Why aren't overnight trains able to compete with flying?

[Qapla]

train travel in general is so out of the public consciousness and comfort that the thought of trains providing any reasonable alternative to driving/flying is just not in the question; most are surprised by the level of service provided

This is one of the key factors

Overnight trains must be marketed

Yes, look how much SouthWorst Airlines advertises (do you want to move around the country?) as well as some of the others ... Amtrak does not take advantage of consistent, quality advertising.

 

[Brian Battuello]

Maybe if Amtrak put out a booklet or some flyers with the names of their trains and when they pass each station...

 

[zephyr17]

One really good marketing thing Amtrak did was several years ago they covered the walls between the ceiling and the raised skylights over the Central TSA Checkpoint at Sea-Tac with Amtrak mural ads. Any time you looked up while standing to wait to clear TSA, you saw an Amtrak ad.

 

[jruff001]

I agree for business travellers it may not be best option due to delays. But for pleasure travelers it can make more sense.

Yes I absolutely agree that for pleasure travelers it can make more sense.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

By no stretch of the imagination is any overnight train faster than flying, nor should we advertise or categorize as it as such.

Faster in speed of actual transit? No.
If you factor in the time sleeping at an airport hotel, waiting for a rental car or Uber into the city... the time gets more debatable.

While I do enjoy train travel, I used train travel regularly for business and for fun when it made sense vs. flying. Many times it did.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

I agree for business travellers it may not be best option due to delays. But for pleasure travelers it can make more sense.

I’m pretty sure I’ve had the same amounts of delays when flying as taking Amtrak. (I’ve traveled a crazy amount for both work and fun... up until covid hit of course)

 

[Tlcooper93]

Faster in speed of actual transit? No.
If you factor in the time sleeping at an airport hotel, waiting for a rental car or Uber into the city... the time gets more debatable.

While I do enjoy train travel, I used train travel regularly for business and for fun when it made sense vs. flying. Many times it did.

Again, you’re really highlighting convenience rather than speed, which I am alll for, and is absolutely a reasonable argument for night trains.

In terms of getting from A to B quickly, it’s better to fly, especially given the choice of flight times available. What you’re pointing out is a very specific time frame in which overnight trains can compete; other possible flight times render the speed argument useless.

With other considerations, night trains prove their worth, just not with speed.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Again, you’re really highlighting convenience rather than speed, which I am alll for, and is absolutely a reasonable argument for night trains.

In terms of getting from A to B quickly, it’s better to fly, especially given the choice of flight times available. What you’re pointing out is a very specific time frame in which overnight trains can compete; other possible flight times render the speed argument useless.

With other considerations, night trains prove their worth, just not with speed.

Yes... that’s why I said actual speed of transit.

For me, I factor in the time that I will be spending in total and yes the convenience as well.

 

[Tlcooper93]

Yes... that’s why I said actual speed of transit.

For me, I factor in the time that I will be spending in total and yes the convenience as well.

So was I. We all factor in that with speed. I’m talking about door to door.

Let’s take the most convenient night train (in my opinion): the night owl.

You are factoring in a hotel, but most would simply chose a different flight time that would not force them to take a hotel.

BOS-WAS travel time (door to door) would never be more than even 5 hours (and that’s with significant travel time on either end of the flight). The night owl, even with in between destinations (in order to provide sufficient sleep) is usually at least 7 hours.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

You are factoring in a hotel, but most would simply chose a different flight time that would not force them to take a hotel.

That must be why there are so many airport hotels.

 

[George Harris]

Admittedly 25 years ago, but last time I had to work in NYC, the company put me up in Newark handy to PATH and I could expense PATH because it was much cheaper than a hotel in Manhattan. I would think there could be a real market for sleepers getting you to New York in the AM as a cost saving, even if your first day schedule would have to start at say 10:00 instead of 8:00.

 

[Tlcooper93]

That must be why there are so many airport hotels.

For stranded travelers, and purposeful layovers, yes...

 

[crescent-zephyr]

For stranded travelers, and purposeful layovers, yes...

Alrighty well, I guess I’m the only business traveler in the world that has spent many nights in airport hotels for other reasons.

And I’m also apparently the only business traveler that chooses overnight trains when they make sense with my schedule.

 

[jruff001]

I’m pretty sure I’ve had the same amounts of delays when flying as taking Amtrak. (I’ve traveled a crazy amount for both work and fun... up until covid hit of course)

You must not fly very much then. Amtrak long distance trains have a WAY worse on time record than the airlines. Pick a random New York to Chicago flight and compare its on-time history to the LSL or Cardinal.

Plus you are not considering the fact that if your flight is significantly delayed or cancelled, you can (often but certainly not always) be rerouted or rebooked onto a different flight. To go with the example in the original post in this thread, pre-Covid both United and American Airlines had pretty much hourly service between NYC (meaning LGA / EWR) and CHI (meaning ORD), so you could be rebooked onto another flight if yours hit the fan. OTOH if the Lake Shore Limited cancels, whelp, try again in 24 hours. Let alone the tri-weekly Cardinal. Or you might be "lucky" enough to be put on a bus the same day instead??? No thanks.

Of course, yes, a huge snowstorm or something similar might ground the airlines for 24 hours, but Amtrak cancels for days at at time too during severe weather events at any point along the route (actual or even threatened).

 

[crescent-zephyr]

You must not fly very much then.

Why would have I lots of delays if I don’t fly very often?

Before covid hit I’ve traveled pretty much non stop for work (and for fun when not working ) my entire life in all modes of transit.

 

[Tlcooper93]

Alrighty well, I guess I’m the only business traveler in the world that has spent many nights in airport hotels for other reasons.

And I’m also apparently the only business traveler that chooses overnight trains when they make sense with my schedule.

Ive taken the night owl 5 times in the last 2 months for buisness, so you are in good company.

 

[jruff001]

Why would have I lots of delays if I don’t fly very often?

If your #of airline delays = your # of Amtrak delays, and if Amtrak (long distance) has a worse record of delays than the airlines (which it does), that would indicate you fly a lot less than you take the train.

But maybe you travel a ridiculous amount for both, in which case my bad.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

But maybe you travel a ridiculous amount for both

I do. It also could be that I’ve gotten lucky with Amtrak and unlucky with flights.

I’ve definitely had significant delays on Amtrak... but also with airlines.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

What's the POL?

In this context I am going with “politicians”. That said I don’t understand why politicians would be hostile for Amtrak to become profitable on certain routes.

 

[coventry801]

Okay, I'll give a bit of both historical perspective as well as current day issues.

Back in the day, fast overnight sleeper service between such city pairs as New York and Chicago or Los Angeles and San Francisco were targeted to the business travelers on expense accounts. The 20th Century Limited, the Lark and their brethren were businessmen's trains. They were scheduled so that one could leave at the end of the business day and arrive at the start of the next one. In fact, the vast majority of Pullman service was aimed at that demographic. The Chief had a one night out westbound schedule between Chicago and Los Angeles, and almost all the premier West Coast streamliners were scheduled with the business traveler in mind, the California Zephyr being a notable exception.

Two things of the biggest things that devastated the rail passenger business were the desertion of the business travelers starting in the late 1950's with the introduction of fast, frequent jet service, and the withdrawal by the Post Office of First Class mail in 1967. The mail withdrawal gets a lot of attention, but the wholesale abandonment of rail by business travelers does not get the same attention. Most business travelers were not railfans and were happy to get fewer nights on the road. Companies were happy not to have to pay for Pullman accommodations.

Today, any resurgence of overnight business travel is unlikely even if the schedules were speeded up and a Century or Broadway could make NY-Chicago in the same time they did in the 1950s, even though air transport is not nearly as appealing now as it was at the dawn of the Jet Age. One of the big reasons, if business travelers were otherwise amenable (which is questionable at best), is that most corporate travel departments do not allow anything but coach for domestic travel. The accommodation charges would be non-reimbursable at almost all companies, and that is the bulk of the cost.

Having said that, I have managed to take two overnight Amtrak trips on business over the course of a 40 year career. It was not easy to do. I had to work the system quite hard to make it happen with corporate finance departments wholly unfamiliar with overnight trains. In both cases I had to pay the accommodation charges myself, although I was able to get companies to reimburse the base rail (coach) fares. It also involved the use of vacation days to account for the additional time on the train.

Overnight business travel will never again be a major part of Amtrak's business. Overnight trains must be marketed for leisure and personal travel. Speed alone is not as important as reliability and comfort. I think Amtrak does have an opportunity what with air travel being such a dreadful experience as it currently is, and I do not think they are taking advantage of it.

No business would reimburse travel cost that constantly goes 1~2 grand. Especially last minute price,
which is the reason that "train travel in general is so out of the public consciousness".

Expend every consist to at least 10 sleepers and put ticket price in reasonable range (I would consider 200~300 per room per night a reasonable price) then that's a different story for sure.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

No business would reimburse travel cost that constantly goes 1~2 grand. Especially last minute price,

That’s comparable to domestic first class for in demand flights.

Depending on the manager, I usually just get a set amount that is equal to the flight they were going to book me on.

 

[jruff001]

That’s comparable to domestic first class for in demand flights.

Right. And most employers will not pay for most of their employees to travel in FC. Sure, if an employee travels enough, s/he might get upgraded with points / miles from time to time, but the average middle to upper level manager will not be traveling FC regularly on the employer's dime.

Executive level is another story. But in that case the employer is paying for them to get somewhere fast, not spend time messing with Amtrak's delays and sparse scheduling. And when the exec is going to be on the road that much, s/he wants to spend more nights at home, not traveling.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Right. And most employers will not pay for most of their employees to travel in FC. Sure, if an employee travels enough, s/he might get upgraded with points / miles from time to time, but the average middle to upper level manager will not be traveling FC regularly on the employer's dime.

Executive level is another story. But in that case the employer is paying for them to get somewhere fast, not spend time messing with Amtrak's delays and sparse scheduling. And when the exec is going to be on the road that much, s/he wants to spend more nights at home, not traveling.

Glad you know best! All I know is my situation!

 

[jebr]

That must be why there are so many airport hotels.

At the same time, a lot of people choose an airport hotel either because it's near where their meetings are, or simply to be able to rest right after their flight and deal with getting to their meeting in the morning. The vast majority of people would prefer sleeping in a hotel room over sleeping in a roomette (or even bedroom) on Amtrak - the bed is comfier, there's more room, and you're not feeling the track movement all night (which can be quite rough in some areas!) Add in that coach airfare + an airport hotel is likely cheaper or similarly priced to a roomette on Amtrak, and it's difficult to justify the train for business.

The other wild card with everything is where you need to be for your meeting, visiting family, etc. If you're an employee for US Cellular, for instance, and you need to get to HQ in Chicago, O'Hare is quite a bit closer and more convenient than Union Station downtown (the building is near the Cumberland station.) There's a lot of corporate buildings in the northwest Chicago suburbs as well, and in those cases Amtrak is quite a bit less convenient than flying into O'Hare. The train is very convenient for downtown travel, but if your final destination is at a suburban office park, that "downtown to downtown convenience" isn't so convenient.

There's definitely some market for overnight sleeper travel, and perhaps there's a case for more businesses to use it for business travel, but in Amtrak's current form of doing it I see it staying quite niche. If Amtrak was able to set it up more like a hotel, there might be a bit more room for it on shorter corridors (for example, allow "check-in" from 3 PM - 10 PM where people can get their bags in their room, settle in, and maybe even wind down for the night, travel from 10:30 PM - 6:30 AM, then allow "check-out" from 6:30 AM - 11 AM so people can sleep in, maybe grab breakfast before getting 100% ready, etc.) Even with that, I think it'll be hard for Amtrak to carve out a huge chunk of the market - unless you're going on a single-day trip, you're going to need to be in another hotel anyways, so why not settle in a night early or stay one more night?

 

[Tlcooper93]

At the same time, a lot of people choose an airport hotel either because it's near where their meetings are, or simply to be able to rest right after their flight and deal with getting to their meeting in the morning. The vast majority of people would prefer sleeping in a hotel room over sleeping in a roomette (or even bedroom) on Amtrak - the bed is comfier, there's more room, and you're not feeling the track movement all night (which can be quite rough in some areas!) Add in that coach airfare + an airport hotel is likely cheaper or similarly priced to a roomette on Amtrak, and it's difficult to justify the train for business.

The other wild card with everything is where you need to be for your meeting, visiting family, etc. If you're an employee for US Cellular, for instance, and you need to get to HQ in Chicago, O'Hare is quite a bit closer and more convenient than Union Station downtown (the building is near the Cumberland station.) There's a lot of corporate buildings in the northwest Chicago suburbs as well, and in those cases Amtrak is quite a bit less convenient than flying into O'Hare. The train is very convenient for downtown travel, but if your final destination is at a suburban office park, that "downtown to downtown convenience" isn't so convenient.

There's definitely some market for overnight sleeper travel, and perhaps there's a case for more businesses to use it for business travel, but in Amtrak's current form of doing it I see it staying quite niche. If Amtrak was able to set it up more like a hotel, there might be a bit more room for it on shorter corridors (for example, allow "check-in" from 3 PM - 10 PM where people can get their bags in their room, settle in, and maybe even wind down for the night, travel from 10:30 PM - 6:30 AM, then allow "check-out" from 6:30 AM - 11 AM so people can sleep in, maybe grab breakfast before getting 100% ready, etc.) Even with that, I think it'll be hard for Amtrak to carve out a huge chunk of the market - unless you're going on a single-day trip, you're going to need to be in another hotel anyways, so why not settle in a night early or stay one more night?

Complete agreement.
Again, the only viable, practical, and competitive sleeper train on the market (in my opinion with maybe a few city pairs on select routes) is the Night Owl.

It truly provides a service that can rival other modes of travel, mostly because of the Acela combo, and the fact that there are so many in between destinations that draw numbers.

Atlanta-DC, Chicago-Denver and Albany-Chicago certainly fit the bill time wise, but it’s hard to justify the price on those along with any intermediate destinations.

If Amtrak can keep the price of the Night Owl reasonable, it will be a big deal.