Experiential service class

[Arborwayfan]

I support a luxury class if it pays for itself. If it helps to subsidize coach (or coach and economy sleeper), better and better.

I do not support luxury trains. Unless it can do it at a clear profit that helps run other parts of the system, Amtrak has no business turning away the Boy Scouts and college students and installers travelling from one job to the next and all the other ordinary passengers and replacing their train with a kind of museum cruise. And if Amtrak can make a profit hauling those pax, Amtrak can also use that profit to haul a few coaches on the same trains. Seems doubtful to me.

The people in coach are real passengers. Given how much we keep hearing about dining car losses, I assume the coach passengers are a lot cheaper to haul.

An overnight ferry (to Alaska, or across the Baltic, for example) has several classes of room, from barebones with bathroom down the hall to fancy with queen-sized beds. They have several restaurants at quite different price points. They also take deck passengers (no room) and let people bring their own food. Obviously a train doesn't have the space a huge ship has, but an experiential plan should look at what the ferries do, and consider doing something similar:

1. unbundle sleeping and eating. Plenty of people would like a bed and one sit-down meal a day; plenty would sit up and also eat one sit-down meal a day. Some want all sit-down meals, whether they are riding in coach or sleeper.

2. But offer slight discounts for people who pay for food in advance, maybe, whether they are in coach or in sleeper.

3. Offer different classes of sleeping accommodations if the market exists (but not otherwise).

4. Continue to cater to pax who just want a ride and a window; don't aim the whole thing at the wine-tasting crowd.

[mtuandrew]

I normally don’t say “I totally agree”, but I totally agree with Arborwayfan’s post. Amtrak has the power to bundle or un-bundle amenities as it wishes, whether at booking, prior to departure, or onboard the train. Once it has sold such amenity bundles, Amtrak can identify passengers to the crew who’ve already opted into a certain amenity like a bedroom, hot meal(s), free soft drinks and snacks, “welcome packs” of blankets and earphones, etc. Some people won’t opt into anything but the free WiFi and access to the Sightseer lounge & cafe (do NOT try to take that away for coach passengers!), and that’s fine. Others will spend hundreds more on everything from extra pillows to high-thread-count sheets to complimentary bottles of wine. Wherever Amtrak can make additional money without gouging or giving up service/existing base amenities, that’s a good thing.

[lordsigma12345]

I normally don’t say “I totally agree”, but I totally agree with Arborwayfan’s post. Amtrak has the power to bundle or un-bundle amenities as it wishes, whether at booking, prior to departure, or onboard the train. Once it has sold such amenity bundles, Amtrak can identify passengers to the crew who’ve already opted into a certain amenity like a bedroom, hot meal(s), free soft drinks and snacks, “welcome packs” of blankets and earphones, etc. Some people won’t opt into anything but the free WiFi and access to the Sightseer lounge & cafe (do NOT try to take that away for coach passengers!), and that’s fine. Others will spend hundreds more on everything from extra pillows to high-thread-count sheets to complimentary bottles of wine. Wherever Amtrak can make additional money without gouging or giving up service/existing base amenities, that’s a good thing.

I would agree - they should not be taking away amenities from coach for whatever this premium class looks like.

[Tadman]

An overnight ferry (to Alaska, or across the Baltic, for example) has several classes of room, from barebones with bathroom down the hall to fancy with queen-sized beds. They have several restaurants at quite different price points. They also take deck passengers (no room) and let people bring their own food. Obviously a train doesn't have the space a huge ship has, but an experiential plan should look at what the ferries do, and consider doing something similar:

A bit of background - I've been on both of these. They're totally different animals from each other. The Baltic routes are for-profit and do quite well. They only offer enhanced services, I don't recall a camping-deck space offering. The locals know this as the party boat, and choose it over air when they need a car or want to cut loose. The Alaska ferries are bare bones, even in cabin class. Only the nicest rooms have en-suite bathroom. Mine was a bunk bend, sink, and basic chair in a space the size of a family bedroom on a superliner. Alaska ferries are heavily subsidized, and every year it's a battle to keep them running. The clientele was mostly locals, I was the only tourist.

Which brings up an important point. My room was very spartan, much more so than a Superliner cabin of any sort. No window, the chair was one step above a folding chair, the bed did not fold into a couch, etc... when discussing sleeper needs for Amtrak, it's important to recognize many sleeper ships and trains outside the Amtrak system do not offer rooms anywhere near as nice as the standard bedroom and do not offer seating, just a bed that stays out.

[Arborwayfan]

Tad,
Thanks for the Alaska experience. I did not know the details.
Right, the Baltic non-room offering would be the "party all night", or maybe "sit in a seat all night" offering, not a camping deck. I think "deck passenger" is still the right word for such people, but maybe with those examples it's confusing.

Sam

[exvalley]

Many transportation systems offers varying classes of service. This is because it maximizes revenue. The goal is to attract people of all sorts of price points. The airlines are pretty good at playing the game by unbundling services and having fares from basic economy to unrestricted first class. As much as I hate fees, it's hard to argue against a system that gives consumers the choice of what to pay for.

I've priced out Prestige Class on the Canadian. It took a few seconds to pick my jaw up off of the floor.

Based on the revenues that this type of service can generate, I am in favor of doing something similar on Amtrak trains - with one major caveat: It should not reduce what is offered in existing classes. From a business (revenue) perspective alone it would be a mistake. It is also important to keep existing classes if Amtrak is going to be asking for subsidies. Nobody will want to subsidize a "premier only" service.

Amtrak may be quasi-public transportation, but long distance train travel is a distinct form of transportation. Unsure? Try running only Metra cars from Chicago to California and see how ridership is impacted. Amtrak needs to make their long distance trains appealing to as many people as possible and treat them for what they are. A version of Prestige Class may be an important piece of that puzzle.

[exvalley]

Alaska ferries are heavily subsidized, and every year it's a battle to keep them running...

Which brings up an important point. My room was very spartan, much more so than a Superliner cabin of any sort.

Given that several private cruise lines make money on the Alaska circuit, I would hazard to guess that the two points you made are correlated.

I'm not saying that Alaska Ferries should give up its bare bones accommodations, mind you. They serve a public interest in linking the communities that are served by the system. It's a complicated situation.

[CTRailfan]

I'm not sure if Amtrak routes have clearance for the exact cars, and Colorado Railcar went out of business years ago anyway, but the Alaska Railroad's Gold Star service is second to none for US-based railroads. It's aimed at leisure travelers, many of them retirement age, but the trains have regular cars that also serve a useful transportation purpose for regular people. The combination of first class diner service below and the dome above is incredible and really fun to be on. As long as Amtrak trains have regular coaches and sleepers, I don't see the harm in having a few first-class coaches for the well-heeled travelers who want an experience and are willing to pay for it, especially if that subsidizes better/more service for the riders in coach.

[Arborwayfan]

Precisely, CTRailfan.

[eolesen]

There's nothing preventing luxury operations within the existing Amtrak network. Tacking on a private car or two is still possible on core routes like the EB, CZ, and SWC. All it takes is negotiating with Amtrak to turn this into a repeating event vs. a one-time charter agreement.

What shouldn't happen is for Amtrak footing the CapEx investment to allow it. Plenty of private cars around, and if someone wants to reinvent what Colorado Railcar failed at, they're free to try. But do so with their own funding, thank you.

[Gilbert B Norman]

Looks like Australia doesn’t think LD trains are dead - or at least private sector Luxotrains:

Great Southern Luxo train

Here's a quick "primer" on who owns what "Down Under". Hope you are all taking notes as there will be a short quiz later:

Australian Rail Infrastructure

Apparently, the operators have successfully negotiated with the counterparties (take your pick) to operate their trains.

But nowhere does it appear that any governmental level is involved with operating intercity trains beyond the "two a day" Brisbane, QLD, Sydney, NSW, and Melbourne, VIC. While Sleeping Car service is offered on the "Night Trains", such features a 3AM arrival and vacate at Brisbane, and what appears to be an "Amtrak LDSL" of OBS:

https://youtu.be/V_38ple09_U

Obviously, I've never been down there (and from those I know who have, "it's not all it's cracked up to be"), but if I were to, as I have a Niece who permanently lives there, I don't think a train ride much beyond her home at Pymble, NSW and Sydney would be on the agenda. Nor would, jumping in the water and getting bitten by a shark like her kids "just can't stay away from".

There's nothing in RPSA 70 or subsequent enacted legislation baring a member Class I and a private operator entering into a bilateral agreement to operate a passenger train - even if such is in competition with Amtrak (the Class I itself, or some "veiled" subsidiary, is barred).

Therefore a private party could come to a bilateral agreement with UP to operate a, say, Denver-Salt Lake City Luxotrain. However, no private operator has stepped up to do so - and for that matter, I doubt if UP is "exactly" out there looking for one.

Finally, I hold that there will not be an "A-Day massacre" with the LD's, but I believe there is an objective to be "rid of 'em" and still keep funding for infrastructure "where it counts". The Old Lions are dying off either to the grave or to K Street. The "education" could include $ better spent elsewhere, as well as with interference getting the "Frozen" doll to Wally World and "Santa" making "the final mile" by Xmas.

[CTRailfan]

What shouldn't happen is for Amtrak footing the CapEx investment to allow it. Plenty of private cars around, and if someone wants to reinvent what Colorado Railcar failed at, they're free to try. But do so with their own funding, thank you.

If the numbers are solid for Amtrak to be able to turn a profit on the operations, why shouldn't Amtrak itself be able to invest in the rolling stock to do it? This type of operation has the potential to significantly subsidize rural service on LD routes like the Zephyr, Chief, Empire Builder, etc. It might be trickier on NYC routes due to the size of equipment that they can buy, but they should look into that as well.

[eolesen]

That's a pretty big **IF** there... especially when those long-distance routes are traversing the best parts of the journey at night. If it were indeed so lucrative to invest in new experiential equipment, why haven't the Canadians done it on their transcon? Instead, they keep rehabbing fully depreciated equipment.

Remember that domes were originally introduced to try and draw people away from airplanes.... it didn't work. Amtrak could have added a business class experience long ago, and that's been limited to daytime services only on the coasts. I'd think that this would have been added on the LD's if there were really demand.

It's my opinion that experiential services would never come close to breaking even.

[Tadman]

What shouldn't happen is for Amtrak footing the CapEx investment to allow it. Plenty of private cars around, and if someone wants to reinvent what Colorado Railcar failed at, they're free to try. But do so with their own funding, thank you.

If the numbers are solid for Amtrak to be able to turn a profit on the operations, why shouldn't Amtrak itself be able to invest in the rolling stock to do it? This type of operation has the potential to significantly subsidize rural service on LD routes like the Zephyr, Chief, Empire Builder, etc. It might be trickier on NYC routes due to the size of equipment that they can buy, but they should look into that as well.

Capital is a finite thing, even for the US Government. Why should they borrow $200m for rolling stock to run a service that might subsidize a losing operation and maybe break even as a whole, when none of this is really essential? If that money were really available, why not use it to run more regional coach trains similar to the Palmetto on routes like MSP-Chicago or NOLA-Mobile? If there is the profit potential for elevated-offering long distance rail service, wouldn't someone already be providing it?

[Tadman]

Looks like Australia doesn’t think LD trains are dead - or at least private sector Luxotrains:

Great Southern Luxo train

I do believe the Aussie long distance trains (Indian Pacific, Ghan, and Great Southern) are similar to the Canadian. 2x/week, very long, very expensive, aimed at tourists, has a subsidy because they someone provide a combination of economic boost to the hinterlands and might provide necessary transport to locals. I'm not sure how true that is on the Indian Pacific, but when I rode in September '17, the Canadian had 27 cars and three were coach. I don't not presume the Indian Pacific makes a GAAP profit, perhaps not even an operating profit.

As one aside, I was a sleeper open section lower passenger, and Via considers that to be a lower class offering closer to coach than the top sleeper tier in the food chain. While it was not cheap, it was nowhere near the astronomical prestige cabins and was still the bedroom cost. I was traveling solo and slept just fine, I'd do it again. But I think Via sees the open section as more of necessary transportation than luxury.

Which leads me to a quesiton: If the open section requires more labor than a roomette (must lower beds AND hang curtains) why is it used instead of a roomette? It appears to seat the same passenger count.