The Slumbercoach - Everything You'll Want or Need to Know

NRHS Bulletin #71 (most recent I have) has a feature article regarding the Slumbercoach - and as noted in the title, 'everything you'll ever want to need to know".

I've only reviewed it, but to our Slumbercoach devotees around here such as Mr. Morris, it will prove quite a 'read' and will likely re-ignite the discussion of 'why can't Amtrak have these cars?".

The superliner roomette is basically a slightly over sized double slumbercoach. It was given a new name and overpriced by a factor of two or three. If AMtrak took some sleepers, modified them by removing the bedrooms and putting in single slumbercoaches, and removed the foodservice from the price, they would have a slumbercoach.

The reason we don't have second class sleepers is obvious, it is because we don't have first class either. Slumbercoach service would ruin the market for regular sleepers, and would also mess up the F&B accounts as foodservice would not be included.

It would be very interesting to see what would happen if Amtrak took an overnight train such as the City of New Oreans, and had only a few coaches, slumbercoachs and the dinner/lounge combo with the slumber coach priced at something like $40 a night single and $70 double. What would the economics of that train look like?

My little notes:

Is there analysis somewhere as to what effect the slumbercoaches had on the ridership of the sleepers on those trains that used them in pre-Amtrak days?

What's the S-Coach price then, in today's money?

In those days, the RR's turned the slumbercoaches around within minutes, to maximize their use and value, something that Amtrak doesn't seem capable/willing of doing today.

Just to support the villain here, Don't forget, today's Amtrak sleepers have showers.

My vision of the 21st Century Slumbercoach is: Offset hallway, single duplex rooms on one side, double (side by side seats/beds) duplex rooms on the other side; no plumbling in rooms, lavatories only in cars, no bedding supplied, just pillows, no solid walls along hallway, either open to the hallway or curtains. I.E., more coach in nature, and less sleeper like. I.E., Having a horizontal surface to "sleep" on is all it takes to fill the need.

icgsteve wrote:
It would be very interesting to see what would happen if Amtrak took an overnight train such as the City of New Oreans, and had only a few coaches, slumbercoachs and the dinner/lounge combo with the slumber coach priced at something like $40 a night single and $70 double. What would the economics of that train look like?

Well since the cost to operate a slumbercoach is the same as a sleeper you are basicly keeping the same costs (except for meals) but giving up thousands of dollars in revenue per car (difference between current "first class" fares and your proposed charges) so I would say it is a big money loser- though as a proponent of the "masses" being able to afford to travel on a train I would love to see it.

Historically (in the pre-Amtrak Days) space in a Slumbercoach required nothing more than a coach ticket and a slight surcharge. Pullman was not involved, and no additional first class charges were incurred.

I would have to agree to what one of the previous posters stated...Amtrak's First Class service isn't really First Class in terms of what you are getting for the price of the ticket.

Personally, it would be nice to have a Slumbercoach option at a lower cost.

Slumbercoaches made Amtrak sleeper travel affordable, something that is simply not the case today as far as I'm concerned. I traveled in them many times during the 1970s and 80s, mostly between Albany and Chicago, and found the accomodations perfectly adequate for a night's sleep at a reasonable surcharge. The problem, of course, is that Amtrak does not see its mission as providing affordable transportation for the largest number of people -- which for me would solidify its political support -- but rather maximizing revenue by limiting options and charging what the market will bear for limited space.

I'd have to check the dates more closely to be sure but it looks like Amtrak dumped the slumber coaches just before going to demand pricing on the sleepers, which makes sense. Second class sleepers totally jacks the plan to inflate the regular sleeper prices, even after Amtrak had vastly inflated the slumbercoach prices. It looks like before they came off slumber coach prices had gone to 50% of 1st class, as has been mentioned historically slumber coach was a slight bump up from coach.

I think that if Amtrak had a plan to recoup slumber coach costs at 80% occupancy that it would make sense. They could put enough on to satisfy the majority of demand, and those not satisfied could go up to sleeper or down to coach.

Slumber coaches often were 24-8 and at $40 single 70 double at 80% would get you $1300 a day rev. With superliners this should get to $2000 a day rev, which if you are not paying a attendant should cover costs. I figure that a car should be rev bearing 4 days out of 7 and with the pricing outlined and assumption of 80% occupancy gets a rev per year of a half million dollars per year, which I figure should cover costs.

If a half million will not cover costs then we could bump up the price some. Somebody somewhere said that VIA has one attendant per three cars, and since Amtrak does not attempt to offer first class service one per three should be fine. I figure employee cost at no more than $80,000 per year, so if need be we should be able to pay for some employee time in the slumber coaches.

$70 double would be quite overpriced to me with regards to a train like the CONO, and would really only deter people from booking sleepers.

If you check the lowest bucket price (which is QUITE easy to find on most dates) for a Roomette, you'll see that for the consumer travelling in pairs in Roomettes, the current room rate is much more favorable than one of $70 double when you consider the addition of a dinner and breakfast for 2 people.

I have reservations on this train in June, and the cost of the accomodations was a big factor in going this route. In fact, the way I figure it, once we factor out the out of pocket cost of the included meals, we're actually paying between 20-30 total for the roomette itself, a whole $10-$15 per person.

SWC Chief would seem the ideal train to try such an experiment on, as the roomette rates on this train tend towards the "out of the ballpark" range.

In the 1972 90 day reincarnation of the Chief, I actually rode a double slumbercoach. I was 15.

The designers forgot they were dealing with a lowered roof on a high-height car (be a a dome, an ATSF Hi-Level, or a Superliner. Headroom from the mattress surface to the ceiling is abysmal in any double-deck cars. On a true slumbercoach, the headroom was the same as a standard berth.

Amtrak Roomettes: All of the disadvantages of a double Slumbercoach and then some.

I rode in my first Slumbercoach on Penn Central eastbound from Chicago to NYG in 1970. I rode in them many, many times on the Crescent, the Florida trains, and to Montreal. I preferred the upper to the lower single, since it's possible to lie in bed and look out the window in the upper. Also, the room seems a little more spacious. I would always ride in a Slumbercoach when available, as it was very close to a roomette in size but much cheaper.

Slumbercoaches justified their lower price by sleeping 40 rather than 22, as did standard Pullmans. A Viewliner sleeps 30, IIRC (12 roomettes, 3 bedrooms).

This raises another issue that I've pointed out before. The quality of the designs for sleeping cars built for the Pullman Company were, and are, far superior to the layouts of either Superliner or Viewliner sleepers. There's something to be said for a century of experience running sleepers. Amtrak should have paid more attention.

NellieBly wrote:The quality of the designs for sleeping cars built for the Pullman Company were, and are, far superior to the layouts of either Superliner or Viewliner sleepers.

I believe they were much more functional as well.

I found them noisy and they bounced all over the place, but that was on Penn Central tracks between South Bend and Croton.

Amtrak designed sleepers were intentionally stripped down cramped versions of the Pullmans, because at the time Amtrak thought it was in egalitarian low priced rail transit supply. Now that they are supposed to cater to the bottom line they should give the people what they want to buy. In the case of sleeper design this would be a low priced well designed space to sleep in (slumber coach) and a first class product based upon the Pullman concept but updated. Considering that Amtrak has just refurbished all of their sleeper stock with the same crappy design they were built with this is so not happening anytime soon.

I still like the idea of the slumbercoach/couchette for travelers, though it appears Americans will never 'cozy up' to the idea. To me, however, it sure beats sitting up slumped over in a chair car all night.

The problem, of course, is that Amtrak does not see its mission as providing affordable transportation for the largest number of people -- which for me would solidify its political support -- but rather maximizing revenue by limiting options and charging what the market will bear for limited space.

I think the problem is that the people holding the purse strings (a.k.a. the government) sees Amtrak the same way.


Regarding the slumbercoaches, I wonder just how popular those would be. If they're anything like the six bunk couchette I experienced on a ride from Madrid to Paris, I'd rather stick with an Amtrak LD coach seat!