Thanks. I was especially confused by the top/bottom bed distinction.
Amtrak long distance fares 2021-2023
- Thread starter Sidney
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
As previously stated...
But the single Burlington fare between CHI and SFO of $67.39 reported by joelkfla is about $8 or 11% less than what can be gleaned from the pairs of D&RGW fares - and that makes good sense.
So while the D&RGW timetables do indeed give SFO fares, these D&RGW timetables do NOT give a single one-shot fare between SFO and CHI. Total fares must be pieced together from five different pairs of partial routes found on Page 9 of the D&RGW timetable.
But sometimes I don't find things so well. I can't find a SFO/CHI fare anywhere in the D&RGW timetable. If there is one, kindly tell me exactly where to look.
Once again, NO SINGLE FARE BATEWEEN CHI AND SFO CAN BE FOUND IN THIS D&RGW TIMETABLE! But from the partial route fares given in the D&RGW timetable, fares can pieced together by adding the fares from CHI to (either Colorado Springs, Denver, Glenwood Springs, Grand Junction or Pueblo) to the fares from (either of those same 5 places) to SFO.
But the single Burlington fare between CHI and SFO of $67.39 reported by joelkfla is about $8 or 11% less than what can be gleaned from the pairs of D&RGW fares - and that makes good sense.
So while the D&RGW timetables do indeed give SFO fares, these D&RGW timetables do NOT give a single one-shot fare between SFO and CHI. Total fares must be pieced together from five different pairs of partial routes found on Page 9 of the D&RGW timetable.
But sometimes I don't find things so well. I can't find a SFO/CHI fare anywhere in the D&RGW timetable. If there is one, kindly tell me exactly where to look.
Ryan
Court Jester
No, you're correct @niemi24s. There isn't a single fare to be found in there.
Top/Bottom bed distinction refer to sectionals, where you don't have a private room - they're not equivalent to a roomette where you have a private space.
We seem to have demonstrated what my memory recalls from every other time we've played this game. Sleepers aren't significantly more expensive once you factor in for inflation, yes the gap is smaller but that's because coach today (adjusted for inflation) is significantly cheaper. I'm pretty sure that those longing to go back to the old days don't actually want to keep the "ZOMGSUPARHIGH SLEEPER FARES" and significantly increase the cost of a coach ticket.
Top/Bottom bed distinction refer to sectionals, where you don't have a private room - they're not equivalent to a roomette where you have a private space.
We seem to have demonstrated what my memory recalls from every other time we've played this game. Sleepers aren't significantly more expensive once you factor in for inflation, yes the gap is smaller but that's because coach today (adjusted for inflation) is significantly cheaper. I'm pretty sure that those longing to go back to the old days don't actually want to keep the "ZOMGSUPARHIGH SLEEPER FARES" and significantly increase the cost of a coach ticket.
Exvalley
Conductor
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2020
- Messages
- 1,379
This is especially true when you consider that sleeper fares generally did not include meals.
On the other hand... sleeper fares back then were much more competitive in comparison to airline fares. The drastic change since then is that airline fares (adjusted for inflation) have come WAY down. This is probably why Amtrak coach fares are much lower when you adjust for inflation. There is more of a direct competition with airlines in regard to coach class.
It is also why Amtrak sleeper fares "feel" much higher - even if they aren't when you adjust for inflation. Because compared to the alternatives, sleeper fares really are MUCH higher now.
Heck to get old! Your correct, I was looking at the SF name at the bottom and the Chicago name at the top and didn't realize they were showing fares in both directions from Colorado. That explains a lot. I will have to keep searching to see if I can find a time table for that period in time with the starting point Chicago and ending in SF. That brochure is a bit tricky I see now. I hate to start a new topic but I wonder why the DRG decided to not let the California trains run on the Royal Gorge Routing?
Ryan
Court Jester
That's an excellent point as well.
I wasn't alive to witness it personally, but my sense is that its our old friend supply and demand at work. Airline capacity (both in plane size and number of flights) is probably significantly higher than it was 60 years ago. Increased supply would explain the lower fares, and gives credence to what should be the AU motto: The best thing to fix Amtrak is moar Amtrak.
FWIW, I do have some current Amtrak Roomette fare buckets for one adult for partial routes should anyone want to make similar comparisons. As an example, the D&RGW timetable shows a Pullman Roomette fare from CHI to DEN to be $39.95 + $17.10 = $57.05 in May of 1965 which inflates to $496 as of last month.
Here's how that $496 fits into the current Roomette fare bucket scheme for one adult between CHI and DEN: $365, 440, 496, 510, 586 and 661 which puts it $14 or 3% below the current middle bucket.
However, this and similar comparisons lack merit if meals were not included in the 1965 fares. But if somebody wants to dig up the CZ menus and come up with prices for the meals - have at it. I've got better ways to waste my time!
Here's how that $496 fits into the current Roomette fare bucket scheme for one adult between CHI and DEN: $365, 440, 496, 510, 586 and 661 which puts it $14 or 3% below the current middle bucket.
However, this and similar comparisons lack merit if meals were not included in the 1965 fares. But if somebody wants to dig up the CZ menus and come up with prices for the meals - have at it. I've got better ways to waste my time!
Its almost impossible to think how 57.00 could now cost 496.00. But then I have some turn of the previous century Sears Catalogs and a gallon of paint is like 50 cents. A beautiful cast iron cooking stove is maybe 7.95 and thats high compared to most things.
The above photos of RR fares and Pullman accommodation fares was the way it worked. To your first-class fare was added whatever the accommodation charge was. The lower berth $5.80 in the left-edge column was the base unit so to speak, so an upper berth was $4.40 but all the other accommodations were more. The first line beginning with $5.80 was the amount for the length of a basic overnight trip or fraction thereof, and the progressively higher charges were for increasing time & mileage trips.
It appears that the CZ at that time was operated jointly by Burlington, D&RG, & WP. Burlington ran the segment from Chicago westward, WP ran from CA eastward, and D&RG ran the middle section, from CO westward. So D&RG might sell tickets between CHI & some point on its route, or between SF & its route, but never between CHI & SF, hence no reason to show fares between SF & CHI on its timetable.
It's really just the same as Amtrak (except for no multiple buckets.) There's a rail fare component, and then you add a sleeper fare supplement. Amtrak calls them fare & accommodations charge.
So on the fare chart, you start with 1st Class rail fare (according to @Willbridge.) Then you add the sleeper fare shown for the lower berth, to get the complete lower berth fare.
But to save space, instead of listing all the possible sleeper accommodations for each city pair, they put them in a separate table, indexed by the lower berth fare. So take the lower berth fare found in the fare table, and find that in the left column of the Other Accommodations table. Then read right to find the supplement for the desired accommodation, and add that to the 1st Class fare instead of the adding the lower berth fare. That's why the upper berth fares in the Accommodations table are less than the lower berth, but all the private rooms are higher.
To sum up, take the 1st Class fare, and add either the lower berth fare, or the corresponding fare for another type of accommodation.
Ryan
Court Jester
Math works. Compound interest is a hell of a thing.
Qapla
Engineer
Personally, I was alive back in the 1960's - and, yes, things were "cheaper" back then compared to what they cost now. And, while I understand that, accounting for inflation, prices can be stated as being "equivalent" to some "adjusted" price today ... I am not currently making and spending "inflated" money. I am spending out of the funds I currently have and paying prices currently being charged - regardless of how they compare to prices in the 60's
I do not need to "adjust for inflation" to know when something is too expensive and therefore not buy it ... that goes for products like cars, TV's and food - as well as train/sleeper fares.
Regardless of inflation, IMHO train sleeper fares are just plain too high - it is as simple as that.
I do not need to "adjust for inflation" to know when something is too expensive and therefore not buy it ... that goes for products like cars, TV's and food - as well as train/sleeper fares.
Regardless of inflation, IMHO train sleeper fares are just plain too high - it is as simple as that.
Ryan
Court Jester
You raise an excellent point that would quickly take us into political territory, but yes - failure of wages to increase in step with inflation (partially due to a horrifically stagnant minimum wage) lead to the growing income inequality we see results in us kids not being able to afford that which you old folks were able to "back in the day".
Exvalley
Conductor
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2020
- Messages
- 1,379
And don't forget that in the 1960s way more households had just one wage earner. So when you compare household income from then to now, the difference is even worse than it seems.
On the other hand, the shift to overseas production of consumer goods has made some things cheaper. A television, for example, is much cheaper today than it was in the 1960s.
danasgoodstuff
OBS Chief
So much has changed since the '60s that meaningful comparisons are difficult if not impossible. Generalized inflation rates miss a lot. Factoring in wages and housing costs and food could give you a look at what's left - discretionary income to spend on travel and other things. But it all gets pretty squishy and can be manipulated to paint very different pictures. And the cost of other modes of transport and convenience too... Marginal futility. But fun if you have the time and inclination.
Challenge accepted!
From menus on the streamlinermemories.info website I referenced earlier, 1969 full dinner in the dining car averaged around $4.25, lunch with a cooked entree around $3.80, and hot breakfast around $2.25. Based on the schedule, travelers might eat 1 of each for a total of $10.30. The menus were from 1968 & 1969, so using 12/68 as a starting point, 2021 value is $82.46, + your $496 roomette estimate puts the total at $578, which is just short of the 2nd highest bucket.
So once again, Amtrak sleeper fares are not out of line with inflated values of 1960's fares, but coach fares are a much better deal.
Typical items on the menu for breakfast are ham & eggs, shirred eggs with sausage, and wheat cakes or french toast with bacon or sausage. Fruit or juice, toast or muffin, & beverage included.
For lunch, selections in that price range are lamb chop or steak (ham & eggs much cheaper), with soup, veggie, dessert, & beverage included.
Dinner in that price range offered halibut, chicken, pork chops, or roast beef (steak $1.70 higher), again all-inclusive except for a salad, which was 45¢ extra.
Last edited:
Lower labor & environmental mitigation costs overseas are a major factor, but not the only one. Technology advances, automation, and reduced customer service are also factors.
Back in the 60's, companies still cared about customer loyalty & good will. Now, just about everything is a commodity. Whoever can produce it cheapest with barely acceptable quality gets the business.
I agree with your conclusion about sleeper fares, but here's my take on Coach. CHI/DEN in Coach for one adult was $31.46 in 1965 which inflates up to $274 now. Here's how that inflated $274 coach ticket fits in with the current six Coach buckets on the CZ between CHI and DEN: $(141), 176, 224, 271, 274, 339, 346.
So the way I see it, Coach fares were a much better deal back in 1965 only when the two current highest buckets are being offered by Amtrak.
Q: Can you find either of those $339 or $346 high bucket Coach fares being offered by Amtrak?
I couldn't in about three dozen searches. If they're never or rarely offered I can only conclude that the 1965 Coach fares on the D&RGW were NEVER OR RARELY a better deal than those now offered by Amtrak.
Last edited:
We all should remember that sleeper services 1920's -1960's were geared towards wealthy clientele. So was dining. Most middle class folks would not be in sleepers, they'd be in coach.
I booked a roomette on the Starlight in June at low bucket. I wanted to connect to the Builder to Chicago and the fare was way too high. Unless it comes down,I ll fly home. In an earlier post I mentioned I have done circle trips for many years and booking this far out you were almost guaranteed low bucket. Not any more
The railroad fares were structured were similar to Amtrak's. A rail fare and an accommodation charge. The railroads charge a First Class rail fare that was higher than coach for most sleeper service. Slumbercoaches and Milwaukee's Touralux service used coach rail fares.
The rail fares went to the railroad and the accommodation charge went to Pullman if Pullman operated sleeping cars.
You got separate coupons for the rail and the accommodation. The railroad conductor lifted your rail coupon, and the Pullman conductor lifted the accommodation coupon.
It isn't that different from Amtrak's rail fare and accommodation charge system used to this day (although Amtrak seems to be trying to hide it these days).
To decode the chart:
A roomette from Colorado Springs to Chicago:
$39.95 First Class Rail Fare.
$12.25 Lower Berth fare translates to $17.10 Roomette fare.
$39.95 rail fare + $17.10 roomette accommodation charge = $57.05 roomette Colorado Springs to Chicago, without meals, as opposed to $31.46 coach.
Any of the three railroads of the California Zephyr Consortium would sell you a through ticket. It would just show Oakland-Salt Lake via WP, Salt Lake-Denver via D&RGW and Denver-Chicago vis CB&Q. You'd have a three part rail coupon, with a coupon for each of the railroads, done using carbon backed paper so each segment would imprint on the next coupon.
Any railroad could issue tickets for any other railroad, even where they didn't operate joint trains. They invented interlining and ticket clearinghouses
The rail fares went to the railroad and the accommodation charge went to Pullman if Pullman operated sleeping cars.
You got separate coupons for the rail and the accommodation. The railroad conductor lifted your rail coupon, and the Pullman conductor lifted the accommodation coupon.
It isn't that different from Amtrak's rail fare and accommodation charge system used to this day (although Amtrak seems to be trying to hide it these days).
To decode the chart:
A roomette from Colorado Springs to Chicago:
$39.95 First Class Rail Fare.
$12.25 Lower Berth fare translates to $17.10 Roomette fare.
$39.95 rail fare + $17.10 roomette accommodation charge = $57.05 roomette Colorado Springs to Chicago, without meals, as opposed to $31.46 coach.
Any of the three railroads of the California Zephyr Consortium would sell you a through ticket. It would just show Oakland-Salt Lake via WP, Salt Lake-Denver via D&RGW and Denver-Chicago vis CB&Q. You'd have a three part rail coupon, with a coupon for each of the railroads, done using carbon backed paper so each segment would imprint on the next coupon.
Any railroad could issue tickets for any other railroad, even where they didn't operate joint trains. They invented interlining and ticket clearinghouses
Last edited:
How did those 1965 Roomettes on the D&RGWs CZ differ from those today on Amtrak?
danasgoodstuff
OBS Chief
Another complicating factor is that most RRs were losing $ on passenger service in the '60s, but maybe not the D&RGW?
Bigger and better bed that pulled down from the wall like a Murphy bed. A "combolet" toilet that was under the foot of the bed. There would be a sink that either pulled down from the wall if the berth was full sized all the way down. I don't know which type the Budd sleepers on the CZ had, although the Budd Manor cars on the Canadian of the same era have the cutout and the washstand. The top of the berth was level with the window so it was easier to look out at night.
While the individual cars had railroad ownership, they were bought in a pool and operated as a pool by the consortium members. The CZ sleepers were staffed by Pullman until 12/31/1968 when Pullman ceased operations.
All in all, I think the traditional single person roomettes were much more comfortable than Amtrak roomettes. The berths were wider, the mattresses were thicker. I much preferred them to the Amtrak Economy Bedroom that was renamed as "roomette".
They are still available in Canada.
