Viewliner II Delivery/Production

In the same amount of space these lay flat chairs take, Amtrak places two seats and two bunks in a roomette with walls that go from floor to ceiling to boot.
Why follow what airlines do when your existing product is far better?
Can you imagine airliners having bunk beds, one atop the other, instead?

The interior layout of an airplane is much different than a train. Its wider cabin, and lower overhead space is why they have the lay flat seats etc. If anything the "slumbercoach" idea would be viable, maybe using a viewliner shell with different modules to provide such a service. the amfleet bodies dont have the vertical space i think to make good use of that style planning. They could call it, a slumberliner??? ViewSlumber?

Did the Ampads that were tried on what is now the Cardinal have upper berths? They were a prototype for Superliner Economy Rooms, tested in an end of an Amfleet car.

With respect to Ron's question, I think the idea is that if the pods aren't behind a closed door/rigid cabin wall, they can sell a lot more of them without making people feel weird by being in a closed room with a stranger.

Supposedly Amtrak has this in an advance conceptual stage according to a managerial type I know there, but it has not been installed yet. That person is not in direct knowledge, however, so despite the fact they are an employee, it's just railroad grapevine info at this point.

Tadman wrote:With respect to Ron's question, I think the idea is that if the pods aren't behind a closed door/rigid cabin wall, they can sell a lot more of them without making people feel weird by being in a closed room with a stranger.

Supposedly Amtrak has this in an advance conceptual stage according to a managerial type I know there, but it has not been installed yet. That person is not in direct knowledge, however, so despite the fact they are an employee, it's just railroad grapevine info at this point.

Amtrak doesn't sell individual seats in roomettes to two strangers, they sell roomettes to one party, which may consist of one or two individuals.

Theoratically, if there are two individuals in every party, every Viewliner sleeper car can hold 30 individuals in the 3 rooms and 12 roomettes. Using Superliner Transistion cars as a model, the most roomettes Amtrak could possibly squeeze into a Viewliner would be 20, potentially 40 individuals. The most lay flat seats they could fit into a Viewliner (2 abreast seating for a first class experence) would be the same amount, 20.

I don't know for sure, but my gut feelings tell me that Amtrak can earn more profits selling 30 (40 seats) in 15 rooms and roomettes (or 20 roomettes) than they can selling 20 lay flat seats.

If they could squeeze in three abreast lay flat seats in 20 rows into a Viewliner, they could sell 60 seats. But Amtrak only squeezes in 59 traditional lay back seats into an Amfleet II with four abreast seating. That's only 15 rows. So I'm thinking the maximum amount of lay flat seats they could squeeze into an Amfleet or Viewliner coach would be 45, 15 rows with three abreast seats. I believe one reason for the reduced number of rows arises from having to have more than one restroom in each car because of the increase seating capacity.

So, which will make more money over time, 45 lay flat seats or 30 seats and bunks in a traditional Viewliner sleeper? Which would you pay a higher fare for, floor to ceiling privacy or half wall height privacy?

FYI: a typical Amtrak roomette is 3 ft 6 in wide by 6 ft 8 in long. The height varies depending upon if it’s a Superliner or Viewliner. It’s difficult to imagine a layflat seat taking less space when made into a bed. To put that space into perspective, a typical twin bed is 3 ft 3 in by 6 ft 8 in. I don’t think many passengers paying first class fares for a layflat seat will want a bed smaller than a twin bed.

If you want higher density bunk arrangement to have lower fares, check out the six bed configuration of bays in India’s long distance trains, because that’s the only way I foresee it being done efficiently.

My thought process behind this proposal of higher-density sleeping accommodations, based on airline lie-flat seats:

* Sleeping car space on many routes is often sold out.
* Sleeping car prices are pretty high.
* Since sleeping car space is priced at (1) a rail ticket for each occupant plus (2) a fixed charge for the room, Amtrak makes more per room if it sells a room to 2 people than if it sells a room to just one person.
* I usually travel solo, and there are likely plenty of people who do.
* Amtrak would likely sell more sleeping car space to solo people if prices were lower.
* If Amtrak could sell its current sleeping car space to 2 people, instead of having 1 person occupy the space, Amtrak would make more.
* So both Amtrak and individual travelers would come out ahead if there were less expensive sleeping car space for 1 person.
* Thus higher-density sleeping car space, for 1 person, is a win-win for both Amtrak and passengers as long as the space is in addition to the space that Amtrak can sell to 2 people.

Stack 'em somehow and you would have a Slumbercoach 2.0.

Call it a Viewliner "Dreamer" ...

Possibilities for cheaper sleepers on trains that have a diner which keep the diner:
1) go pay per meal in the diner for all and just make all sleeping fares cheaper.
2) have a “economy and premium sleeper” option with the economy not including meals.
3) charge for the more expensive menu items and only have certain free things.

All of these seem feasible. Ultimately I think #1 will happen eventually just a matter of time.

gokeefe wrote:Stack 'em somehow and you would have a Slumbercoach 2.0.

Call it a Viewliner "Dreamer" ...

My thought exactly. Maybe half slumbercoach type double stack sleeper seats and half roomettes. That way you can accommodate singles and doubles.

SouthernRailway wrote:My thought process behind this proposal of higher-density sleeping accommodations, based on airline lie-flat seats:
* Sleeping car space on many routes is often sold out.
* Sleeping car prices are pretty high.

Selling out at a high price point means that Amtrak should either (a) raise prices further or (b) raise the supply of the existing sleeper rooms. It's not an argument for a new, lower-cost sleeper product.

* Since sleeping car space is priced at (1) a rail ticket for each occupant plus (2) a fixed charge for the room, Amtrak makes more per room if it sells a room to 2 people than if it sells a room to just one person.

Maybe, maybe not; it all depends what the second person costs. Additional linens, coffee/drinks in the sleeper, etc. are probably pretty cheap. But that second person will be getting just as many free meals in the diner, as well as blocking one additional person in coach from paying cash for diner meals.

* I usually travel solo, and there are likely plenty of people who do.

No argument here, as I'm another one.

* Amtrak would likely sell more sleeping car space to solo people if prices were lower.

Again, if they're selling out at their current price points, they don't need a lower price point; they need a higher price point and/or more supply of the existing product.

* If Amtrak could sell its current sleeping car space to 2 people, instead of having 1 person occupy the space, Amtrak would make more.

Again, maybe or maybe not.

* So both Amtrak and individual travelers would come out ahead if there were less expensive sleeping car space for 1 person.
* Thus higher-density sleeping car space, for 1 person, is a win-win for both Amtrak and passengers as long as the space is in addition to the space that Amtrak can sell to 2 people.

Again, maybe or maybe not. In particular, "higher-density sleeping car space" implies new oddball cars and all the operational challenges those entail. And once we're talking new equipment, why not more of the stuff that's already selling out?

One of our RAILROAD.net drafters or designers ought to lay out a reverse herringbone pod seating arrangement for a Viewliner (Amfleet, Brightline, etc) to see how many seats would fit. If it’s less than 40 (conventional 2-1 FirstClass or full Amtrak Roomette Viewliner with 2/room), it’s a no-go. If more, something to heavily consider for the Corridor in particular.

mtuandrew wrote:One of our RAILROAD.net drafters or designers ought to lay out a reverse herringbone pod seating arrangement for a Viewliner (Amfleet, Brightline, etc) to see how many seats would fit. If it’s less than 40 (conventional 2-1 FirstClass or full Amtrak Roomette Viewliner with 2/room), it’s a no-go. If more, something to heavily consider for the Corridor in particular.

Per https://www.momondo.com/inspiration/eco ... ass-seats/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Full flat-bed seats are the general standard for business class, with seat width going as wide as 34” and pitch all the way to 87”.
34 inches is 2 feet 10 inches wide. 87 inches is 7 feet 3 inches long.
Less wide than a typical roomette width of 3 feet 6 inches by 8 inches.
Considering you'll want to keep the corridor width the same, the two roomettes require 7 feet (84 inches) of width. Three standard sized airline flat-bed seats by themselves will require 8 feet 6 inches (102 inches). So the corridor width would have to be 1 foot 6 inches (18 inches) smaller. Amtrak recommends wheelchair not be wider than 30 inches, so that's probably what their standard corridor widths are. Additionally, 30 inches aisle widths are the minimum the FRA regulations allow. With three abreast lay flat seats, the central corridor shrinks to just 12 inches wide. Therefore, the corridor or aisle can't be wide enough to fit three abreast standard sized lay flat seats.

So how wide can each lay flat bed be and still meet the 30 inches aisle minimum regulations?
Take that 7 feet and divide that by 3, and you'll arrive at 2 feet 4 inches (28 inches). Which is 6 inches less wide than a standard lay flat bed, and 11 inches less wide than a twin bed.

EdSchweppe wrote: Selling out at a high price point means that Amtrak should either (a) raise prices further or (b) raise the supply of the existing sleeper rooms. It's not an argument for a new, lower-cost sleeper product.

Yes, it is an argument for a new lower-cost sleeper product.

First, as you know, businesses can maximize their profits through price differentiation: selling products to buyers at the maximum price that each buyer will pay, even if the prices vary per buyer.

If Amtrak sells sleeping car space on the Crescent at $600 each way between NY and Atlanta, there are plenty of people who will pay that. So, yes, Amtrak should raise prices until there is equilibrium between buyers and space available in regular sleeping car space.

There are also plenty of people who will pay $110 for a coach seat between NY and Atlanta.

That leaves a gap: I would pay up to $325 for some type of private space with a bed (that's above the cost of flying first class, but I'll pay up to that). I will not travel on a long-distance train in coach (or any type of regular seat). If Amtrak can sell space to me, profitably, at $325, it should do so. That's where a high-density sleeping car space can be offered. Without that, Amtrak is leaving $325 in revenue on the table.

Airlines have figured this out very well recently. Look at American Airlines: it offers first class, business class, premium economy, economy and basic economy. That's a wide range of product offerings, to maximize the fare that each person is willing to pay, segmenting the market.

Second, as you know, railroads are a capital-intensive business. Once railroads' huge overheard has been paid, railroads can make profits by adding additional passengers or carrying additional freight at low marginal costs. So adding a higher-density sleeping car to the Crescent, which usually has 8-10 cars, is a way to add additional revenues without much additional cost (in the big scheme of things).

EdSchweppe wrote: * Since sleeping car space is priced at (1) a rail ticket for each occupant plus (2) a fixed charge for the room, Amtrak makes more per room if it sells a room to 2 people than if it sells a room to just one person.
Maybe, maybe not; it all depends what the second person costs. Additional linens, coffee/drinks in the sleeper, etc. are probably pretty cheap. But that second person will be getting just as many free meals in the diner, as well as blocking one additional person in coach from paying cash for diner meals.

Amtrak has enough data from years of selling sleeping car space that it should know pretty much exactly the cost of a typical second passenger in a room. That cost is almost assuredly significantly lower than the rail fare for that second person. So in pretty much all cases, Amtrak should make more by selling 2 rail fares + the room charge to 2 people, compared to selling 1 rail fare + the room charge to 1 person.

I agree with a Slumbercoach II in a Viewliner shell. The concept worked and a Slumbercoach carried almost as many passengers as a long-distance coach. As for meals, either make them pay as you go, or offer them at a discounted price. I always enjoyed riding in a Slumbercoach and really miss them.

EdSchweppe wrote:In particular, "higher-density sleeping car space" implies new oddball cars and all the operational challenges those entail. And once we're talking new equipment, why not more of the stuff that's already selling out?

In that case the real answer might just be an all Roomette Viewliner Sleeper. Move them around the system to follow seasonal peaks in demand.