Does adding sleepers increase profitability?

[Donctor]

As many of us are well aware, it's common for sleepers to sell out in the summer. This got me thinking: If Amtrak were to have a reserve of spare sleepers, would strategically adding them to routes during periods of high demand increase the routes profitability?
I'm just guessing here, but it seems to me that adding a car to an existing train would be relatively inexpensive compared to the fixed cost of running the train in the first place.

Anybody care to enlighten me?

The Coast Starlight gets an extra sleeper during peak periods.

During peak periods, the Zephyr has the 0533/0633 car CHI-DEN.

 

[sunchaser]

This is an old gripe of mine also. However it would seem that it isn't as hard to figure out when a consist might need added equipment. If we are trying to make reservations for rooms four months out and none are available, then would would assume that another car is called for.
As mentioned previously the reservations that are turned down don't seem to be tabulated in any way that is made known to us? That should also be showing the need if equipment were available. I am always amazed at how the basic operation of a passenger rail which used to be commonly done is now thought of as a problem. If a train sells out and needs additional cars, and your mostly selling round trips tickets, then obviously the same space would be needed for the return. I have personally never taken a rail vacation or trip from which I have failed to return?

If extra cars were available and were in regular use then attendants sufficient to staff them should be also required even if only as "extras" which I believe is still common practice with rail jobs? I see no reason to think that added cars which are full of paying passengers should be the responsibility of the existing crew base. Pullman ran with pullman staff and cars were added at peak times, something that should have always been maintained but hasn't due to constraints placed on amtrak by politicians. And yes, I have written endless thoughts on this to congress people, some of whom agree and some of whom do not.

You would think that Amtrak would have a 'wait list' that if they had enough passengers to fill another sleeper, they could add one. If they had enough sleepers, and the demand was there, they could do it.

 

[AlanB]

You would think that Amtrak would have a 'wait list' that if they had enough passengers to fill another sleeper, they could add one. If they had enough sleepers, and the demand was there, they could do it.

Amtrak does indeed have a "wait list" for any train on which the sleepers are sold out. It's not a well known fact that the list exists, and you can only be added to the list by an agent; it cannot be done online.

Not helping matters is the fact that there are some agents that don't know about the list and there are other agents that will tell you that no such list exists simply because they don't want to do the work needed to add one to the list. But rest assured, the lists do exist and they do work for some who are lucky enough to have someone else cancel out a sleeper reservation.

Unfortunately, even if said list gets long enough to the point where it would make financial sense to add a sleeper, Amtrak doesn't have any extra sleepers to add.

 

[sunchaser]

You would think that Amtrak would have a 'wait list' that if they had enough passengers to fill another sleeper, they could add one. If they had enough sleepers, and the demand was there, they could do it.

Amtrak does indeed have a "wait list" for any train on which the sleepers are sold out. It's not a well known fact that the list exists, and you can only be added to the list by an agent; it cannot be done online.

Not helping matters is the fact that there are some agents that don't know about the list and there are other agents that will tell you that no such list exists simply because they don't want to do the work needed to add one to the list. But rest assured, the lists do exist and they do work for some who are lucky enough to have someone else cancel out a sleeper reservation.

Unfortunately, even if said list gets long enough to the point where it would make financial sense to add a sleeper, Amtrak doesn't have any extra sleepers to add.

Alan-I know that there is supposed to be a 'wait list' currently for sold out trains. I was just saying that if they ever get enough extra sleepers, they could add a sleeper if they had enough people on the list.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Amtrak does indeed have a "wait list" for any train on which the sleepers are sold out. It's not a well known fact that the list exists, and you can only be added to the list by an agent; it cannot be done online.

Is there a specific name for this list? Do you have to buy a coach ticket to get on the list?

As for additional cars, the conventional wisdom on the forum seems to be that sleepers are the one area where Amtrak could make a potential profit on LD trains. If Amtrak had many more sleepers available would it make sense to turn some LD trains (i.e. Sunset Limited) into sleeper-focused or even sleeper-only trains again? Has Amtrak made requests for funding (private or public) specifically to purchase substantial numbers of sleeper cars? Maybe a business opportunity could come from leasing comparable sleeper cars to Amtrak. Are there other railroads that use compatible rolling stock?

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

The math: Superliner sleepers can hold, at max., 30 fare-paying passengers.

No, a maxed out Superliner Sleeper carries 44 passengers, not 30. Granted Amtrak isn't always able to sell every room to capacity, but 30 is not the max.

I think there is an important point being missed here.

How many passengers on a Superliner sleeper are accommodation fare-paying passengers? I believe there is only one per unit/compartment, no? So, the answer is not 44, or even 30, but actually only 21 (14R+5B+1F+1H)?

 

[Donctor]

Are there other railroads that use compatible rolling stock?

Not really. Even if every passenger car in the country were compatible, it's not as though there are any "extras".

 

[Guest]

As mentioned previously the reservations that are turned down don't seem to be tabulated in any way that is made known to us? That should also be showing the need if equipment were available. I am always amazed at how the basic operation of a passenger rail which used to be commonly done is now thought of as a problem. If a train sells out and needs additional cars, and your mostly selling round trips tickets, then obviously the same space would be needed for the return. I have personally never taken a rail vacation or trip from which I have failed to return?

I have done a lot of trips that were train one way and some other form of transportation the other. There are probably more people than you think that do it this way. Some folks just don't have the extra time to be able to take the train round trip.

 

[Larry H.]

The math: Superliner sleepers can hold, at max., 30 fare-paying passengers.

No, a maxed out Superliner Sleeper carries 44 passengers, not 30. Granted Amtrak isn't always able to sell every room to capacity, but 30 is not the max.

I think there is an important point being missed here.

How many passengers on a Superliner sleeper are accommodation fare-paying passengers? I believe there is only one per unit/compartment, no? So, the answer is not 44, or even 30, but actually only 21 (14R+5B+1F+1H)?

Unless I am mistaken which is possible, Amtrak at one point fairly early on doubled the charge for a room so one passenger is indeed paying two fares for a bedroom on a train, that should be of some account in the paying cost of the car.

 

[MrFSS]

The math: Superliner sleepers can hold, at max., 30 fare-paying passengers.

No, a maxed out Superliner Sleeper carries 44 passengers, not 30. Granted Amtrak isn't always able to sell every room to capacity, but 30 is not the max.

I think there is an important point being missed here.

How many passengers on a Superliner sleeper are accommodation fare-paying passengers? I believe there is only one per unit/compartment, no? So, the answer is not 44, or even 30, but actually only 21 (14R+5B+1F+1H)?

Unless I am mistaken which is possible, Amtrak at one point fairly early on doubled the charge for a room so one passenger is indeed paying two fares for a bedroom on a train, that should be of some account in the paying cost of the car.

Doesn't sound fair if only one person occupies the room.

 

[sunchaser]

Amtrak does indeed have a "wait list" for any train on which the sleepers are sold out. It's not a well known fact that the list exists, and you can only be added to the list by an agent; it cannot be done online.

Is there a specific name for this list? Do you have to buy a coach ticket to get on the list?

As for additional cars, the conventional wisdom on the forum seems to be that sleepers are the one area where Amtrak could make a potential profit on LD trains. If Amtrak had many more sleepers available would it make sense to turn some LD trains (i.e. Sunset Limited) into sleeper-focused or even sleeper-only trains again? Has Amtrak made requests for funding (private or public) specifically to purchase substantial numbers of sleeper cars? Maybe a business opportunity could come from leasing comparable sleeper cars to Amtrak. Are there other railroads that use compatible rolling stock?

From what I understand, when you call Amtrak & they say 'The sleepers are all sold out', you ask 'Can I be placed on a waiting list for a roomette or bedroom?' They will ask you for some info & they are supposed to call/contact you if it becomes available.

Joe Boardman (Amtrak CEO) has asked for $446 Million to replace the rolling stock including sleepers, but has not gotten an answer yet.

The math: Superliner sleepers can hold, at max., 30 fare-paying passengers.

No, a maxed out Superliner Sleeper carries 44 passengers, not 30. Granted Amtrak isn't always able to sell every room to capacity, but 30 is not the max.

I think there is an important point being missed here.

How many passengers on a Superliner sleeper are accommodation fare-paying passengers? I believe there is only one per unit/compartment, no? So, the answer is not 44, or even 30, but actually only 21 (14R+5B+1F+1H)?

While it is true that only one person 'pays' the accommodation charge, but each room can hold a minimum of two. You are paying for the whole room, not just one bed. So, if you have two people in a roomette or bedroom, each person would pay for the coach fare, & one person would be listed as paying for the roomette/ bedroom.

So yes, it would be 44 rail fare paying passengers, & 20 that will pay the accommodation charge, unless you are traveling with a friend and split it up. I'm glad we do not pay it per person! It would probably be even more then!

I believe in Europe they can split the accommodation charge, but they also allow strangers to share a room, so you have to make sure if you are a couple that you are booked in the same room.

 

[Trogdor]

Are there other railroads that use compatible rolling stock?

Nobody else in the world operates the Superliner or Viewliner design.

The only other sleeping cars that even exist in the US (not counting railroad business cars) are private cars owned by (generally pretty wealthy) individuals. There are too many incompatible configurations of private cars, plus, they would never stand up to the rigors of daily use the way Amtrak's equipment does. Even if they could, it would be quite expensive to operate those cars.

A few years ago, there was a company that tried adding their own private cars to the back of Amtrak trains on a regular basis, and selling high-priced tickets (I forget their name, but I think they used the former "American Orient Express" equipment). Anyway, the company lost tons of money and shut that service down fairly soon after it started.

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

Doesn't sound fair if only one person occupies the room.

True.

But it means that Amtrak gets the room's accommodation revenue regardless of the number of people occupying it; even if it is only one. So, when we are calculating the revenue of an additional sleeper car, we don't have to factor in, if some rooms have one person and some rooms have two (or three or four). Its just a "binary" occupied or not occupied.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The people who don't think its a fair price probably don't realize that the accommodation charge is set based on double occupancy. When someone rides alone, it is pure gravy for Amtrak.

 

[Mark]

I'm sure this has been discussed before but could a pure sleeping car train come close to breaking even? I realize some assumptions have to be made, (one being there are enough Superliner sleepers in the inventory), but let's randomly select a train, say the Southwest Chief. It has solid OTP both ways, decent scenery and relatively speaking it is a quick trip. Could our fictitious SWC do better if it were all sleeper? Is the demand there?

To make a rough estimate, SWC usually runs, 2 sleepers and 3 coaches separated by the lounge and diner set. Giving the train a capacity of 225 for the coaches and 88 for the sleepers. If it could be an all-sleeper train it would require 7 sleepers or two more cars than the current configuration, (I'm not including the Trans/dorm). The OBS and crew numbers would be about the same, (perhaps one extra Attendant for the all sleeper consist), including the diner and lounge because we haven't increased the number of passengers- just the cost to travel. Two P42s could easily handle this consist of 11 cars, (accounting for the Trans/dorm and the Baggage), so no more cost there either. Is it possible or not worth the effort?

 

[Cristobal]

I'm sure this has been discussed before but could a pure sleeping car train come close to breaking even? I realize some assumptions have to be made, (one being there are enough Superliner sleepers in the inventory), but let's randomly select a train, say the Southwest Chief. It has solid OTP both ways, decent scenery and relatively speaking it is a quick trip. Could our fictitious SWC do better if it were all sleeper? Is the demand there?
To make a rough estimate, SWC usually runs, 2 sleepers and 3 coaches separated by the lounge and diner set. Giving the train a capacity of 225 for the coaches and 88 for the sleepers. If it could be an all-sleeper train it would require 7 sleepers or two more cars than the current configuration, (I'm not including the Trans/dorm). The OBS and crew numbers would be about the same, (perhaps one extra Attendant for the all sleeper consist), including the diner and lounge because we haven't increased the number of passengers- just the cost to travel. Two P42s could easily handle this consist of 11 cars, (accounting for the Trans/dorm and the Baggage), so no more cost there either. Is it possible or not worth the effort?

I would guess...

No.

That is because I'm thinking that the majority of the coach pax are there simply because traveling in a sleeper is just too expensive for them (and not because sleeper rooms were not available). Adding another sleeper (if one were available) might make sense on the most popular routes but a sleeper-only train would likely kill ridership numbers. IMHO of course.

 

[AlanB]

Making an all sleeper train will never happen. Whether or not it could be profitable, it would play into the critics that consider Amtrak luxury cruise that is subsidized by the taxpayers.

 

[MJL]

From someone who enjoys the cheap daytime only SW Chief trip from KCY to CHI -- NO! Not worth it to buy a family room for me & my kiddos, when coach works just fine.

 

[volkris]

So it sounds like the answer to the initial question is 'no'. Amtrak's revenues on the sleepers don't cover the costs, so adding more sleepers would increase the burn rate, costing even more money.

 

[AlanB]

So it sounds like the answer to the initial question is 'no'. Amtrak's revenues on the sleepers don't cover the costs, so adding more sleepers would increase the burn rate, costing even more money.

Amtrak's sleepers do cover their above the rails costs. What they don't cover is the capital costs and the miscellaneous overhead costs.

So adding more sleepers would help Amtrak's bottom line by covering more of the miscellaneous overhead costs, but they will never make Amtrak profitable in the traditional sense of that word.

 

[volkris]

Thanks for the clear answer, AlanB.

So if right now the sleepers are covering their operational costs and are pretty full, should Amtrak be able to increase the price a bit to make a significant dent over time in the capital costs?

 

[Ryan]

Depending on your definition of "a bit" and "significant", sure. That's what Amtrak seems to be doing, much to the dismay of some (not me).

 

[jcl653]

It depends on Amtrak's mission. In my opinion, because Amtrak is publicly financed, their rates should be kept at an accessible level for median Americans. If, however, Amtrak's goal is to be self-sufficient, then sure, they should raise rates as high as the market will support. That said, I personally think that because of Amtrak's current structure (being responsible for more than just operation of routes), self-sufficiency is not the right goal to have.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Yeah, the first problem with "fixing" Amtrak is that the goal posts keep getting moved around depending on who you're talking to. Some want solvency, which I assume means higher prices and lots of cutbacks. Others expect a permanently subsidized system like our highways enjoy. I'd strongly prefer a funding system more like our highways and a rail network more like Western Europe or Japan. However, I don't know how that is ever going to be possible in our current political environment. We may have the most pro-rail administration in decades, but that's really not saying much.

 

[AlanB]

Thanks for the clear answer, AlanB.
So if right now the sleepers are covering their operational costs and are pretty full, should Amtrak be able to increase the price a bit to make a significant dent over time in the capital costs?

You're welcome.

As for costs, first the sleepers would have to overcome the so called "overhead' costs; before they could start working on capital costs. Overhead costs being defined as things like, headquarter in DC, phone agents, advertising, and things like that.

At present the sleeper only cover their direct operational costs, with some "profit" if you will left over. In 2004 that "profit" was about $40 Million. It is for this reason that technically the sleepers reduce the subisdy that American's provide to the coach side of things. Without the sleeper "profit" American's would have paid $0.1888 per passenger mile in subsidies, with the sleeper monies that amount is reduced to $0.1870 per passenger mile. I've not seen the real numbers, so perhaps if Amtrak weren't using that "profit" to help offset the coach costs, maybe the sleepers would actually be close to covering overhead costs. That's a question that I simply can't answer.

But I do believe that we're a ways off from even starting to cover capital costs. Perhaps if Congress were generous and brought Amtrak new replacements for all existing sleepers, along with say a 50% increase, we might be able to cover overhead and perhaps even make a small dent in the capital costs of those sleepers. Seeing as how Amtrak isn't even requesting that from Congress, I think it very unlikely to happen.