Ideas for Additional "Night Owl" Train Service

[dlagrua]

.. double post sorry

 

[dlagrua]

I don't know what types of car pays for itself, but one of the arguments on this thread is that some business travelers would prefer to spend the night in a sleeping car and arrive at their destination city in the morning, rather than flying in the night before and spending $300 (or whatever) on a hotel. If you remove the sleeping car from the equation, the target market really becomes leisure travelers, who would be more price-sensitive.

The solution would be the slumber coach for the single level routes, that offered 24 one person private rooms (w toilet and sink)and eight double rooms for a capacity of 40 at a price just a bit more than coach. Those sleepers had more capacity than the Superliners of today. You will never see this type of car again because of the two steps up to the top row rooms and the lack of ADA accommodations. It was a great idea for travelers on a budget that wanted privacy and their own single bed. While roomettes are nice I wish that we had this low cost sleeper option again. It must have been popular with business people. The only one that I ever walked into was in the Illinois Railroad Museum.

Check the math again, a superliner has five bedrooms, thirteen publicly available roomettes and the family and accessible bedrooms for a total capacity of 42.

OK I am off by 2 but still a good point in the single vs double level comparison. Superliners need two levels to beat the capacity of the slumber coach by only 2.

The solution would be the slumber coach for the single level routes, that offered 24 one person private rooms (w toilet and sink)and eight double rooms for a capacity of 40 at a price just a bit more than coach. ... You will never see this type of car again because of the two steps up to the top row rooms and the lack of ADA accommodations.

Trying to picture this. You mean the one-person slumber rooms were stacked, in a lower row and a top row? So you couldn't stand up in them? Like sleeping inside an MRI scanning machine? Oy.

I'm thinking a single row of one-person slumber rooms, with sinks a la Viewliner IIs, toilets and showers down the hall, and stand-up-in ceiling heights.

Why wouldn't such slumber coaches meet ADA standards? Like, doors too narrow and not enuff space inside for a wheelchair? Then wouldn't, say, three or even two wider, accessible slumber rooms (in the space of four non-ADA slumber rooms), take care of ADA needs?

Guess that my idea is roomettes for single travelers, and wouldn't save enuff space to allow a good price cut from the regular roomettes.

The slumber coach pictured in this thread ran on the lines with single level cars. The point being made is that they had almost the same capacity as the double level Superliners. We never rode or slept in a slumber coach (that was before we were riding trains) so cannot comment on the headroom but since the rooms were staggered high and low, I believe that headroom was adequate. Our visit to the Illinois railroad museum was the only opportunity we had to see one of these cars from the interior. I have picture somewhere and will try to post what the rooms looked like

As for single bed roomettes they took up about as much room as the double roomettes of today. You can see these in a You Tube video on a Santa Fe promotional film.

Its no secret that Amtrak makes more money on sleepers than they do in coach so more sleepers may be the road the to profitability that Congress so desperately wants. .

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I dunno, maybe Amtrak has some obscure political reason for not admitting that the Eastern trains are profitable. Maybe it's because the Transcons are still actually unprofitable on a direct costs basis? It is possible that publishing the numbers would cause a movement to leave the profitable trains alone and kill the CZ, SWC, and SL. On the other hand given the political situation I think it's worse to let Congress mistakenly believe that the LSL is unprofitable, when it's really profitable.

In general trains that take approx. one day are in better financial shape than those that take approx. two days. That being said, I can't imagine Amtrak without the two Chicago-California trains and they have to travel through some areas in the middle of nowhere to get there. You're basically cutting California off from the rest of the US if you kill them (not to mention Denver and Salt Lake City if you kill the CZ and Albuquerque if you kill the SWC).

Those of us at AU know which trains are successful and which aren't but the government probably doesn't want us to know so they can just kill trains and say they weren't successful when they really were or they weren't but others were worse. They could easily say "who needs two trains to Florida, let's kill one of them" or "who needs two Chicago-New York trains, let's kill one of them" (good thing Byrd's not around anymore or Nate would be calling the Cardinal Byrd Crap too after the LSL gets killed in favor of it) while worse trains keep taking away our tax money.

 

[Anderson]

(1) The Auto Train effectively has 100% overlap in terms of tracks used. In terms of stations, I think it has the fewest unique stations of any LD train (two; the Meteor has 2-3 and the LSL has 2). So it's where I'd peg it at. The Builder is the biggest outlier in this respect (almost all stations are unique and it has a lot of them but it also has heavy traffic loads).

(2) IIRC the Meteor does better than the Star, not v-v, but that's at least partially a function of being able to run longer (4-5 coaches and 3 sleepers instead of 3 coaches and 2 sleepers).

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

(1) The Auto Train effectively has 100% overlap in terms of tracks used. In terms of stations, I think it has the fewest unique stations of any LD train (two; the Meteor has 2-3 and the LSL has 2). So it's where I'd peg it at. The Builder is the biggest outlier in this respect (almost all stations are unique and it has a lot of them but it also has heavy traffic loads).

(2) IIRC the Meteor does better than the Star, not v-v, but that's at least partially a function of being able to run longer (4-5 coaches and 3 sleepers instead of 3 coaches and 2 sleepers).

The SM only has one unique station; Jesup, GA. The only way I could think you could get two is if you include Fredericksburg, VA because no other LDs stop there. However if you used that metric, the LSL would have far more than two in New York State alone. To add on, the only unique trackage for the SM is the east leg of the Auburndale wye; the SS passes by Jesup but does not stop under normal conditions.

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

In a theoretical future Amfleet replacement program, I would really like to see slumbercoaches come back. If the prices were as low as everyone remembers them, it may make sense to only order replacements for Amfleet I and slumbercoaches and not for Amfleet II. For example, an LD train with 4 Amfleet II coaches at present could have 2 Amfleet Is and 2 slumbercoaches. Slumbercoach would be the default class for any overnight trip over x hours, and the actual coaches would have higher capacities for short distance riders during the day.

 

[A Voice]

In a theoretical future Amfleet replacement program, I would really like to see slumbercoaches come back. If the prices were as low as everyone remembers them, it may make sense to only order replacements for Amfleet I and slumbercoaches and not for Amfleet II. For example, an LD train with 4 Amfleet II coaches at present could have 2 Amfleet Is and 2 slumbercoaches. Slumbercoach would be the default class for any overnight trip over x hours, and the actual coaches would have higher capacities for short distance riders during the day.

There's too much intermediate point (daytime) business; You need more 'standard' coaches (not fewer) which are comfortable for longer journeys, as many passengers are going to be onboard nearly all day and perhaps just a portion of the overnight hours. More comfortable seating is one of the trains' selling points, and commuter style seating density is a bad idea. The Amfleet Ii cars are to be replaced first due to mileage, but regardless of what type(s) of future single-level cars are ordered, you'd still need the combined numbers - and arguably more - of Amfleet I and II.

A new economy sleeper is potentially however a very good idea, though an all-Roomette car might be the better (or just easier) choice. The old Slumbercoaches accommodated a theoretical 40 passengers. The modern Roomette car would similarly have around a 40 person capacity, depending on how ADA, attendant, and restroom/shower modules were configured.

 

[railiner]

If they ever built new Slumbercoaches, in a single level car, instead of the 24 Single, 8 Double configuration, they could build it with 24 Double's in the same space, yielding an incredible 48 berth's.

Or in a Superliner, they could replace the 5 deluxe bedrooms with 10 more roomettes, yielding 52-54 berth's...

The original duplex, staggered design of the Slumbercoach is good if you must have Single accommodation, but all double berth room design is even more efficient than the duplex design in utilizing the height of the car.

 

[dlagrua]

If they ever built new Slumbercoaches, in a single level car, instead of the 24 Single, 8 Double configuration, they could build it with 24 Double's in the same space, yielding an incredible 48 berth's.

Or in a Superliner, they could replace the 5 deluxe bedrooms with 10 more roomettes, yielding 52-54 berth's...

The original duplex, staggered design of the Slumbercoach is good if you must have Single accommodation, but all double berth room design is even more efficient than the duplex design in utilizing the height of the car.

In the unlikely instance that Slumber Coaches are ever built again; I can't see any space to double the room size. The single rooms were staggered one high and one low and the bed space was accommodated by building a nook module that extended partly into the other room.

see this illustration:

 

[Bob Dylan]

And they had a toilet too! Rode many a mile in them on the Crescent before and after A Day, still the best deal ever on LD Trains!

 

[Anthony V]

I rode in a slumbercoach at the Illinois Railway Museum and even took a nap in it. While the room was small, It was still very comfortable when compared to airline seating. Legroom and headroom were plentiful. The bed was a bit cramped and narrow, but I still fit in it even at 5'8". If you're about my size or smaller, slumbercoaches should be no problem for you. Bigger people might have a problem with them however.

 

[jphjaxfl]

I traveled in Slumbercoaches many times on the CB&Q's Denver Zephyr, NP's Mainstreeter, SCL' s Miami to Northeast trains, New York Central Chicago to New York trains, Amtrak's Empire Builder and other Amtrak trains. They were very comfortable and priced right for my college and Air Force Budget. They were built by Budd so they were solidly built and didn't start running until the mid to late 1950s so they were as old as some of the Heritage Dining Cars that are still running. Unfortunately, they didn't have the retention toilets so I think they were retired prematurely.

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

In a theoretical future Amfleet replacement program, I would really like to see slumbercoaches come back. If the prices were as low as everyone remembers them, it may make sense to only order replacements for Amfleet I and slumbercoaches and not for Amfleet II. For example, an LD train with 4 Amfleet II coaches at present could have 2 Amfleet Is and 2 slumbercoaches. Slumbercoach would be the default class for any overnight trip over x hours, and the actual coaches would have higher capacities for short distance riders during the day.

There's too much intermediate point (daytime) business; You need more 'standard' coaches (not fewer) which are comfortable for longer journeys, as many passengers are going to be onboard nearly all day and perhaps just a portion of the overnight hours. More comfortable seating is one of the trains' selling points, and commuter style seating density is a bad idea. The Amfleet Ii cars are to be replaced first due to mileage, but regardless of what type(s) of future single-level cars are ordered, you'd still need the combined numbers - and arguably more - of Amfleet I and II.

A new economy sleeper is potentially however a very good idea, though an all-Roomette car might be the better (or just easier) choice. The old Slumbercoaches accommodated a theoretical 40 passengers. The modern Roomette car would similarly have around a 40 person capacity, depending on how ADA, attendant, and restroom/shower modules were configured.

According the Wikipedia, Amfleet Is hold 72 compared to 60 in an Amfleet II. In a current single-level four coach train, the current capacity is 240 in the coaches. Under this arrangement, there would be 144 coach seats and 80 Slumbercoach seats for a total capacity of 224. This means most almost 2/3 of the seats would still be in coach. This would work well for trains like the SS with heavy short distance ridership, but trains like the SM and Crescent may actually need more room space.
I would be in favor of a slight increase in overnight fares to help pay for a loss of capacity. Of course, in ideal cases the train would be lengthened so as to actually increase capacity. Also, rooms could be booked for daytime trips at business class level charges, but only once the room is booked for the overnight portion. For example, once someone books a room for MIA-RGH, it can then be sold as an upgrade from RGH-NYP. If days prior to the trip the coaches are not sold out, then can be sold to overnight passengers for a signifigant reduction in cost.

As to the comfort levels, I would be more than happy to give up space on a daytime trip so I could get a bed on an overnight trip. I have seen many passengers swear off Amtrak after overnight trips in coach on the Silvers, but never on daytime trips in Amfleet Is. It is not like Amfleet Is have no legroom; it is still more than almost all busses and planes. Honestly, many daytime passengers probably wouldn't even notice, but it would be a big difference for overnight passengers. Nobody seems to have a problem with Amfleet Is being used from CLT-NYP, so why wouldn't it work TPA-MIA or ATL-NOL?

 

[dlagrua]

I traveled in Slumbercoaches many times on the CB&Q's Denver Zephyr, NP's Mainstreeter, SCL' s Miami to Northeast trains, New York Central Chicago to New York trains, Amtrak's Empire Builder and other Amtrak trains. They were very comfortable and priced right for my college and Air Force Budget. They were built by Budd so they were solidly built and didn't start running until the mid to late 1950s so they were as old as some of the Heritage Dining Cars that are still running. Unfortunately, they didn't have the retention toilets so I think they were retired prematurely.

Glad that you were able to experience traveling in a Slumbercoach . The whole idea was to offer a small private room, with toilet, sink mirror and bed. at a cost just slightly more than a coach fare. They were small one person rooms but very good for a single person, I would guess 3 1/2-4' wide and 5- 5 1/2' long with the nighttime sleeping tunnel for extra length. During the day you had a 2 foot wide mini sofa with ample legroom and at night you slept in a bed. If a modern Slumbercoach could be designed with fares just a bit higher than coach, I have to believe that these small sleeper rooms would be popular and a solid revenue generator for Amtrak today.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Were meals included in Slumbercoaches? If so, was it one person's meals or two people's meals? The extra cost for paying for two meals even though you are a single traveler makes it a poorer deal (would they let you offer two breakfasts, two lunches, and two dinners for a one night stay because technically you did pay for them?)

 

[Bob Dylan]

No meals included in Slumber Coach Fares ( that was an Amtrak idea for Sleepers)but the Food was still very good and not that expensive.(a la carte)

I usually had Breakfast on the way North rolling through Virginia and Dinner on the way South. ( Most of my Slumber Coach trips on the Crescent were between Washington and Greenville,SC or Atlanta.)

 

[west point]

A night train NYP <> Richmond <> CLT might be an interesting one for two major end points. Those points being NYP - WASH & Raleigh - CLT.

 

[railiner]

If they ever built new Slumbercoaches, in a single level car, instead of the 24 Single, 8 Double configuration, they could build it with 24 Double's in the same space, yielding an incredible 48 berth's.

Or in a Superliner, they could replace the 5 deluxe bedrooms with 10 more roomettes, yielding 52-54 berth's...

The original duplex, staggered design of the Slumbercoach is good if you must have Single accommodation, but all double berth room design is even more efficient than the duplex design in utilizing the height of the car.

In the unlikely instance that Slumber Coaches are ever built again; I can't see any space to double the room size. The single rooms were staggered one high and one low and the bed space was accommodated by building a nook module that extended partly into the other room.

see this illustration:

You could put two double rooms in about the space of three single rooms. Even with the staggered layout, the beds were not end to end on both levels (separated by the walls, of course), as they are in double slumber rooms (or Superliner Roomettes).

In way of illustration the single level cars had the capacity of 22 Roomettes, as some were configured. The double slumber rooms were slightly shorter in length, so you could get 24 of them into the same car, and they each had two berths, one on top of the other...24x2=48 total berths....

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

A night train NYP <> Richmond <> CLT might be an interesting one for two major end points. Those points being NYP - WASH & Raleigh - CLT.

Flip 79 (M-F)/80 12 hours...

South: NYP 7:25pm, PHL 8:54am-8:49pm (why is arrival time later than departure time?), WAS 10:45-11:10pm, Richmond 1:24-1:34am, Raleigh 5:08-5:16am, CLT 8:44am

North: CLT 7:00pm, Raleigh 10:17-10:25pm, Richmond 2:05-2:12am, WAS 4:29am, PHL 7:00am, NYP 8:35am (would have to be changed to get into New York after 9am)

If you pushed the southbound back one hour you'd get an arrival after 6am but a departure from WAS after midnight. Push it back 2 hours to arrive in Raleigh after 7am and then it leaves WAS after 1am. If you pushed the northbound back one hour you would leave Raleigh before midnight but arrive in WAS before 6am. If you push back 2 hrs you'd get into WAS after 6am but leave Raleigh after midnight. Richmond would get screwed no matter what. I would push the southbound back one hr (NYP 8:25pm to CLT 9:44am) and the northbound back 2 hrs (CLT 9:00pm to NYP 10:35pm). The southbound train leaves WAS after midnight (12:10am) and the northbound leaves Raleigh after midnight (12:25am) but both would arrive in the other direction after 6am. Southbound the train is 5 hr, 58 min while northbound is 6 hr, 4 min between Raleigh and DC. If you want to have before midnight and after 6am, you could add some time in between stops. But I like the schedule.

If you could extend in both directions to ATL you'd make it better for CLT and Greensboro to get to/from ATL and add Raleigh-ATL service which doesn't exist now. Of course that requires you to fix the Atlanta mess. I know having trains serviced/stored in ATL is impractical as well as a split there but could a second train just go through ATL like the Crescent does and if so could you send it to/from ATL and Florida? Maybe ATL and Texas?

 

[A Voice]

In a theoretical future Amfleet replacement program, I would really like to see slumbercoaches come back. If the prices were as low as everyone remembers them, it may make sense to only order replacements for Amfleet I and slumbercoaches and not for Amfleet II. For example, an LD train with 4 Amfleet II coaches at present could have 2 Amfleet Is and 2 slumbercoaches. Slumbercoach would be the default class for any overnight trip over x hours, and the actual coaches would have higher capacities for short distance riders during the day.

There's too much intermediate point (daytime) business; You need more 'standard' coaches (not fewer) which are comfortable for longer journeys, as many passengers are going to be onboard nearly all day and perhaps just a portion of the overnight hours. More comfortable seating is one of the trains' selling points, and commuter style seating density is a bad idea. The Amfleet Ii cars are to be replaced first due to mileage, but regardless of what type(s) of future single-level cars are ordered, you'd still need the combined numbers - and arguably more - of Amfleet I and II.

A new economy sleeper is potentially however a very good idea, though an all-Roomette car might be the better (or just easier) choice. The old Slumbercoaches accommodated a theoretical 40 passengers. The modern Roomette car would similarly have around a 40 person capacity, depending on how ADA, attendant, and restroom/shower modules were configured.

According the Wikipedia, Amfleet Is hold 72 compared to 60 in an Amfleet II. In a current single-level four coach train, the current capacity is 240 in the coaches. Under this arrangement, there would be 144 coach seats and 80 Slumbercoach seats for a total capacity of 224. This means most almost 2/3 of the seats would still be in coach. This would work well for trains like the SS with heavy short distance ridership, but trains like the SM and Crescent may actually need more room space.
I would be in favor of a slight increase in overnight fares to help pay for a loss of capacity. Of course, in ideal cases the train would be lengthened so as to actually increase capacity. Also, rooms could be booked for daytime trips at business class level charges, but only once the room is booked for the overnight portion. For example, once someone books a room for MIA-RGH, it can then be sold as an upgrade from RGH-NYP. If days prior to the trip the coaches are not sold out, then can be sold to overnight passengers for a signifigant reduction in cost.

As to the comfort levels, I would be more than happy to give up space on a daytime trip so I could get a bed on an overnight trip. I have seen many passengers swear off Amtrak after overnight trips in coach on the Silvers, but never on daytime trips in Amfleet Is. It is not like Amfleet Is have no legroom; it is still more than almost all busses and planes. Honestly, many daytime passengers probably wouldn't even notice, but it would be a big difference for overnight passengers. Nobody seems to have a problem with Amfleet Is being used from CLT-NYP, so why wouldn't it work TPA-MIA or ATL-NOL?

Rather than replacing coach seats with Slumbercoach rooms the emphasis needs to be on overall expanded train capacity; Passenger counts are already often artificially constrained by the 'standard' four coaches (236 seats) on eastern trains. The Slumbercoach should be thought of as a complement to the coaches and (existing) sleepers rather than a substitute; It is a great option to have on a train, but makes a impractical 'day' coach. Years ago, the Silver Meteor ran with sleepers, Slumbercoach, and eight coaches; The Florida leisure travel market has greatly expanded since then.

I've seen an Amfleet coach with a 108-seat configuration (3-2 seating) but that doesn't mean its a workable concept, even for short haul passengers. 'We have more legroom than a plane' isn't really a strong selling point. When you aren't competing on either price or travel time, the accommodations make a big difference.

If they ever built new Slumbercoaches, in a single level car, instead of the 24 Single, 8 Double configuration, they could build it with 24 Double's in the same space, yielding an incredible 48 berth's.

Or in a Superliner, they could replace the 5 deluxe bedrooms with 10 more roomettes, yielding 52-54 berth's...

The original duplex, staggered design of the Slumbercoach is good if you must have Single accommodation, but all double berth room design is even more efficient than the duplex design in utilizing the height of the car.

In the unlikely instance that Slumber Coaches are ever built again; I can't see any space to double the room size. The single rooms were staggered one high and one low and the bed space was accommodated by building a nook module that extended partly into the other room.

see this illustration:

You could put two double rooms in about the space of three single rooms. Even with the staggered layout, the beds were not end to end on both levels (separated by the walls, of course), as they are in double slumber rooms (or Superliner Roomettes).

In way of illustration the single level cars had the capacity of 22 Roomettes, as some were configured. The double slumber rooms were slightly shorter in length, so you could get 24 of them into the same car, and they each had two berths, one on top of the other...24x2=48 total berths....

You'd never get as many rooms in a modern car given ADA and other requirements, but even if you could, there are very good reasons not to pack passengers in like sardines. I would suggest that about forty persons in a single-level economy sleeper is a reasonable objective which can then maintain slightly larger and more comfortable rooms.

 

[railiner]

Curious as to where you saw an Amfleet car with 3 and 2 seating?

 

[Anderson]

I'd be interested to see some comparisons between a Slumbercoach design, a Spirit of Queensland-style lie-flat seat design, and a straight "all-roomette" design in terms of capacity and features. My best guess, FWIW, is this:
-Slumbercoaches: Theoretical capacity and practical capacity of 40 or just under that.

-All-roomette: Theoretical capacity of 38-42 (depending on the presence/absence of a shower, where the toilets are, and if you have an attendant's room in every car). Practical capacity of about 30-34 (some people occupying a single, some a double).

-Lie-flat seating, 2-1 configuration: Theoretical and practical capacity of around 32-35/car (depending on some questions of ADA space, bathroom requirements, etc.).

The all-roomette capacity is replicated, roughly, for an all-section car...but that won't fly in the US as far as most of us can tell.

 

[jis]

I also wonder how a 2-1 herringbone lie flat setup would work on an NJT/MARC style multilevel. Do you get somewhat higher capacity and somewhat more spacious common facilities. There can be an ADA seat set at the middle level at one end with an ADA restroom.

 

[Anderson]

I also wonder how a 2-1 herringbone lie flat setup would work on an NJT/MARC style multilevel. Do you get somewhat higher capacity and somewhat more spacious common facilities. There can be an ADA seat set at the middle level at one end with an ADA restroom.

If we go with the "ususal" increase in capacity of about 15% (which I think you mentioned at some point in the past), that'd be another six seats or so. Not sure if that transfers "properly" under the circumstances, and I might not be accounting for any improvements from a herringbone configuration. Bottom line, though, is that you should be able to get close to or over 40 seats.

In such a scenario, however, my thought would be that you'd assign a "standard" single-level car to handle the ADA seats (perhaps have two rows of 2-2 for the ADA requirements; four slots for ADA accessibility plus a few more that're relatively accessible (standard seats with no stairs) might allow you to flog a bit more out of the bilevels). In this specific context, 1-3 of those cars on a train would make a bit more sense than "usual".

 

[Big Iron]

I'd be interested to see some comparisons between a Slumbercoach design, a Spirit of Queensland-style lie-flat seat design, and a straight "all-roomette" design in terms of capacity and features. My best guess, FWIW, is this:

-Slumbercoaches: Theoretical capacity and practical capacity of 40 or just under that.

-All-roomette: Theoretical capacity of 38-42 (depending on the presence/absence of a shower, where the toilets are, and if you have an attendant's room in every car). Practical capacity of about 30-34 (some people occupying a single, some a double).

-Lie-flat seating, 2-1 configuration: Theoretical and practical capacity of around 32-35/car (depending on some questions of ADA space, bathroom requirements, etc.).

The all-roomette capacity is replicated, roughly, for an all-section car...but that won't fly in the US as far as most of us can tell.

Budd built 50 twenty one roomette cars, primarily for the PRR, the "Inn" series. Delivery started in 1949, by 1964 all were converted to coaches. Seems like the 38-42 capacity for an all roomette car may be on the high side.