How can Amtrak obtain more sleeping cars?

Gilbert B Norman wrote:.........I wonder to what extent it would be feasable to convert Superliner Coaches to Sleepers.

I think it would be quite feasible if the conversion was for “Roomette” type accommodations as additional plumbing to the individual room would not be required. A conversion to a “Bedroom” type would be more complicated.

The Amfleet “Sleeper” conversion was for the Washington-Cumberland-Cincinnati “Shenandoah”. I believe Amtrak was initially required to provide sleepers on all overnight services and this is how they got around the requirement. But just barely:

Two Amfleet cars were modified with Superliner Economy Room (Roomette) components to provide two rooms in one end of the car. Passengers used the existing “facilities” and no showers were provided.

I think that Mr. Minuteman and, if I may place a halo atop my own head, myself have defined the problem.

The conversion into any configuration involving Bedrooms would entail providing for the plumbing.

But the "flip side' is that I believe the demand for Roomettes is limited. On some routes it appears artificially strong, such as on single level trains, simply because there is really no choice. Lest we note, the railroads were not entirely clueless; after all it was the shareholder's $$$$ they were playing with and when the anticipated post WWII demand failed to materialize, what was the first style of car to be rendered surplus and converted to other uses and in some cases scrapped (hints; PRR "-Inn", NYC "-Harbor', ATSF 'Indian--")?

Now I realize and respect that there are Members here who 1) consistently advocate an Economy Sleeper arrangement such as exists, but from what I understand is phasing out, in Europe. 2) There are also Members who find double occupancy of a Roomette quite satisfactory.

All well and good; but what I think is overlooked is that "we are fans' and many of us are prepared to make comfort sacrifices to be able to travel further and more frequently. Non-fans (case in point the party I noted on the active AT thread) simply do not wish to sacrifice comfort. If they did and "just get me there' would suffice, they would be 'up there" @ FL 35 or thereabouts.

GBN: Not to mention:

McKinley, McNaught, McThis, McThat (hint: 12 section, 1DR heavyweights).

Clover Hill, Clover Dale, Clover Trail (8 section 5DBR rebuilts)

Amtrak's use of the term roomette continues to evoke an improper image IMO. Looking at things with my FOAMER eye, a roomette is an accommodation for ONE!!!, with facilities in room.

A SECTION is facing seats forming an upper and a lower.

John Perkowski

With all due respect, I would suggest that to the travelling public, the definition of a "roomette" is whatever Amtrak decides it is. Just as a 2004 Mustang is not what a 1964 Mustang was, or "First Class" on today's United Airlines is not what it was in 1972.

As far as the roomette's suitability for two people, without adequate money for new stock or even marketing, It seems that Amtrak is stuck with what they have - at least for the next four years or so. Therefore, you can't expect them to launch a campaign extolling the downside of occupying the upper bunk of a Superliner: "Conquer your Clastrophobia!" "Sleep like you're in the Coffin!" (note to the novice traveller: It's not *that* bad, but it is a bit tight)

While there is obviously a need for more bedrooms, especially in the East, maybe we need to think outside the box a bit for other accomodations. How about coaches with two compartments (for groups and familes who want space and privacy, but not a bathroom or free meals) Bedrooms without Bathrooms? Roomettes with sinks, but no toilet? As I've said before, I don't mind going down the hall when nature calls, but I'd really rather have "my own" sink for washing up.

Hotels and cruise lines have realized that guests want different things today than they wanted in 1940, or even 1980 (which weaked havoc on grand old institutions like the Palmer House and Queen Mary - some evolved, some didn't) perhaps it's time Amtrak explore this as well. Not that they can do anything much about it.

You dont really know what the customer wants , until you offer it to them .
Ive got a shed full of things that i thought would sell really well , were good products , but noone wanted them .conversly, some items that i thought would never sell , have sold like hot cakes .
what i am saying is , we cant write off the "section" or whatever you like to call it , in todays market , because it is not there to gauge customer reaction to it .

OK, let's take the standard Superliner sleeper:

5 Deluxe rooms, 2-3 people per
14 (insert name here), 2 people per
1 handicap room, 2 people per
1 family room, 2 adults and 2 munchkins per
10+28+2+4=44 ... with hard max of 49.
Deduct one (insert name here) for the Porter ... 42-47.

Now, we need that kind of capacity ... lets harken back to the pre WWII double bedroom. Berths crosswise, forming a sofa by day. Capable of being sold en suite by opening the inter-room partition. Downside is the pot is not in an annex, so hubby has to look away while his dear wife uses the necessary.

You can fit around 7 in the upper deck, and you can fit 3 in the lower deck, without removing existing facilities.

So...

5 at 2 per = 10
10 at 2 per = 20
1 at 2 per = 2
1 at 4 per = 4

36 instead of 42.

This is part of the reason Amtrak, like Pullman before it, opted for the section. It maximizes the footprint for salable space.

Of course, the only reason it sells these days is that it is one of two accommodations available for most people.

John Perkowski

PS: For Dan Langdon: I readily admit that the FOAMER in me is what objects to the term roomette. Amtrak has the right to make marketing decisions ... but that's a whole other thread, just as Texas is a whole other country...

Does anyone else feel that the recent breaking out of the sleeping car revenue in Amtrak's monthly reports is an attempt to justify that sleeper operations at least cover the cash flow required to operate sleepers and possibily finance the cars as well. I asked earlier on another thread but what is the FRA defined cost which seem much lower for each train. As a whole most of the LD trains seem to be capable of covering the FRA cost if enough equipment were to be added to the consists. Are the cost merely for operation and maintenance or do they cover pretend capital costs as well?

Gilbert B Norman wrote:But the "flip side' is that I believe the demand for Roomettes is limited. On some routes it appears artificially strong, such as on single level trains, simply because there is really no choice.

That's exactly right. Amtrak desperately needs more Viewliners, and some all-deluxe sleepers would probably be a good idea. As it is, the typical Silver Star or Silver Meteor, Crescent, or Lake Shore Limited has a total of either 6 or 9 real bedrooms on a train likely carrying 300+ people! That's not a lot of true sleeper capacity.

How many rooms would be in the all-Deluxe Viewliners?

The likely configuration would be 10 Bedrooms, 1 Special Room. that would follow the 'footprint' of a 12BRcar such as NYC "Port of--', which comprised the mainstay of the Century's cars.

Plus an Attendant's Room.

So with 11 Bedrooms of some configuration and an operating cost of around $1.75/mile (inclusive of capital repayment) on top of around $1.5/mile in car haulage reimbursement to the train the cost is $0.30/mile at 100% occupancy. Depending upon the ratio of sleepers to dining cars, the type of meal service, and number of seatings the costs would be 15% to 25% higher with the non-revenue cars. However, if the sleeper is considered to be a marginal business then the car haulage reimbursement drops to say $0.25/mile, yielding 33% less total cost. All said if you were to operate per Amtrak's standard playbook, the cost for a bedroom would be around $0.50/mile with 75% occupancy. However, if a few smart choices are made, like using two attendants per car, premade beds, barcoded room locks that use the ticket as the key the cost for a bedroom could drop to around $0.45/mile. Both of the above figures are below the average Flordia Service rates (used as proxy for approximate demand) for room sleepers leading me to believe that the market could finance such a venture if Amtrak provided some certainty regarding their operations.

VPayne wrote:if Amtrak provided some certainty regarding their operations.

That is one of the biggests IFs in the United States of America right now.

John Perkowski

Perhaps the focus of anyone lobbying for Amtrak should be something along the following lines. The message to Congress would be, look a few cars cannot support themselves due to the economies of scale. The market is too uncertain for capital investment for an entire trainset due to the subsidy flowing to other modes so you should offer loan assistance to private builders such as Bombardier, Talgo, or Colorado Railcar to come up with new designs of long distance cars that would be leased to an operating company, for the tax benefits. I recall a similar proposal was fleshed out on the National Corridors web magazine a few months ago but when I wrote the author for information I never received a reply.

I found a link to the article explaining the premise behind NewTrains Leasing as well as the actual website of Mr. Coston. http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df0 ... tml#Saving
http://www.newtrainsleasing.com