Railroad Forums 

  • Why shouldn’t Amtrak cater to people looking for a land cruise?

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1520651  by SouthernRailway
 
Amtrak is sometimes dismissed as an otherwise-irrelevant mode of transportation that caters to people looking for a land cruise.

In response, I’d say that Amtrak isn’t fancy enough to be a land cruise. From the rough Acela lounge at NY Penn Station to the dodgy stations in small-town USA tonthe dates Amfleet lounges to the cutbacks in dining car service, Amtrak isn’t fancy.

However, a sleeping car room is a very relaxing and nice way to travel, and upper-income people have more and more money to spend.

This why shouldn’t Amtrak cater to people seeking a land cruise? This could be a super-premium class of service at high prices: enough to make a profit and reduce the need for subsidies overall. I’m thinking:

1. A few premium rooms per long-distance train, with lots of space, nice bedding, and a nice lounge space with free drinks and nice snacks.

2. A ride to and from each train station, with no waiting in line.

3. Flexible tickets (canceling or changing without penalty).

4. Very gourmet meals.

All of this would be at a very high price and would be only a handful of rooms per train. This would be in addition to current service offerings.

Day trains could offer this in maybe a third of a car: ultra-luxury, at a high price. Maybe there could be a hybrid Viewliner sleeper-lounge-coach car?

Why not?
 #1520653  by Tadman
 
That’s not what Amtrak is for. A government-funded operation is for public benefit, not luxury. I think Via gets around that with their prestige class by implying that the prestige class brings wealthy tourists to Jasper, ETc... - the benefit is not for the tourists, but for the merchants.

On a far more practical note, the best cruise trains seem to be those privately owned cruise trains. Rocky does great, as do the Belmont trains. You could probably make an argument that if Amtrak were to remove sleepers on routes like CZ or Builder, a private cruise train operator could institute a train that creates far more economic value with no taxpayer resources.
 #1520671  by Greg Moore
 
Tadman wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:08 pm That’s not what Amtrak is for. A government-funded operation is for public benefit, not luxury. I think Via gets around that with their prestige class by implying that the prestige class brings wealthy tourists to Jasper, ETc... - the benefit is not for the tourists, but for the merchants.
This is perfectly circular logic. I think Southernrailway's question is a good one worth giving more thought to.

Tadman wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:08 pm On a far more practical note, the best cruise trains seem to be those privately owned cruise trains. Rocky does great, as do the Belmont trains. You could probably make an argument that if Amtrak were to remove sleepers on routes like CZ or Builder, a private cruise train operator could institute a train that creates far more economic value with no taxpayer resources.
I'd doubt it. So far it seems every "high-end" land cruise option has failed. It just doesn't seem like there is a large enough market.
 #1520673  by eolesen
 
It comes down to the defined mission statement for Amtrak:

“To provide efficient and effective intercity passenger rail mobility consisting of high-quality service that is trip-time competitive with other intercity travel options.”


What in that statememnt says luxury? What part of a land cruise is "trip time competitive" or "efficient"?
 #1520674  by Backshophoss
 
American Orient Express and Mr Ellis's Pullman Journeys tried and went "belly up"
Disney may have studied but never acted on the possibly(Florida should have been a "No Brainer" for them.the Park and Cruise line options)
Various private car owners have pulled it off at times with some success.
VIA is doing the best it can do with it's very small network of train service.
 #1520693  by SouthernRailway
 
eolesen wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:59 pm It comes down to the defined mission statement for Amtrak:

“To provide efficient and effective intercity passenger rail mobility consisting of high-quality service that is trip-time competitive with other intercity travel options.”


What in that statememnt says luxury? What part of a land cruise is "trip time competitive" or "efficient"?
The term “high-quality” leaves the door open to high-end service.
 #1520706  by electricron
 
Let's look at it from a historic viewpoint. The only over the top notch luxury rail cars were private care where the rich person and family owned the entire car. Remember imagines of the Presidents of the US, I'm thinking HST, riding in a private observation car campaigning at whistle stops. They were not riding in regular coach and sleeper cars. That's real luxury.

Today, campaigning is done from private owned or leased jet planes. Trump used his privately owned luxury Boeing 757. It's hard, if not impossible, to find anyone making luxury rail private cars anymore - but easy to find luxury private motorhomes, planes, and yachts. Why? I believe there are far more destinations available than hitched to the back end of an Amtrak train.

It is far easier, far less paperwork required, to have a motorhome driven to a destination than it is to have Amtrak pull your private railcar there. It might even be easier to fly your own plane there. Look at all the requirements Amtrak requires at
https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/proj ... 010119.pdf

FYI, some interesting facts:
35,000 cities and towns in the USA
5,092 public airports, 14,530 private airports in the USA
360 commercial sea ports in the USA
more than 500 Amtrak train stations
 #1520710  by Tadman
 
Greg Moore wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:36 pm I'd doubt it. So far it seems every "high-end" land cruise option has failed. It just doesn't seem like there is a large enough market.
The concept that private rail cruises have failed is totally false. What's failed is railfan-as-entrepreneur playing trains. When it's run as a business, it does very well.

There are quite a few profitable private operators:
1. Belmond trains
2. Rocky Mountaineer
3. Grand Canyon Railway
4. Alaska Railway
5. Grand Canyon
6. White Pass Route

(although Alaska is public, they make their money mostly contract-hauling cruise passengers - BIG money)
nkloudon wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:32 pm >A government-funded operation is for public benefit, not luxury.

Why not, it can increase revenue (or reduce subsidy) ?
You're not wrong, but there's a better alternative. Consider UPS and Fedex. The Post Office can and does offer express service, but if they were that good at what they do, why does UPS exist? Because the post office is awful at what they do. Same thing with Essential Air Service. Why don't they buy some 767's and put in premium service to London to help defray the cost of serving McKeesport PA? Because Delta and United are so much better at it.

In the end, the private carriers create far more economic value than a half-a** attempt by a gov't service.
 #1520719  by Greg Moore
 
Remind me how many sleepers are on the Grand Canyon railway?

Same with the Alaska Railway, which unless I'm confusing it with another operation is basically operated as an extension of the cruise ship experience itself and is generally marketed that way.

The Rocky Mountaineer is basically a Canadian operation, so I don't think that can really count as a successful US high end operation. (and when I tried to find an option for a trip to Seattle for 2020, none came up).

I'm not familiar with the others, but I stand by my claim (if modified a bit) in general, high end "land cruise" operations in the US generally have failed (how many incarnations of the "American Orient Express" and similar have their been?

That said, I've still maintained I think there's a market for a "Disney" train (or set of cars on one of the Silver Service) that starts in NYC and ends at Orlando. Oriented towards family service, you start your Disney experience when you board, with Disney themed rooms, a character dinner and breakfast, etc.
You get off in Orlando, and just like they do with the airlines, they handle all your baggage and drop you and your baggage off directly at your room with no intervention on your part.
 #1520720  by eolesen
 
SouthernRailway wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:25 am
eolesen wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:59 pm It comes down to the defined mission statement for Amtrak:

“To provide efficient and effective intercity passenger rail mobility consisting of high-quality service that is trip-time competitive with other intercity travel options.”


What in that statememnt says luxury? What part of a land cruise is "trip time competitive" or "efficient"?
The term “high-quality” leaves the door open to high-end service.
In isolation, yes. But you can't leave out the trailing statement "trip-time competitive with other intercity travel options".

You can have high end service **IF** it is time competitive. First class on Acela or corridor services is fine.

Luxury service on a multi-day trip which is days slower than other options? Not really in scope for a government operated service intended to link underserved communities with the rest of the country or reduce impact on other forms of transportation infrastructure.
 #1520728  by Arborwayfan
 
The Post Office is not awful at what it does. Five sheets of paper or a greeting card door-to-door anywhere in the country in two or three days for 55 cents, with very, very few mistakes in delivery, and all costs covered by user fees, even far-in-advance retirement funding required by congressmen who said it was necessary because they expected the Post Office to be eliminated before those people retired? Get Amtrak to the Post Office's level of performance and we could all be very happy with our train service.
 #1520732  by R36 Combine Coach
 
Greg Moore wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:36 pm
Tadman wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:08 pmThat’s not what Amtrak is for. A government-funded operation is for public benefit, not luxury.
I'd doubt it. So far it seems every "high-end" land cruise option has failed. It just doesn't seem like there is a large enough market.
VIA (a Federal "crown" corporation) apparently has some success on the Canadian, selling out in peak months. There is demand.

Perhaps a return of the flagship NYP-LAX "National" to rival the Canadian?
 #1520735  by Tadman
 
Greg Moore wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 11:14 am Remind me how many sleepers are on the Grand Canyon railway?
I don’t know why that germane to the conversation. Nowhere does it state the train must have sleepers to be good or cool. I’ve named five train to make really good money hauling passengers without Assistance from the federal government.

In the end it doesn’t change the fact that more economic value is created by the private operators in situations like this. Why would you want to give this to Amtrak when more travelers employees and stockholders can benefit from a private operator ? Who wins in that situation? Absolutely none of the stakeholders in any of the operations I name go home thinking “if only we had sleepers we would be a legitimate operation“. They go home and count their money .
 #1520749  by Greg Moore
 
Tadman wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:14 pm
Greg Moore wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 11:14 am Remind me how many sleepers are on the Grand Canyon railway?
I don’t know why that germane to the conversation. Nowhere does it state the train must have sleepers to be good or cool. I’ve named five train to make really good money hauling passengers without Assistance from the federal government.
It's germane to the conversation because it's exactly what Southernrailway referred to in his first post.
However, a sleeping car room is a very relaxing and nice way to travel, and upper-income people have more and more money to spend.