belief is the sleeper clientele on the SW Chief, California Zephyr west of Denver, Coast Starlight south of Sacramento, and Empire Builder from Chicago to Minneapolis skews older. The sleeper clientele on the Lake Shore Limited and California Zephyr east of Denver does *not* seem to; it is full of younger people. (I've never taken the other routes since they have never been convenient.)

 

[WoodyinNYC]

I can never take more than a week off work at a time. ...

Some folks are so eager to say, NO! that they don't care what's the question?

The Original Poster asks about, "overnight travel between cities of

a certain distance .... For example, the northeast to ATL, east coast

cities to CHI, LA to SF, etc…."

There is a 6-day or 7-day difference between overnight and a week.

Then the OP realizes that some folks don't want to answer his question,

so he says in post #7, "And again, this question is about trips that can

be done in one overnight trip, boarding in the evening/dinner (when

the workday is over) and arriving in the morning/breakfast (before

the next workday starts)."

If you insist on posting irrelevant replies about week-long trips, you are

in the wrong thread.

 

[neutralist]

America reading comprehension near the level of toilet

 

[Alexandria Nick]

I can never take more than a week off work at a time. ...

Some folks are so eager to say, NO! that they don't care what's the question?

...

There is a 6-day or 7-day difference between overnight and a week.....

If you insist on posting irrelevant replies about week-long trips, you are

in the wrong thread.

Then what's the point? Are you going from DC to Chicago (a single overnight that burns a day and a half, which turns into three total days lost) and immediately turning around?

America reading comprehension near the level of toilet

No, I comprehended quite clearly. Those two overnights are part of my week's vacation. Otherwise, like I just said a few lines above, what's the point of the trip in the first place?

 

[neroden]

Nick, what you just wrote doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

The entire hypothesis of this thread is single-overnight trains. A single overnight takes... a single overnight, where you would have been sleeping anyway, presumably.

Your bizarre fantasy that it makes "three total days lost" doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Huh? How does time work in your world? Maybe you pop amphetamines instead of sleeping when you're on vacation? That would explain it.

...oh wait, I see, you're saying that the Capitol Limited isn't fast enough to make DC-Chicago a proper single-overnight market. Which is true but irrelevant to the question asked.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

I can never take more than a week off work at a time. ...

Some folks are so eager to say, NO! that they don't care what's the question?

...

There is a 6-day or 7-day difference between overnight and a week.....

If you insist on posting irrelevant replies about week-long trips, you are

in the wrong thread.

Then what's the point? Are you going from DC to Chicago (a single overnight that burns a day and a half, which turns into three total days lost) and immediately turning around?

Who is immediately turning around? If you arrive before 10 a.m. and leave after 5 p.m. can't you get in the meetings you need? If not, stay overnight in a hotel to have two days for work.

DC to Chicago is not a good example, as Neroden explains above. These are NOT overnight trips, they are overnight and then some. But that train could give you a fairly good ride Pittsburgh to South Bend, departing midnight, arriving before 8 a.m. (under normal conditions, that is, not with the on-going NS meltdown on this route). The return would be 6:40 p.m. out of Chicago, arriving Pgh at 5 a.m., so dawdle over a nice breakfast and your laptop until the office opens. But what to do instead, get up at 4 a.m. to take a 6 a.m. flight to O'Hare, get to Pgh Intnl Airport, arrive in the Triangle, um, much much later than 5 a.m., probably well after the office is open.

Or let's leave Greeneville, SC, at 11 p.m., or Atlanta at 8:15 p.m., and arrive in D.C. by 10 a.m., having had breakfast in the diner.

Atlanta will give you a non-stop flight to National Airport, but Greenville will probably have you changing planes in ATL or Charlotte, with four or more exhausting hours in airports and airplanes.

Let's do take the sleeper from Chicago at 8 p.m., to arrive in Memphis at 6:30 a.m., then after some BBQ and Beale Street jazz, return the same day on the 10:40 p.m. out of Memphis to arrive in Chicago at 9 a.m. We'd better make our reservations in advance. That segment tends to be full.

At present that aren't enuff trains with city pairs where one-day go-and-return overnights are practical. But there are some. More where it's two day, go overnight train-then overnight hotel in end city-overnight train return.

Continued investment in corridors could add more good overnight connections. A Chicago-Cleveland corridor at 110 mph speeds could cut 3 or 4 hours out of the trip times Chicago-D.C. so that one could work in the future. Of course, it wouldn't be "that one". Passenger use would demand more frequencies, with at least morning, afternoon, and evening departures from each end city, making evening departures with good morning arrivals for more city pairs, like Chicago-Pgh and Toledo-D.C., along the route.

Remember that end-to-end riders are usually 15% of LD passengers. To see where the riders are, you have to look at the midpoint cities like Pgh, Cleveland, Toledo, or on Neroden's train, look at Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Toledo.

But looking at D.C.-Chicago or NYC-Chicago is almost like looking at NYC-L.A. You'll be missing the 85% of the riders on board going hundreds of miles for 5 hours, or 10 or 12 hours, daylight or overnight, but certainly not going thousands of miles for a week. That end-to-end trip taking days on end hardly exists in the real world, less than 15% of the LD trains' riders

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Let's imagine a fantasy land here in the USA where Amtrak has amazing funding and there is an extensive rail system with many more options, higher speeds, modern equipment, on time service, etc.

Let's imagine in that world there is extensive, modern, affordable (you can define it) options for overnight travel between cities of a certain distance in beautiful sleepers. For example, the northeast to ATL, east coast cities to CHI, LA to SF, etc....

If such a system were in place, would people take advantage of it?

For me I see the advantages of a pleasant and relaxing train trip overnight, allowing time to work/relax/eat while en route, not having to rush to some early morning flight outside the downtown core near where I live, avoiding the airport hassles, etc. Basically returning to a more civilized way of life.

But would the general public really ever come back to overnight rail? Or will the speed or the plane always win out no matter what?

Next year will begin a great experiment testing this question.

Amtrak has 50 Viewliners now in the fleet. The 25 new Viewliner II

sleepers and 10 bag dorms will increase capacity something like 60%.

If the sleepers fill up in 2016 and 2017, we'll know that we need a lot more.

It's actually not that many people now riding in sleepers. It probably

won't be hard to raise that number by 60% or more. Srsly.

 

[Anderson]

I'm going to generally be realistic here: Assuming that you could run trains in the 15-25 car length range, the price would probably come down a bit from where we are with things still being profitable. More properly, you'd probably see a three-class system emerge (let's call it coach, sleeper, and sleeper plus) with the top tier being nicer but more expensive than what we have now and the middle tier being a slightly cheaper version of what we have now. The best way I can think of to explain this is that tier one would be Iowa Pacific, tier two Amtrak sleepers at present, and tier three being Amtrak coach.

Under such a scenario with 3-5 trains per day on most routes, I do believe you would have a major boom in Amtrak ridership. You might not be able to swamp, say, New York-Chicago flights, but Albany/Syracuse/Buffalo-Chicago would be a major winner. In tourist-heavy markets, such as the Northeast-Florida, you'd probably see a decent number of railroad/resort and railroad/cruise packages come together. In that context, you could easily have trains where the back six or eight cars don't need to be platformed south of Washington or Richmond and that only need to be platformed once south of there. I suspect you'd see something similar on a number of other routes as well (there are already a bunch of rail-cruise things out of Seattle; I suspect you'd see an increase in the number of those as well as some of those running into LA and/or SF. Honestly, separately-branded services such as this (and I think we can see Disney running some stuff in particular).

My view, in essence, is that there are a number of markets in the range of 8-14 hours that you could make a major dent in; you could probably get up into a longer range for tourist-heavy markets and/or markets where air service just plain stinks. There are more than a few places where airline connections are so clunky and indirect that you end up spending a lot of time and money flying domestic coach and sitting around terminals.

==============================

Frankly, if you could knock an hour off the Cap and set it up to arrive early in the business day (depart CHI at 1600-1700 and arrive into WAS around 1000) it would work. It wouldn't quite be a single-market train (I would still envision intermediate stops at PGH, TOL, and CLE at a bare minimum), but the single market would go a long way towards it. You'd probably throw in at least one other train to take up the "local" traffic (and probably to play "cleanup" on the route with the Western trains...which can go to hell even when the oil trains aren't in the way the weather can do plenty), likely with a schedule aimed at PGH-WAS traffic (say, 2100 out of CHI, 1500 into WAS: Still early enough to connect with, at a bare minimum, the Meteor but where you'd have a pretty straightforward daylight service to/from Pittsburgh).

 

[cirdan]

Yes, I believe there is a market. Trains are city center to city center, not airport to airport. An overnight train fare is often less than an airfare + a hotel (+ often two taxis seeing public transit to many airports sucks). If I know I have to get up at stupid o'clock to catch an early flight, I cannot sleep at all. I much prefer to sleep in the train. I arrive more relaxed and more rested that way.

But what needs to be addressed is punctuality. I need to rely on the train being there at 8:00am if i have to be in a meeting at 9:00 am. The give or take three hours attitude to punctuality that is okay for landcruise type trains is not okay for the overnight business traveller.

 

[Ziv]

I don't think that it would take all that much more money than what Amtrak has been getting to transform it into a noticably better service. If Amtrak is getting somewhere around $1.4B annually for the past several years and that funding was increased to a dedicated $1.7B per year for the next 5 or 6 years (God knows how they would guarantee it, though) then Amtrak could buy more sleepers/diners/bag-dorms (Viewliner II sleepers mostly but not exclusively) and push up the ridership and revenue figures in a appreciable fashion. The multi-year funding would allow Amtrak to make steady long term buys (often in conjunction with regional services) instead of the more expensive short term buys.

It would also allow Amtrak to try a couple of relatively small tests, i.e. lie flat at an angle sections of a standard coach car, or a couchettes car type, or a sleeper car that packs in more single sleepers perhaps like the Australian cars that have 16-20 roomettes. And how do they fit that many in, anyway?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roomette

Regardless, if Amtrak had dedicated funding at a slightly higher figure than they currently have, I think that they could make a much more pleasant system in relatively short time, and it would be able to run many more trains, in time, and possibly expand a route or two after a few years. I hate to say it, but the Western LD routes would probably change the least but the 400-800 miles city pairings and regional services would probably benefit the most, due to the utility of being able to sleep on the train after a good days work, wake up in the destination city rested and ready for work, get the work done, and then hop the sleeper for home, all without the hassel of getting to an airport that lies 20-40 miles outside the city and then having to battle lines and the TSA to board.

Just think about it. You have $300M a year on top of todays Amtrak funding, you don't have to spend it all in one place, and you have the assurance that funding will stay in place for at least 5 or 6 years. You can buy sleepers, diners, baggage cars at a steady pace, toss in a locomotive purchase, some double tracking every year, a few bridges, eliminate some at grade crossings with overpasses/underpasses, increase the frequency of more popular routes... It wouldn't take $2B a year to make a huge difference, in time.

 

[City of Miami]

Why do folks keep on with the delusion that sleepers are 'always selling out', always sold out' etc? In my experience it is much closer to 'occasionally selling out.' I call 'sold out' when I see those words on the Amtrak booking site in red letters. Do you see something different? Even on the Cardinal [which has reverted to 1 sleeper now - why? probably because they do not regularly recover enough revenue to pay the expense of a second] I Rarely see those words.