Does the Decline of the Boomer Generation Hurt Amtrak?

[City of Miami]

As someone born in 1952, I am left wondering what I did that caused such problems for the next generations?

Ed.

You exist - and worse than that, you reproduced! Nothing personal, Ed , just a general observation. There are novels, some from your countrymen, that explore this thesis.

 

[caravanman]

As someone born in 1952, I am left wondering what I did that caused such problems for the next generations?

Ed.

You exist - and worse than that, you reproduced! Nothing personal, Ed , just a general observation. There are novels, some from your countrymen, that explore this thesis.

Gosh, there are novels that explore the thesis that I exist and have an offspring? I demand royalties! (But not "Royals", no way!)

Not sure how it all works out... I worked all my life and paid into the UK national retirement pension scheme as required. ?

Anyway, is all I have to add !

Ed.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Gee Devil, sorry I made life so tough for you.

Thanks for caring but my life has actually been extremely fortunate in the grand scheme of things. It's the tens of millions of less fortunate Gen-Xers and Millennials you should be concerned about.

Well, I certainly qualify as a Boomer (born 1956), but between a parent in dementia care and college tuition for three kids I'm not exactly rolling in disposable income! In fact, I'm going to have to work to at least age 70 to make ends meet.

Many millennials will manage to acquire college degrees only to end up with massive debt and minimum wage jobs. What you apparently see as a financial hardship will look like vast wealth to those who will come after you.

Goodness no. You have it exactly backwards. Several people have looked at the demographics. It is precisely the Boomer generation who DOESN'T ride trains. Who thinks that "road trips" are the best thing ever, who thinks that trains are "19th century technology", who thinks of flying as enjoyable, etc. etc. etc.

That's the irony of the premise. In general boomers avoided trains during their working years, but now that they've retried they seem to form majority of the sleeper class customers. Or at least that's what I see on my trips. Gen-X and Y are generally more pro-rail than boomers were, but with less inflation adjusted income, longer working lives, and much shorter hospice style retirements they will have less time and money to spend on traveling by rail. That in itself is not a death sentence for Amtrak but it may begin to weigh on the overall health of the company as people with the necessary funds to spend lavishly on sleepers begin to disappear.

Ever looked at who fills the overnight coaches on the Lake Shore Limited? It ain't boomers. It's younger families. Ever looked at who fills the overnight coaches on the Empire Builder going to the oilfields in North Dakota? Young singles. How about the overnight coaches from Oregon to the Bay Area? Young techies. The overnight coaches from Denver to Chicago? Etc., you get the idea. The sleepers are often a bimodal mix of really old people and the portion of the post-boomer generations who've got money.

On the LD trains I ride (SL, TE, CS, CZ, SC) the sleepers are mostly full of boomers and grandchildren. Same as most of the people who post here. I have yet to be booked in a sleeper car that is mostly hauling Gen-X/Y with time and money to spare. Most of the oil workers I see are driving oversized dually trucks with massive exhaust pipes that cannot fit in any normal parking space and are lucky to get five miles to the gallon hauling a six pack of beer. Even if they were all riding the train that's not a market Amtrak can depend upon.

 

[the_traveler]

You just said "filled with boomers and grandchildren"! Don't you think those grandchildren will ride the trains in the yeats to come? :huh:

 

[Thirdrail7]

Perhaps I'm missing DA's initial post but I took it to mean that he we mainly referring to Long Distance "pleasure" travel...not medium corridor travel. That being said, I'm focusing on this:

Goodness no. You have it exactly backwards. Several people have looked at the demographics. It is precisely the Boomer generation who DOESN'T ride trains. Who thinks that "road trips" are the best thing ever, who thinks that trains are "19th century technology", who thinks of flying as enjoyable, etc. etc. etc.

That's the irony of the premise. In general boomers avoided trains during their working years, but now that they've retried they seem to form majority of the sleeper class customers. Or at least that's what I see on my trips. Gen-X and Y are generally more pro-rail than boomers were, but with less inflation adjusted income, longer working lives, and much shorter hospice style retirements they will have less time and money to spend on traveling by rail. That in itself is not a death sentence for Amtrak but it may begin to weigh on the overall health of the company as people with the necessary funds to spend lavishly on sleepers begin to disappear.

I fully agree with this statement. As Amtrak is under the gun to decrease losses and receives less funding, I have stated (although not necessarily on this board) that Amtrak is extremely expensive. Indeed, it is growing prohibitively expensive. It will get worse. For some, the trains are indeed a luxury that many can't afford. However, the accommodations aren't luxurious while the amenities and service are dropping.

A favorable impression is not being burned into the memories of future riders who as DA put it, may not have limited time and/or resources to commit to travel and/or vacation. When that happens, will Amtrak be the most bang for the buck? That depends on your perspective. There will always be people that will savor the journey. They will take a train or boat over a plane because the travel is part of the equation. However, if they can't afford the travel, it doesn't really matter.

I see it as an issue.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

First off, let's not blame boomers because I don't think it's even remotely fair. I'm not a boomer- I was born in '84. But with the exception of a few enlightened people with a sense of economics, people in this country fall into two basic categories, self identified: right and left. The people on the right want taxes cut, and think they want a large decrease in services in order to get them. People on the left want to maintain services and add to them, and if possible want a tax cut.

Both sides universally define wasteful services as ones they don't use, and essential services as the ones they do. Both sides have a basic misunderstanding- to solve the deficit problems without wrecking the economy (and even military spending is part of our economy- soldiers, suppliers, and so on getting paid contribute to our economy) what we need is to increase taxes.

Our economic mess is not the result of specific boomers; it is the basic result of a pseudo Smithian free market economy being occupied by entirely self serving people (on all sides, I am not only including the scapegoat du jour of 1%ers) tending to its natural entropy. I mean, do you really think that under their $200 trendy hipster clothing a millennial is really anything other than a self serving person?

Is DA saying "Boo hoo hoo, I should have the safety net my parents did!" Not at its core a self serving concept? Don't misread me, my only claim to difference is I know, accept, and admit that I serve, first, foremost, and always my family (my wife and I), which is essentially me.

The solution to our economic problems is to buck basic human nature, which is that though we are social animals and serve our friends and community, we always put our current needs and wants above all else. Which is basically impossible.

As to the other point: How many long distance passengers, individuals not trips, ride Amtrak each year? A million maybe? Less? That's one in three hundred Americans. And what percentage of those are sleeper passengers? 25%? That's one in 1200 Americans. If you don't think that one in 1200 hipsters, or Xers, or whatever the next asininely named generation is will not be interested in long distance sleeper train travel once they start making money, which a lot more than 1 in 1200 will, you aren't thinking straight.

Rather, I think the switch to the somewhat less car dependant lifestyle that "millenials", apparently a swarm like group of communially minded ant like creatures, as opposed to individuals with varied interests, will result in no effect to the LD network overall (it's too minimal to have culture change effect it much anymore) and a large boost to regional intercity service. The so called boomers were the car generation. The Millenials less so.

 

[Skyline]

I agree sometimes Millennials or even Gen Xers have to wonder how they are ever going to have a good life, but blaming those generations before them is a small part of the puzzle.

More relevant is the decline of unions, and younger people hesitant to join unions in so-called right-to-work states. Unions gave previous generations the 40 hour work week, many benefits, decent wages, improvements in both job security and safety, etc. When younger people are not able to join unions, or choose not to, their future outlook turns a bit bleak. I'd blame the corporations who are in the pockets of politicians who make laws detrimental to unions. And the trend to outsource work, whether domestically and internationally, that screws the working class.

If young people can't afford to travel for leisure, it will certainly hurt the travel and tourism industries--including Amtrak.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Excellent thread with diverse points of view, yet no name calling or pettiness!

AU needs more of this!!!

 

[RPC]

Well, I certainly qualify as a Boomer (born 1956), but between a parent in dementia care and college tuition for three kids I'm not exactly rolling in disposable income! In fact, I'm going to have to work to at least age 70 to make ends meet.

Many millennials will manage to acquire college degrees only to end up with massive debt and minimum wage jobs. What you apparently see as a financial hardship will look like vast wealth to those who will come after you.

Of course - that's the point of doing it. My father gave me a good start in life by assuming my college debts as a graduation present; the least I can do is "pay it forward." But I suspect for most people shelling out 500 grand over a decade would not be just an "apparent" hardship! That said, it boggles my mind that people (some of whom I know) will go on cruises while leaving their children to pay for their own education.

Back to the original discussion: how did Santa Fe's "El Capitan" do vs. their other trains? Or Illinois Central's CONO? I'm thinking here of all-coach trains that still had something of a "luxury" air about them. For that matter, how's long distance business class doing on the trains that offer it?

 

[Bob Dylan]

The El Cap ( First to have the High Level Coaches and Lounges, now the PPCs on the Starlight)ran on a Schedule close to that of the All Pullman Super Chief, similar to how the Meteor and Starvation do today.( Towards the end the Super Chief and El Cap were often combined)

Since Santa Fe owned the Tracks, and took pride in their Time Keeping, their Passenger Trains were generally so dependable that you could set your (Railroad) Watch by them.

Not sure about the CONO, I only rode the Panama Ltd.once in the Golden Days. Great Diner and Service.

 

[PaulM]

DA's thesis makes sense; but it reminds me of another demographic style prediction that was common a while back. Namely, that the pending retirement of the boomers would be a disaster for the stock market. The idea was that as boomers retired, they would begin liquidating their stock holdings for living expenses, and that the following generations could not afford to take up the slack.

Now we are talking about boomers dying off; and the stock market doesn't seem to have suffered yet.

 

[jis]

If the theory about Boomers living on in retired life was supposed to be bad for the Stock market, then the Boomers dying off should be good, since they'd stop liquidating their holding to finance their extravagant ways of living Well actually it would depend on what is happening to their estates I suppose.

Fact of the matter is that so many boomers depend primarily on Social Security and then on debt instruments (both US and private industry) rather than equity instruments that if anything it might be the bond market that gets affected more.

I don;t really think all of this will have much effect on Amtrak since at least for now it does not have the inventory to satisfy the demand that is potentially placed on it, even with zero advertising, specially in the higher revenue markets. There are plenty of non-Boomers that ride Amtrak in the high revenue markets even today..

 

[WoodyinNYC]

It's been a long time since I proclaimed my basic Amtrak Faith here, but this is it: I believe there is an enormous pent-up demand for passenger rail, nationwide, both corridor and LD. (The LD trains should be thought of as overlapping multi-corridor trains.)

So I start with the assumption that in general, a goal for service should be two or more daily frequencies on every Amtrak route, corridors and long distance.

If we had service 7 days a week on the Cardinal and the Sunset Ltd, instead of 3 days a week as now, ridership on those routes would double.

We would double ridership on the LD routes if we had two trains a day each way on the Coast Starlight, the Empire Builder, the California Zephyr, the Southwest Chief, the Texas Eagle, the City of New Orleans, the Lake Shore Ltd, the Crescent, the Palmetto, and probably the Silver Star and Silver Meteor (tho they overlap and provide multiple frequencies for many miles already).

We could double or triple ridership on the Pennsylvanian, the Carolinian, the Adirondack, the Norfolk and Roanoke trains, as well as the Wolverines to Detroit, the Hiawathas to Milwaukee, the Hoosier States to Indianapolis, the Lincoln Service to St Louis, the River Runners Kansas City-St Louis, simply by doubling the number of trains on each route.

Not to forget the NEC. The Acelas now run hourly, and when the Aveilas come online in 2022 or so, they will run on the half hour -- but only during the morning and evening rush hours. If they ran on the half hour all during the day, I believe we'd still see full trains.

And not to mention the untapped markets like Scranton, Allentown-Bethlehem, Columbus, Louisville, Lexington, Nashville, Knoxville, Mobile, Baton Rouge, Shreveport, Tulsa, Wichita, Des Moines, Madison, Colorado Springs, Amarillo, Lubbock, and in South Texas Corpus Christi, McAllen, and Laredo, Among many, many others.

In short, Amtrak's potential to grow ridership far exceeds its risk of losing passengers due to demographic shifts. I'm just not gonna worry about that. I'll keep worrying about the need for another 2,000 or so new coaches etc. needed to satisfy demand.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

While slightly off topic... If Amtrak could manage to pull off true first class service could they not follow the VIA model and charge higher sleeper prices?

 

[RPC]

While slightly off topic... If Amtrak could manage to pull off true first class service could they not follow the VIA model and charge higher sleeper prices?

Well, yes, but this plays back into the original poster's contention, namely, who's going to pay these (even) higher sleeper prices if not the boomers? If I'm following the reasoning (younger generations have less money), the implication is that Amtrak should be investigating "Coach Plus" and Slumbercoach type service for the overnight trains.

 

[Paul CHI]

The current tendency is for younger people to forsake the small communities and move to cities that offer jobs. In the process, they learn to ditch cars and rely on bikes, buses, and trains to commute. This would easily transfer to longer distance train travel if the trains were fast and reliable. Amtrak's perpetual under-funding, of course, results in neither fast nor reliable, the result being the leveling off of ridership in recent years. "Build it and they will come". We seriously suffer from lack of vision.

I recently rode Denver's RTD train from airport to the southeast side and was astonished how inefficient the route is compared with Chicago's commuter systems. In Chicago, the homes and business grew up around the train lines, which have right of way. In Denver, the RTD line has to wind around all the NIMBY properties, even making frequent stops for traffic lights.

 

[desertflyer]

While slightly off topic... If Amtrak could manage to pull off true first class service could they not follow the VIA model and charge higher sleeper prices?

Well, yes, but this plays back into the original poster's contention, namely, who's going to pay these (even) higher sleeper prices if not the boomers? If I'm following the reasoning (younger generations have less money), the implication is that Amtrak should be investigating "Coach Plus" and Slumbercoach type service for the overnight trains.

If Amtrak had a Slumbercoach option, it would be an extremely compelling product for people in my group of friends. Many can't justify the cost of Roomettes and are not willing to sleep in a coach seat.

 

[neroden]

Ever looked at who fills the overnight coaches on the Lake Shore Limited? It ain't boomers. It's younger families. Ever looked at who fills the overnight coaches on the Empire Builder going to the oilfields in North Dakota? Young singles. How about the overnight coaches from Oregon to the Bay Area? Young techies. The overnight coaches from Denver to Chicago? Etc., you get the idea. The sleepers are often a bimodal mix of really old people and the portion of the post-boomer generations who've got money.

On the LD trains I ride (SL, TE, CS, CZ, SC) the sleepers are mostly full of boomers and grandchildren. Same as most of the people who post here. I have yet to be booked in a sleeper car that is mostly hauling Gen-X/Y with time and money to spare. Most of the oil workers I see are driving oversized dually trucks with massive exhaust pipes that cannot fit in any normal parking space and are lucky to get five miles to the gallon hauling a six pack of beer. Even if they were all riding the train that's not a market Amtrak can depend upon.

Well, that's partly -- perhaps largely -- your location. I admit when I took the Texas Eagle, it skewed surprisingly different and looked a lot worse demographically than the trains I usually take. (Perhaps this is due to its extreme slowness, or because of the culture of Texas.) The Sunset Limited is, of course, hopeless.

You haven't been paying attention to the coach population on the Coast Starlight, or on the California Zephyr from Denver to Chicago, however. Both are loaded with Gen X / Y / Millennials, although not quite to the same degree as the LSL. The SW Chief is actually loaded with businesspeople from Chicago to KC (and then thins out). You aren't seeing the sort of oil workers who are taking the Empire Builder to North Dakota, who are certainly not driving pickups long distances through the blizzards; though of course the oil boom in North Dakota is busting now, which will cause a dip in ridership, the North Dakota market is still essentially captive.

 

[neroden]

Perhaps I'm missing DA's initial post but I took it to mean that he we mainly referring to Long Distance "pleasure" travel...not medium corridor travel. That being said, I'm focusing on this:

Goodness no. You have it exactly backwards. Several people have looked at the demographics. It is precisely the Boomer generation who DOESN'T ride trains. Who thinks that "road trips" are the best thing ever, who thinks that trains are "19th century technology", who thinks of flying as enjoyable, etc. etc. etc.

That's the irony of the premise. In general boomers avoided trains during their working years, but now that they've retried they seem to form majority of the sleeper class customers. Or at least that's what I see on my trips. Gen-X and Y are generally more pro-rail than boomers were, but with less inflation adjusted income, longer working lives, and much shorter hospice style retirements they will have less time and money to spend on traveling by rail. That in itself is not a death sentence for Amtrak but it may begin to weigh on the overall health of the company as people with the necessary funds to spend lavishly on sleepers begin to disappear.

I fully agree with this statement. As Amtrak is under the gun to decrease losses and receives less funding, I have stated (although not necessarily on this board) that Amtrak is extremely expensive. Indeed, it is growing prohibitively expensive. It will get worse. For some, the trains are indeed a luxury that many can't afford. However, the accommodations aren't luxurious while the amenities and service are dropping.

A favorable impression is not being burned into the memories of future riders who as DA put it, may not have limited time and/or resources to commit to travel and/or vacation. When that happens, will Amtrak be the most bang for the buck? That depends on your perspective. There will always be people that will savor the journey. They will take a train or boat over a plane because the travel is part of the equation. However, if they can't afford the travel, it doesn't really matter.

I see it as an issue.

It's not an issue.

The first thing to recognize is that, on the whole, Amtrak is competing with driving, not with flying.

For the portion of the market who is boycotting the TSA or refuses to fly for other reasons... Amtrak is still competing with driving, not with flying.

Amtrak beats driving hands down in most of the so-called "long distance" markets where it exists: New York - Chicago, Upstate NY - Chicago, Chicago-Twin Cities, Chicago-North Dakota, Seattle-Spokane, Chicago-Denver, Montana-Seattle, Montana-Chicago, Montana-Portland, Portland-Sacramento, San Jose-Los Angeles, Denver-Chicago, Ski Areas - Denver, Reno-Sacramento, KC - Chicago, Pittsburgh-Chicago, etc. (I've left out the Southeast simply because I don't travel there so I don't understand it, but I am told the same is true for many Southeastern city pairings.)

The Sunset Limited, with its ridiculous three-a-week schedule, is an exception to this rule. The ultra-slowpoke Texas Eagle, competing with ultra-fast Texas freeways, may also be an exception. In most of the markets, Amtrak will be chosen preferentially over driving, which is *also expensive*.

Maybe people, being poorer, will take fewer trips. This will hurt gasoline sales. It won't hurt Amtrak.

The high, and increasing, pricing is a sign that demand for Amtrak is way higher than Amtrak's capacity. Remember, prices aren't based on cost, they're based on "what the market will bear". Worry about where Amtrak will get new coaches. Don't worry about ridership or revenue: they're still headed up.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Neroden: Interesting commentabout The Texas Eagle vs. "ultra fast Texas freeways" and the Slowpoke Sunset Ltd.

As someone who lives in Texas ( Austin)and has both driven and ridden both routes many times, I assure you that taking the Texas Eagle from San Antonio,San Marcos or Austin to the Metroplex is much easier and Very competitive with I-35 financially, time wise and "peace of mind" wise due to the nightmare that is I-35 with its never ending, gridlocked traffic.

The Cost in Coach is $20-$25, and you are on the Train for Breakfast and Lunch, with Arrival into Ft Worth about 200PM and Dallas around 3 PM.

As for San Antonio to LAX on I-10 (or the Border Route on Old US 90that the Sunset takes), the drive to El Paso is 600+ miles/9-10 Hours;LAX is 1200 miles/24 Hours with Miles and Miles of Miles through the Big Nowhere.

Cost in Coach is around $100, Low Bucket Roomettes can be had for as Low as $169.( Surprisingly the Fares and Room charges to LAX are the same from Dallas,Ft Worth,Temple,and Austin????!

I choose to kick back on Amtrak and leave the driving to them when taking either Route. YMMV

 

[OlympianHiawatha]

Neroden: Interesting commentabout The Texas Eagle vs. "ultra fast Texas freeways" and the Slowpoke Sunset Ltd.

As someone who lives in Texas ( Austin)and has both driven and ridden both routes many times, I assure you that taking the Texas Eagle from San Antonio,San Marcos or Austin to the Metroplex is much easier and Very competitive with I-35 financially, time wise and "peace of mind" wise due to the nightmare that is I-35 with its never ending, gridlocked traffic.

The Cost in Coach is $20-$25, and you are on the Train for Breakfast and Lunch, with Arrival into Ft Worth about 200PM and Dallas around 3 PM.

As for San Antonio to LAX on I-10 (or the Border Route on Old US 90that the Sunset takes), the drive to El Paso is 600+ miles/9-10 Hours;LAX is 1200 miles/24 Hours with Miles and Miles of Miles through the Big Nowhere.

Cost in Coach is around $100, Low Bucket Roomettes can be had for as Low as $169.( Surprisingly the Fares and Room charges to LAX are the same from Dallas,Ft Worth,Temple,and Austin????!

I choose to kick back on Amtrak and leave the driving to them when taking either Route. YMMV

Very well said Bob and illustrated with examples I am very familiar with. Plus if you drive to/from LA, you will miss the Burrito Lady in El Paso!

 

[Eric in East County]

This has been one of the most interesting and thought-provoking discussions I’ve yet encountered on Amtrak Unlimited. Here are a few observations that I’d like to throw out for what they’re worth.

While my wife and I are members of the baby boomer generation and have the time and the disposable income to use Amtrak for our long distance travel, this was not the case when we were in our twenties and thirties. At some point, the Gen-Xers and Millennials will be in their 60’s and ‘70’s and many of them will have the time and the disposable income that we have today.

As part of getting older, we are finding that it is harder for us to drive long distances. For us, Amtrak is the most practical means for traveling across country. When the Gen-Xers and Mellennials reach our age, they will probably find this to be true for them, too.

Another aspect of getting older is that we have a lower tolerance for dealing with stressful situations. One of the reasons we prefer to travel via Amtrak is that it is less stressful for us than flying. At some point, the Gen-Xers and Mellennials will find that their tolerance for dealing with stress is also lower.

We remain optimistic that, as the Gen-Xers and Mellennials continue to age, they will be more inclined to travel by train rather than driving or flying. When that happens, they will take over the role that the baby boomers are currently filling.

It would seem to me that, for the present, Amtrak could score points with the Gen-Xers and Mellennials by pointing out to them that traveling by train is more “environmental friendly” than driving or flying. If the case could be made that, by taking the train they are helping to “save the planet,” more young people might be inclined to do so. (It would help if some of the celebrities who champion environmental causes would encourage people to ride the train.)

We periodically write our congressman (who happens to be on the Transportation Committee) and ask him to support efforts to make Amtrak’s long-distance passenger service more efficient. Considering the massive federal funding that has gone towards building the interstate highway system and regional airports over the years, it wouldn’t take nearly as much to improve Amtrak’s facilities and operating efficiency. Once that happens, I think we’d see more and more people traveling by train.

 

[RSG]

Another aspect of getting older is that we have a lower tolerance for dealing with stressful situations. One of the reasons we prefer to travel via Amtrak is that it is less stressful for us than flying. At some point, the Gen-Xers and Mellennials will find that their tolerance for dealing with stress is also lower.

This is a very good point. Those of us who are over 40 remember how flying used to be. While it was not quite as glamorous as period movies and TV shows would like us to believe (at least in the last two decades of the 20th Century), it was still far beyond what it is today. It was stressful at the turn of the century and is even more so now. There are people who are of limited capacity to cope with that stress level, not only the elderly, but the disabled as well. On another message board I encountered a commenter who noted that he was routinely hassled when he flew commercially, simply because he uses a wheelchair. So now he takes the Empire Builder from his home in Montana (and is fortunate enough to live in a community served by it) when he wishes to travel.

Yet today's millennials and slightly younger Gen Xers have no recollection of what flying once was. As I was conversing with a 27-year-old friend awhile back, he noted that the world of post-2001 air travel was the only one he'd ever known (as his experience with flying was only as an adult). So today's world is the New Normal for them. Yet just as the world of air travel changed for us older travelers, so too will the current world change for today's younger travelers. For those who are unwilling or less able to cope with those changes, Amtrak provides another option.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I hope when (or should I say if since my brother died young) I get to be that age I get the chance to make a lot of LD trips around the country more often. Hopefully by then there will be some sort of good LD train between Philly and Chicago (or maybe I should be hoping there will be some good LD system at all by then....)

 

[cirdan]

I'm wondering what the future will bring for LD rail travel.

One great selling point for an LD train is that its more comfortable than driving. I don't need to concentrate on the road but can admire the scenery or just read and even enjoy alcoholic beverages.

Self-driving cars might eat into that segment as they offer to door to door journeys that trains cannot rival.

Maybe some smart manufacturer will come up with a self driving car with full length fully flat beds, large panoramic windows, a well stocked fridge and a kitchenette where I can prepare or heat up food, a table and comfy chairs. Hey, let's call this thing a self-driving camper van.

The only remaining selling point for LD trains is then the social interaction, and maybe also the nostalgia. Is that enough to sell them?

Or are we seeing the beginning of the final farewell of the LD train?