Overnight Coach Configuration Ideas

I think offering this type of accommodation on existing overnight trains with business class makes sense and that number is slowly growing:

66/67
Auto Train
Cardinal
Coast Starlight
Crescent

If new business class service is doing well on these trains, I think the demand for something a bit better than coach is proven. The design that Delta has come up with seems easy to implement in a rail car. The walls can be raised to provide complete privacy and combined with a lay-flat bed, you have a whole new level of service that would satisfy many solo travelers.

For another simplified comparison with airline flat beds, note that a 777 is almost exactly twice the width of an Amfleet or Superliner. Business class on that plane can be configured with herringbone or reverse herringbone seats that have one seat on each side of the aisle, on each side of the aircraft. See the current Delta One layout for an example, and imagine two rail cars side by side. The beds are 78 inches long, but have an effective pitch of about 50 inches due to the angle.

Guess what? Amfleet II and Superliner seat pitch is also about 50 inches. So you have the same number of rows per car, but one seat on each side of the aisle instead of two. Thus the price needs to be 2x the price of a coach seat to generate the same revenue at the same load factor, plus a bit to amortize the cost of the seats, minus the cost of the meals if they aren't bundled in the fare, so call it 2x to keep it simple.

For example, CHI-ALB on the LSL next month for one passenger starts at $78 coach, $364 roomette. Would I pay $160 plus meals for a flat bed seat? Absolutely. Would I shell out for the roomette? Not likely.

bostontrainguy wrote:I think offering this type of accommodation on existing overnight trains with business class makes sense and that number is slowly growing:

66/67
Auto Train
Cardinal
Coast Starlight
Crescent

If new business class service is doing well on these trains, I think the demand for something a bit better than coach is proven. The design that Delta has come up with seems easy to implement in a rail car. The walls can be raised to provide complete privacy and combined with a lay-flat bed, you have a whole new level of service that would satisfy many solo travelers.

Amfleet I Business class cars have about the same number of seats as standard Amfleet II coach cars, and just 10 seats less than standard Amfleet I Coach cars.
Here's the numbers:
Amfleet I coach = 72 seats (18 rows of 4 seats)
Amfleet I business = 62 seats (15 rows of 4 seats + 2)
Amfleet II coach = 60 seats (15 rows of 4 seats)

To break even with Amfleet II coaches, Amfleet I business class seats can be sold with a cheaper fare. To break even with Amfleet I coach, Amfleet I business class seats to be sold 16% higher.
A $50 coach fare balances a $58 business fare.
But, a lay flat seating arrangement will have to have three abreast seating, in the best case scenario, 15 rows x 3 = 45 seats. In this case, business class seating requires a 60% fare increase.
A $50 coach fare balances an $80 business fare (lay-flat).
Alas, that assumes the same number of rows of seats. Take a look at the Spirit of Queensland rail-bed coach one more time, it has 7 rows of seats compared to 13 rows of seats in the standard coach. Slightly more than half. Taking that slightly more than half to Amfleets instead, there would be 8 rows of seats with 3 lay flat seats per row = 24 lay back seats in the new business class car with lay flat seats.
To break even now with the standard coach, the lay flat seating business class would need to charge 300% higher than a standard coach. a $50 coach fare balances a $150 business fare (lay-flat). A $100 coach fare balances a $300 business class lay flat fare.

If you add partitions for more privacy, the number of lay flat seats in the car should decrease some more, who knows how much, and the balance fare increases once more.

Again, I suggest keeping airline seats out of trains! Amtrak can't charge as much for business class seats, lay flat or not, as airlines can because trains have sleeper cars with rooms and roomettes that commercial airline planes don't have.

This thread reminds me of a conversation I had with the reprensative from Talgo from Spain years ago that was on the Cascades; we were talking about actually the lie-flat beds on aircraft that are now pretty popular and he said that Talgo did propose that for some night train that Deutsche Bahn going to operate; they were going to use an off-the shelf design from Zodiac Seats USA apparently that would have worked. However, DB apparently didn't like them and instead they went with some sort of open berth design.

Please remember that long distance passenger service is political in nature; it serves as a helper to get 218 House votes and 51 Senate votes for the Amtrak appropriation.

It provides a "what's in it for me" for an awful lot of Congressional districts.

There are two, and only two, ways rail will ever be truly profitable again:
- Amtrak is allowed to run 2d and 3d sections of high value, perishable merchandise (fresh fruit), coast to coast.
- Air travel becomes prohibitively expensive, forcing travel onto the ground.

Then, sleeping will become a need, vice a wishful thought.

John_Perkowski wrote:Please remember that long distance passenger service is political in nature; it serves as a helper to get 218 House votes and 51 Senate votes for the Amtrak appropriation.

It provides a "what's in it for me" for an awful lot of Congressional districts.

Then, sleeping will become a need, vice a wishful thought.

Yes, and this new level of service could probably create a whole new "middle class" constituency. There are coach people, there are sleeper people, and there are people who won't do one and can't afford the other. Amtrak could create a whole new market with this. How many of those voters have never taken a train before?

Actually how about this? Forget the walls. Forget the flat screen TVs. Let's try this as cheaply as possible. On the above overnight business class trains, stagger Amtrak's most comfortable leg-rest seats in the same pattern as in the picture. Now you have all the legroom and two armrests, and you aren't sleeping next to strangers on a train. Use this configuration to test the market and eventually introduce more private "Solo Suites" if the demand is proven.

Let's face it. The 24/8 slumbercoach was and could be again the best lower priced alternative. Do away with the toilets in each room and put in two microphor toilets
at end of car. Most bang for the buck and a great design.

Until Amtrak has met the demand both present and future there is no reason to build other types of accommodations in their cars. Fewer type accommodations allows for better utilization. Now once enough spare equipment is available then it will be in Amtrak's best interest to get more different equpmant. It all goes back to Congress and the future administration to get the equipment.

Many believe that opponents are worried that once Amtrak gets to a certain ridership it will balloon in size due to pent up demand much like Europe and Japan have ? ? ? ? Then there is China.

You're assuming that with Amtrak's current offerings, demand will increase enough to fill the amount of seats/rooms offered. That is not necessarily the case, and it is not the case that Amtrak's current offerings and price points optimize revenue. (I don't see why anyone other than a railfan or someone who is afraid to fly would pay $750 round trip to fly between the two cities that I usually travel between when you can fly first class for $250-$500, and there aren't enough railfans/people who are afraid of flying to make $750 a valid business model.)

Read the recent Wall Street Journal articles about airline pricing: like Amtrak, airlines used to have coach plus very expensive first class on domestic trips. Very few first class seats were sold, and so most first class seats were given away for free to frequent flyers. Airlines realized that wasn't optimal, so now they offer first class for modest surcharges.

On my regular commute, first class is only $129 more than coach; while I wouldn't have paid hundreds of dollars more for first class and got upgraded for free, I am fine with paying $129 more for it, so the airline gets more revenue from me while providing a level of accommodation that isn't super-fancy yet is better than coach. Amtrak, take note.

On a 737 when the airlines install 1st class seats, they place 4 of them per row instead of 6 standard seats. Per row, all they have to charge is 50% more to break even. Math = 6 / 4 = 1.5
Not twice, three times, or four times more.
Providing 1st class seats is more profitable than providing more standard seats, as long as they sell them. That's why they do it and why they don't install too many of them.

electricon, you are not considering pitch.

On a 737, economy is 31," economy plus 37," first 38". But that's not lie-flat.
On a 777, economy 31," economy plus 34," business 6'4" first 6'6"

(United data.)

Your break even analysis makes sense if you assume all cars are filled to capacity, which I don't think is realistic. For not-full trains, even a 110% lie-flat fare is generating incremental revenue.

But I think most importantly a lie-flat sort-of-business-class seat fills a new market Amtrak doesn't currently serve, so there is a real chance of attracting new passengers who today are flying.

Why is the overnight coach configuration discussion an "either/or" debate: either coach seats or sleeping car rooms or something else?

The Crescent has 2 locomotives. It usually has 8-10 or so cars between NYP and Atlanta. With 2 locomotives, it could pull at least a few more cars. So a high-density sleeping car could be in addition to the train's current offerings.

rohr turbo wrote:electricon, you are not considering pitch.

On a 737, economy is 31," economy plus 37," first 38". But that's not lie-flat.
On a 777, economy 31," economy plus 34," business 6'4" first 6'6"

(United data.)

Your break even analysis makes sense if you assume all cars are filled to capacity, which I don't think is realistic. For not-full trains, even a 110% lie-flat fare is generating incremental revenue.

But I think most importantly a lie-flat sort-of-business-class seat fills a new market Amtrak doesn't currently serve, so there is a real chance of attracting new passengers who today are flying.

Airlines provide lie-flat seats because they don't provide sleeping compartments. it's the only option available to them to make sleeping easier for its passengers. Trains are not so limited, they can provide sleeping compartments. They can provide denser sleeping compartments than what Amtrak provides today that should significantly reduce their price, without installing expensive lie-flat seats.
Providing a solution that provides less sleeping berths per car, lie-flat seats, is not the answer to providing cheaper sleeping solutions for fares. To provide cheaper sleeping solutions for fares on trains, one should be looking at providing more berths per car!

Singapore Airlines provides sleeping compartments, complete with a door, in first class. It also provides lie-flat seats in business class. My relatives who fly to Asia/Pacific countries slum it in business on Singapore and are itching to go in first. Other international airlines might do the same.

Never-the-less, there is far more room on a train to add sleeping compartments than on a plane. Just add a sleeper car is the simplest solution.
I have never seen two planes attached permanently to each other. I have seen passenger trains with over 20 cars in tow, over half of them sleepers.
I would rather have denser sleepers than less dense chair cars, if the goal is to provide a cheaper sleeper fares on trains. If the goal is to provide more expensive coach seats, there are better more comfortable solutions than a lie-flat chair.