Viewliner II Delivery/Production

Good to learn, Mr. Junkie.

Thirty seven to go; Xmas '19 perchance?

gokeefe wrote:

Arlington wrote:The assumption here is that current trains are optimally-sized. Until Amtrak finds a way to deploy sleepers so that they win fare $ faster than they burn diner dollars, it doen't need any new sleepers.

I don't think it's a reasonable assumption at all given that fixed consists prevail regardless of seasonal swings in demand.

The question remains: are they:

- sized properly for the peak times (and oversized the rest of year), or
- sized properly for the slow times (and undersized at the peak)

Even if the answer is that they are undersized at the peak, the question is whether: sleepers can be added at the peak without triggering the need for a second diner (hence the attraction of diner-less and diner-lite sleepers).

If we say the profit-maximizng ratio of sleepers to diners is 3 to 1 (or 4 to 1) being able to deploy and fill 1 or 2 more sleepers is not an economic win (because of diner costs) and having to deploy a 3rd or 4th sleeper on a train won't be a win if either (a) the train gets too long / requires additional locomotive or (b) the 3rd and 4th sleeper are too hard to fill.

EDIT: It is also the case that as sleepers are added, average fares MUST fall. Another safe assumption is that Amtrak, today, is charging full-premium fares which have soaked up all demand with current capacity, and left everyone else feeling "priced out" (we can argue whether this is good or bad--I think it good--the reality is that to attract more people, you have to LOWER average fares to attract those who feel priced out at current prices)

If there were latent demand at current prices, prices should have already been raised to fill the sleepers at maximum price. (instead of satisfying only 100 customers out of a potential 200 that would pay $300 for a trip, price should have already risen to, say $400 for a trip, where exactly 100 customers want to fill 100 berths at that price. Therefore in order to attract "all 200" into an enlarged sleeper class, prices would have to fall to $300...when you "open up" more seats, you have to lower prices to fill them.

Right now, the only proven model (from MPR data) for winning new riders is the Starvation, which lowered fares and ran fuller as a result.

New sleeper capacity, far from being "pure profit" is actually at least dilutive of prices (capturing additional riders but requiring lower average fares) and if it requires running more diners, I don't see how it can pay for itself.



Working the edges of demand with Bag Dorms seems low risk and worth experimenting (particularly the berths freed up can be served from existing diner capacity). Whole sleepers are trouble if they have to be served and hauled with additional diners and locomotives.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:Good to learn, Mr. Junkie.

Thirty seven to go; Xmas '19 perchance?

Looks like the next move should be in October??? How many they will have ready, who knows.

Arlington: replace “additional diners” with “additional staff” and I think you’ll hit the root of Amtrak’s dilemma. I can’t imagine them adding second dining cars to any LD train (does the Auto Train have two?) after having removed the diner-like Pacific Parlours from service. Considering that a single attendant can handle serving the new menu on the three-sleeper Eastern LDs, three crew members in one diner ought to be able to serve at least eight sleepers if not in the teens.

mtuandrew wrote:Arlington: replace “additional diners” with “additional staff” and I think you’ll hit the root of Amtrak’s dilemma. I can’t imagine them adding second dining cars to any LD train (does the Auto Train have two?)

Would you believe 3 1/2? Two first class diners, one coach diner, and half of the adjacent lounge set up as a diner for meal service. So I actually had a meal in a Superliner Sightseer Lounge once last year. Very cool.

They only have one Sightseer Lounge so you have a 50/50 shot of riding it.

Here's a consist pic. That Sightseer Lounge (#12) has been moved adjacent to the front diner replacing the front lounge (#2) and serves the overflow coach meal service. This allows the adding of one revenue sleeper or coach depending on demand.

Well that's certainly interesting news. Nice to hear they're starting to move on sleeper modules.

mtuandrew wrote:Arlington: replace “additional diners” with “additional staff” and I think you’ll hit the root of Amtrak’s dilemma. I can’t imagine them adding second dining cars to any LD train (does the Auto Train have two?) after having removed the diner-like Pacific Parlours from service. Considering that a single attendant can handle serving the new menu on the three-sleeper Eastern LDs, three crew members in one diner ought to be able to serve at least eight sleepers if not in the teens.

That might be all it takes, then. It boils down to 4 things:
1) Keeping a "First Class Room" / "Sleeper" service at current high prices, where possible
2) Adding a "Business Class Room" (essentially Second Class) that can have lower price and less labor/food costs
3) Never triggering expensive additional staff or additional dining floorplate/car/seating/kitchen
4) Avoiding triggering additional motive/HEP power

How about:

First Class Room / Sleeper
- In-room toilet (V-I)
- Inclusive food / drink

Business Class Room / Sleeper
- no in-room toilet (V-II)
- minimal included food / drink

bostontrainguy wrote:Would you believe 3 1/2? Two first class diners, one coach diner, and half of the adjacent lounge set up as a diner for meal service. So I actually had a meal in a Superliner Sightseer Lounge once last year. Very cool.

They only have one Sightseer Lounge so you have a 50/50 shot of riding it.

Wow! That’s well above and beyond what I expected.

I would be very interested to see the cost allocation for OBS on the Auto Train. We’ve been told repeatedly that it nearly covers its operating costs, so perhaps part of that is by having so many meal seatings available at any one time.

[/attachment]

Arlington wrote:

mtuandrew wrote:Arlington: replace “additional diners” with “additional staff” and I think you’ll hit the root of Amtrak’s dilemma. I can’t imagine them adding second dining cars to any LD train (does the Auto Train have two?) after having removed the diner-like Pacific Parlours from service. Considering that a single attendant can handle serving the new menu on the three-sleeper Eastern LDs, three crew members in one diner ought to be able to serve at least eight sleepers if not in the teens.

That might be all it takes, then. It boils down to 4 things:
1) Keeping a "First Class Room" / "Sleeper" service at current high prices, where possible
2) Adding a "Business Class Room" (essentially Second Class) that can have lower price and less labor/food costs
3) Never triggering expensive additional staff or additional dining floorplate/car/seating/kitchen
4) Avoiding triggering additional motive/HEP power

How about:

First Class Room / Sleeper
- In-room toilet (V-I)
- Inclusive food / drink

Business Class Room / Sleeper
- no in-room toilet (V-II)
- minimal included food / drink

Still missing that middle-priced sweet spot for people who can't stand the idea of sleeping with snoring strangers and gross dirty restrooms but can't afford sleeper fares. Something like this:

First Class Bedroom $$$$
- Exclusive Private Car
- En-suite Washroom (sounds better)
- Inclusive food and drink

First Class Roomette $$$
- Exclusive Private Car and restrooms
- Inclusive food and drink

Business Class Mini-suites $$ (See below)
- Exclusive Private Car and restrooms
- Complementary Beverages

Coach $
- No extras

[attachment=0]mini suite.jpg

mtuandrew wrote:

bostontrainguy wrote:Would you believe 3 1/2? Two first class diners, one coach diner, and half of the adjacent lounge set up as a diner for meal service. So I actually had a meal in a Superliner Sightseer Lounge once last year. Very cool.

They only have one Sightseer Lounge so you have a 50/50 shot of riding it.

Wow! That’s well above and beyond what I expected.

I would be very interested to see the cost allocation for OBS on the Auto Train. We’ve been told repeatedly that it nearly covers its operating costs, so perhaps part of that is by having so many meal seatings available at any one time.

And EVERYONE eats for FREE!

btg: cue BUT SLUMBERCOACHES

I should not be party to pulling this topic further "off", but I think, Mr. Trainguy, Diner seating is three cars equivalent. There is one Diner for each class and one half Lounge for overflow Breakfast seating.

Total; three equivalent Diners.

Why AT continues to have a Lounge for each class escapes me. They (wisely; IYAM - If You Ask Me) no longer show movies, and me with my bottle of "Welch"s" hardly needs 'em - privacy is what I pay for with my Bedroom. Why one Sightseer is assigned to AT escapes me; "if you've seen one Pine Tree, you've seen 'em all".

Seems to me that Amtrak had originally estimated it needed 100 VIewliner sleepers to replace its single level Heritage sleepers. Course the Capitol Limited and City of New Orleans SUperliner conversion helped to ease the 50 ONLY VIewliner sleepers ordered. But that appeared to not be "enough." Broadway Limited and Montrealer were discontinued......regardless of the reasons, it meant no Viewliners had to be deployed. So four single level trains, roughly 12 train sets x 2 sleepers per set yielded 24 sleepers that could be avoided. So that helped Amtrak to deploy just 50 Viewliner sleepers when 100 seemed to be the magic request number (higher numbers were even reported as "needed"). Many advocates of long distance services have lamented about the "shortage" of Viewliner

So now Amtrak may finally get an additional 25 Viewliners, aligning it to the potential 100 needed after right sizing for the 12 train sets mentioned above....

There's no doubt that the VIewliner sleeper price (be it roomette or bedroom) has nearly doubled (using present value basis) since the retirement of the Heritage sleepers. So Amtrak marked up the price of sleepers to the economic tune of supply and demand theories. Shot supply of sleepers, charge as much as the market will bear. And there's quite a bit of pricing strategy out there still on selling any type of sleeper space. It's the highest price point on the train, but yes, a coach car can generate more money due to the turnover and capacity on a per trip basis.

Another change since even the 2000's has been reducing the number of trains to/from Florida. There were 3 major long distance trains from Northeast to Florida entering the 21st century. Now, it's just two. The Silver Palm was eliminated around 2003. Amtrak's at a historical low point of providing trains to/from Florida. And it's my opinion that Tampa took the largest hit.

I state the above to establish some context.

All that said, the single level long distance trains could:

- be running with at least three (3) Viewliner sleepers, except the Cardinal and Night Owl
- have one Viewlimer sleeper on the Night Owl restored (no dining service, just the option of sleeping space equating to AE First Class)
- have two Viewliner sleepers on the Cardinal
- have two attendants tending to the three total Viewlimer sleepers (after all, roughly 1.5 Viewliner sleeper berths = 1 Superliner sleeper berths). That's a cost savings on single level long distance trains.
- extend Palmetto to Tampa and add three sleepers to it.

So out of 75 Viewliner sleepers available, or that will be if procurement continues:

Lake Shore - 4 Viewliners x 3 train sets = 12 Total Viewliners
Crescent - 3 x 4 = 12
Silver Star - 3 x 4 = 12
Silver Meteor - 3 x 4 = 12
Silver Palm - 3 x 3 = 9
Cardinal - 2 x 2 = 4
Night Owl - 1 x 2 = 2

TOTAL Required = 63

Reserve = 12

Having ONE Viewliner Diner per train set would not break the bank; the Meteor does it every day as is now. And sometimes it has four sleepers in tow.

Amtrak could adjust the sleeper allocation per train as needed, but considering there's hardly any marketing of the long distance trains, and sleepers are running pretty full as is, the addition of one more sleeper, particularly if two attendants handle three sleepers, costs are not automatically doubling with the addition of a sleeper. I've ignored the through cars of the Pennsylvanian, as that could take more time than extending the Palmetto on an existing Amtrak route. Amtrak had an attractive market when it had three trains leaving for southern destinations morning, noon, and early evening.

I would disagree with adding new sleeper lines (or restoring old ones) until/unless Amtrak has had the opportunity to see what they can do for the Florida services with the new capacity. It is inexcusable that the Florida trains sellout the way that they do (months ahead of time in some cases) when Amtrak could be selling significant quantities of additional accommodations during the high season.

As Mr. Norman and Mr. Frailey ("Twilight of the Great Trains") remind us, SCL was making good money on their Florida service to the very end. In my opinion it is quickly becoming clear that Amtrak's losses of the Florida services in the 80's and 90's were something of a historical low point that is now well in the past.

They could add a sleeper, and sell it without meals , if the Diner capacity is a constraint.
I don't think there is any shortage of demand for sleepers as such , but probably is at the higher fare buckets.
They could possibly add 2 sleepers with one attendant, if there were enough regular riders who could pull the bed etc themselves.
And if the agreements would allow it , of course.