New dining options (flex dining) effective October 1, 2019

[Devil's Advocate]

I think we're all/mostly on the same side here. I can't even remember the last time someone seriously defended Andertrak's flexi-con nonsense. If we're going to bicker let's at least pick something we strongly disagree about.

 

[ShiningTimeStL]

Why couldn’t they have adopted something more akin to Cascades food service? People seem to enjoy their fresh entree offerings and even the soups and sandwhiches.

Better yet, how about this; resume traditional dining for sleeper car passengers only, and just remove lunch service? Offer flexible dining to coach passengers for an increased fare, or hell, just serve flex meals out of the café.

There are so many things that can be streamlined, cut, and trimmed without screwing people over in the process.

 

[Ryan]

resume traditional dining for sleeper car passengers only, and just remove lunch service?

The Congressional mandate is to end food and beverage losses.

This plan would do nothing to cut costs (you're still paying for staff) and reduce revenue by serving few meals. Wrong direction.

 

[MARC Rider]

The milk is in the fridge where it should be. I got milk for all my meals by asking the LSA. I did not have cereal, though.

I got pretty much unlimited non-alcoholic beverages, even between meals, when I took the Capitol and the Cardinal to/from the Gathering. I don't drink milk, but I suppose if I had wanted it, it would have been provided.

And the attendant on the Cardinal asked me if I wanted another oatmeal. I sure did, as they are a bit skimpy in portion. They could provide a larger serving of unsweetened oatmeal (although I don't know if the manufacturers even make plain instant oatmeal) and the let the passengers doctor it up with however much sugar they want. They could even provide some raisins.

 

[ShiningTimeStL]

The Congressional mandate is to end food and beverage losses.

This plan would do nothing to cut costs (you're still paying for staff) and reduce revenue by serving few meals. Wrong direction.

Cascades “Bistro” service then, unless you’re gonna tell me that costs too much as well and only exists thanks to the state of Washington... my fear is that while the current flex dining model is cutting costs, and thus, losses, it’s driving away passengers in droves and significantly decreasing the overall profitability of the train. I hope Anderson is nervous for the upcoming hearing where he’ll have to tell Congress whether or not the changes to food service have helped or not.

 

[TinCan782]

The new Viewliner dining cars, as of now, are still used on the Silver Meteor and the Crescent and are referred to as "Sleeper Lounges."

And the Lake Shore Limited

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

I doubt he’s nervous, past actions show he has no issues being deceitful.

Cascades “Bistro” service then, unless you’re gonna tell me that costs too much as well and only exists thanks to the state of Washington... my fear is that while the current flex dining model is cutting costs, and thus, losses, it’s driving away passengers in droves and significantly decreasing the overall profitability of the train. I hope Anderson is nervous for the upcoming hearing where he’ll have to tell Congress whether or not the changes to food service have helped or not.

 

[MARC Rider]

Cascades “Bistro” service then, unless you’re gonna tell me that costs too much as well and only exists thanks to the state of Washington... my fear is that while the current flex dining model is cutting costs, and thus, losses, it’s driving away passengers in droves and significantly decreasing the overall profitability of the train. I hope Anderson is nervous for the upcoming hearing where he’ll have to tell Congress whether or not the changes to food service have helped or not.

It might be driving away some passengers, but whether it's in "droves" would require some more investigation.

If I were a congressperson deciding about whether financial support of the National Network was a good use to taxpayer dollars (which I think it is), I would consider the following:

• The vast majority of people riding the National Network ride coach, and tend to ride shorter trips rather than end-to-end.
• That said, the revenue generated by the sleeping car passengers, who do tend to ride (on the average) for longer distances a a significantly disproportionate share of the total revenue generated by the service. Thus, Amtrak can make use of sleeping car revenue to cross-subsidize the coach service (especially that serving numerous rural towns in numerous rural states), which is the main mobility benefit to the general public claimed by proponents of the National Network and the reason why it deserves to be supported by taxpayer funds even if it's not profitable overall.
• The main question is whether the cost of providing sleeping car service is such that a great deal of that extra revenue generated by sleeping car passengers is simply sucked up by the costs of providing sleeping car service, which includes the costs of the full meal service.
• It's possible that cost cutting like flex dining may drive away some sleeper passengers, and that the reduction of demand might cause sleepers to be sold at lower fares than before, thus reducing revenue. That, indeed, may be true, but the net revenue that can be applied to cross-subsidize the service in general, may be similar to what it was when there were the additional costs of full dining service. Thus, the train itself continues get the revenue it needs, while the food services losses are reduced to meet the congressional mandate, which, so far, doesn't seem like it will be removed any time soon.
• Also, consider Mr. Anderson's experience in the airline industry: The industry has become highly profitable after they cut passenger service amenities to the bone, and most airline passengers seem to accept the new order. Oh, they complain, but it's not like they have any other choice. If they want to get places in what is considered reasonable time, they have to fly. The only alternative is not to travel or drive their own car. The same with most sleeper passengers on long-distance passenger trains. They travel long distances by train because they like the experience, not because it's a practical way to travel. (That's different from most of the coach passengers, who ride the short distances on the long distance trains and find that it is practical transportation, or at least it is when Amtrak can keep to its schedule.) Nobody else runs long-distance passenger trains in the US, and it's not likely that anybody will be doing so any time soon. Thus, sleeping car passengers either have to put up with what Amtrak dishes out or not travel long distances by train.
• Mr. Anderson's gamble is that he can reduce the service amenities and reduce costs without driving so many people away that net revenues are significantly decreased to a point that he has to go the Congress and ask for a significantly larger subsidy than what was needed before when the service for sleeping car passengers was better. What I'm reading here and in the material from the RPA is that he might no be dealing with accurate cost figures and that these service cuts are not going to save him the money he thinks they are.

Of course, if I were a Member of Congress, someone on my staff would be doing all this thinking. These days, my mind would be more occupied by stuff like considering a war with Iran, the future of our democracy, or how we're going to handle the climate apocalypse. A minor piece of pork barrel spending like the Amtrak appropriation for the National Network might be fairly low on the priority list. I suppose I would support funding for the national network as part of a deal with Members and Senators from rural states to ensure their support for larger funding for improved corridor service between larger cities that would have a real chance of generating significant reductions in auto miles driven, and thus greenhouse gas emissions.

The culinary preferences of sleeping car passengers would be pretty low on my list of concerns. Anyway, if it got really bad, this could actually enhance the long distance train travel experience, as enthusiasts like us can apply our creativity to furnishing our own food and enjoy communal picnics in the sleeper lounge. Who knows, it might become fashionable to travel in sleeper without food service, and the sleepers will fill up, net revenue with skyrocket, and even Mr. Anderson will be talking about expanding the network and introducing multiple frequencies on the Lake Shore Limited and Capitol Limited routes, and maybe even revive the Broadway Limited! We can always hope, anyway.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

The Congressional mandate is to end food and beverage losses.

This plan would do nothing to cut costs (you're still paying for staff) and reduce revenue by serving few meals. Wrong direction.

. you repeat this alot.. do you think the current solution is good?

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Also, consider Mr. Anderson's experience in the airline industry: The industry has become highly profitable after they cut passenger service amenities to the bone, and most airline passengers seem to accept the new order. Oh, they complain, but it's not like they have any other choice.

Both Delta and American Airlines offers a very nice domestic first class service which includes decent meals served on real plates, with real silverware, on a real "table cloth" and with real glassware. The food is not as good as traditional dining car food, but considerably better than contemporary dining. So no... they haven't cut amenities to the bone.

Don't forget that even coach passengers on major airlines including Southwest get free soft drinks and free snacks.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

It’s going to take 18 months to 2 plus years to see real declines. Most people have no clue how bad the dining is, in fact if they read Amtrak advertising they probably think Anderson has improved dining.

It’s not going to be until repeat riders who ride LD regularly every year or two experience contemporary dining and decide the value is not longer there and decide to fly or drive in the future.

Same with first time riders, they more then likely won’t be repeat riders to the extent first time riders were in the past. You can only goose the stats for a year or two before the truth establishes itself.

 

[jis]

This is actually going to be a great experiment. If the rail riders are ones that primarily ride trains as a matter of choice, with other available alternatives, and moreover, if the choice is based significantly on food service then there will be a great drop in ridership. OTOH, if either their choice of riding is not dependent on food service quality, or they ride not out of choice but out of necessity, then there will be relatively little effect on ridership, and ridership will probably grow in proportion to growth in available seats and population growth in catchment areas. And yes, two years is probably the right time horizon for the experiment.

The airlines carried out this experiment over several years, and almost all dire predictions about apocalypse did not come to pass. And then of late they have decided that they want to selectively improve the experience of those willing to pay quit a bit more while keeping all options open for the large proportion of bottom feeders of fares.

 

[Rail Freak]

It might be driving away some passengers, but whether it's in "droves" would require some more investigation.

If I were a congressperson deciding about whether financial support of the National Network was a good use to taxpayer dollars (which I think it is), I would consider the following:

• The vast majority of people riding the National Network ride coach, and tend to ride shorter trips rather than end-to-end.
• That said, the revenue generated by the sleeping car passengers, who do tend to ride (on the average) for longer distances a a significantly disproportionate share of the total revenue generated by the service. Thus, Amtrak can make use of sleeping car revenue to cross-subsidize the coach service (especially that serving numerous rural towns in numerous rural states), which is the main mobility benefit to the general public claimed by proponents of the National Network and the reason why it deserves to be supported by taxpayer funds even if it's not profitable overall.
• The main question is whether the cost of providing sleeping car service is such that a great deal of that extra revenue generated by sleeping car passengers is simply sucked up by the costs of providing sleeping car service, which includes the costs of the full meal service.
• It's possible that cost cutting like flex dining may drive away some sleeper passengers, and that the reduction of demand might cause sleepers to be sold at lower fares than before, thus reducing revenue. That, indeed, may be true, but the net revenue that can be applied to cross-subsidize the service in general, may be similar to what it was when there were the additional costs of full dining service. Thus, the train itself continues get the revenue it needs, while the food services losses are reduced to meet the congressional mandate, which, so far, doesn't seem like it will be removed any time soon.
• Also, consider Mr. Anderson's experience in the airline industry: The industry has become highly profitable after they cut passenger service amenities to the bone, and most airline passengers seem to accept the new order. Oh, they complain, but it's not like they have any other choice. If they want to get places in what is considered reasonable time, they have to fly. The only alternative is not to travel or drive their own car. The same with most sleeper passengers on long-distance passenger trains. They travel long distances by train because they like the experience, not because it's a practical way to travel. (That's different from most of the coach passengers, who ride the short distances on the long distance trains and find that it is practical transportation, or at least it is when Amtrak can keep to its schedule.) Nobody else runs long-distance passenger trains in the US, and it's not likely that anybody will be doing so any time soon. Thus, sleeping car passengers either have to put up with what Amtrak dishes out or not travel long distances by train.
• Mr. Anderson's gamble is that he can reduce the service amenities and reduce costs without driving so many people away that net revenues are significantly decreased to a point that he has to go the Congress and ask for a significantly larger subsidy than what was needed before when the service for sleeping car passengers was better. What I'm reading here and in the material from the RPA is that he might no be dealing with accurate cost figures and that these service cuts are not going to save him the money he thinks they are.

Of course, if I were a Member of Congress, someone on my staff would be doing all this thinking. These days, my mind would be more occupied by stuff like considering a war with Iran, the future of our democracy, or how we're going to handle the climate apocalypse. A minor piece of pork barrel spending like the Amtrak appropriation for the National Network might be fairly low on the priority list. I suppose I would support funding for the national network as part of a deal with Members and Senators from rural states to ensure their support for larger funding for improved corridor service between larger cities that would have a real chance of generating significant reductions in auto miles driven, and thus greenhouse gas emissions.

The culinary preferences of sleeping car passengers would be pretty low on my list of concerns. Anyway, if it got really bad, this could actually enhance the long distance train travel experience, as enthusiasts like us can apply our creativity to furnishing our own food and enjoy communal picnics in the sleeper lounge. Who knows, it might become fashionable to travel in sleeper without food service, and the sleepers will fill up, net revenue with skyrocket, and even Mr. Anderson will be talking about expanding the network and introducing multiple frequencies on the Lake Shore Limited and Capitol Limited routes, and maybe even revive the Broadway Limited! We can always hope, anyway.

Sativa or Indica? LOL!

 

[MARC Rider]

Both Delta and American Airlines offers a very nice domestic first class service which includes decent meals served on real plates, with real silverware, on a real "table cloth" and with real glassware. The food is not as good as traditional dining car food, but considerably better than contemporary dining. So no... they haven't cut amenities to the bone.

And I'll be first class passengers have checked bags included in the fare. And that they can board first and deplane first. Etc etc. Who cares about what food is served and whether it is served on "real plates" with "real silverware" on a "real tablecloth?" The only point of first class that I can see is more personal space (larger seats) and the fact that you don't have to rub shoulders with the riff-raff. Anyway, first class service has very little to do with the realities of travel for the vast majority of airline passengers.

Moreover first class airline service is a totally irrelevant comparison to sleeper service on the National Network Amtrak trains. Delta and American don't come to Congress every year asking for a taxpayer-funded subsidy for their company. And having priced first class fares on domestic flights, I should hope that First class revenue cross-subsidizes the total service. But whether it does and whether it's worth it is between the executives and and the stockholders of the airline companies. The only excuse for having premium service on a taxpayer-subsidized Amtrak train is that the additional revenue from the premium service can cross-subsidize the part of the service that provides the essential transportation that deserves taxpayer support.

As jis says, we'll see in 2 years whether the service downgrades screw the net revenue picture. Just remember that the taxpayers don't fund passenger rail to provide premium service to a very small percentage of the total rail passengers. Premium service is tolerated if it can generate extra revenue to cross subsidize the essential service, otherwise, don't expect politicians to demand it or executives to think it's important to have.

Don't forget that even coach passengers on major airlines including Southwest get free soft drinks and free snacks.

Wonderful. When I'm bouncing around in turbulence, the last thing I care about is a free soft drink and a minuscule bag of pretzels. I want to land safely and have the upset in my tummy go away.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Wonderful. When I'm bouncing around in turbulence, the last thing I care about is a free soft drink and a minuscule bag of pretzels. I want to land safely and have the upset in my tummy go away.

The only excuse for having premium service on a taxpayer-subsidized Amtrak train is that the additional revenue from the premium service can cross-subsidize the part of the service that provides the essential transportation that deserves taxpayer support.

So you don't like flying and you don't think sleeping cars should exist on amtrak? How do you like to travel?

I find it hilarious that this board is filled with members who only take sleeping cars when they travel but somehow domestic first class should never be considered as a mode of travel since the majority of air line travelers take coach. The majority of rail travelers take coach as well!

Domestic first class is pretty cheap as long as you fly when the airlines want you to fly.

 

[Qapla]

I don't fly ... I think I might have mentioned that before - so, I don't really care how trains compare to planes ... they are two totally different forms of travel.

With that in mind ... I have never taken a sleeper ....... I have, so far, only ridden coach.

Then again, I do not need to compare what I want when I ride the train to any other form of travel. I want train travel to be what it is ..... train travel. If I want total freedom to stop when I want or turn when I want or to change my travel plans on a moments notice - I'll drive my car and put up with the problems of highway travel. If I wanted to be somewhere fast and didn't have my irrational fear of heights ... I'd probably fly.

But, since I don't want to be stuck staring out the windshield the entire trip trying to stay awake and watchful so I don't get killed in a traffic accident and I am not going to fly - I want trains to keep running long and short distance. I like the convenience and comfort. If some services must be cut for that to happen .... I guess I can deal wit it - but, I honestly do not think that Amtrak should be shortchanged in it's needed budget when the Gov't wastes so much money on things much less beneficial than mass transit - instead of decreasing services - just give Amtrak the money they need and cut out some of the truly ridiculous pork spending.

 

[jebr]

I find it hilarious that this board is filled with members who only take sleeping cars when they travel but somehow domestic first class should never be considered as a mode of travel since the majority of air line travelers take coach. The majority of rail travelers take coach as well!

Sure, but most people on the train are taking it for relatively short journeys. The comparison comes when considering longer trips and what's considered needed for that length of trip. For me, and I'll bet the majority of Americans, being able to lie flat at night is hugely important, but even a cheap seat is fine for a day trip as long as there's a bed at the end of the day.

Thus, in general, I'm going to compare airline coach to Amtrak roomettes on most trips. The cost to go coach isn't cheap enough to justify putting up with a non lie flat sleeping arrangement, and most trips I take would require an overnight when taking Amtrak. I'll gladly take Amtrak coach on a day trip, and perhaps overnight when the situation warrants. But if a flight is even in the same ballpark price wise, I'll do that over Amtrak coach overnight.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

As a reply and taking this back to the topic... I’ll book a sleeper for a day trip but usually I justify that with the dining car meals. For example when I took the empire builder from Chicago to St. Paul a roomette was a little over $100 extra... but $30 of that I was going to spend anyways at dinner so that’s like an $80 surcharge vs. $110 which makes it much easier to justify. Factor in the bottled water and coffee and now I’m closer to $70 vs. $110.

With the new contemporary dining that changes the math considerably. My dinner is now comparable to $10 worth of snacks from the cafe that I would enjoy just as much. So add in the free drinks and we are talking $20 total in “value.” On an overnight sure I’ll pay for the bed, but on a day trip it gets a bit more iffy.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

Same logic when the Starlight had the Parlour car. I along with MANY others happily paid the $200 extra round trip for the day trip, 6 times a year or so from LAX to SJC, sometimes just LAX to SBA for $60 extra to ride in the Parlour car comfort. Amenities and meals do matter and if marketed correctly have a place on Amtrak trains.

If the Starlight still had a Parlour car or first class lounge I would have allowed a day upgrade to access the car from business class for a $25 or $50 fee if I was in charge of marketing. Most people would still get a roomette for long day trips but it would poach some extra revenue.

Right now Amtrak has zero thinking out of the box like this and doesn’t appear to even want to try anything that would be a win win for customers and the bottom line.

 

[Qapla]

My wife an I are planning a trip this spring. We will be traveling overnight - but, we will only be on the train from 11 PM till 8:30 AM the next morning. We will be on the Silver Star - and it does not offer food with with the sleeper. (We can't take the SM since it does not go to our destination)

Here's the part that we have a hard time with ...

There are two separate issues:

1. A Roomette will cost $317 for the two of us while traveling coach will be $114 - so, the overall difference in the cost is $203.
2. The pricing breakdown for this fare is not consistent/correct

1) For a $200 difference in the price I would expect to get more than a "lie-flat" bed and a Happy Meal. Although the Roomette has two seats and two beds (not at the same time) it does not have ample space to warrant the $200 dollar a night price.

2) If you look up the price and get the breakdown, according to Amtrak, the Roomette is only costing $152 because the tickets are $82.80 each. However, if you divide the Saver Fare by two, the tickets are only $57 each - even the Value Fare tickets are only 63.90 each ... so, where does this $82 dollar price come from. As far as we are concerned, the Roomette will cost $203 not $152 - since the coach seats will only cost us $114. After all, since we would sit in the same seats and have the same provisions with the Saver Fare as the Value - why would we buy the Value.

Now, if the Roomette could be priced at $75 for such a short ride - we would consider it .... but, it simply is not worth $200+ just to have 2 beds in a cramped cubicle overnight when we will not have anything to look at out the "private window" (it'll be dark outside) and no food is even being offered.

BTW - The prices for our trip are based on traveling as a Passenger with Disabilities and Companion ... if it were at "full price" the difference in the cost of a Saver Fare and the Roomette would be $222


So, in order to make a sleeper worth the additional cost - offering the dismal flex-dining does not help with the price disparity between coach and sleeper

 

[rrdude]

My wife an I are planning a trip this spring. We will be traveling overnight - but, we will only be on the train from 11 PM till 8:30 AM the next morning. We will be on the Silver Star - and it does not offer food with with the sleeper. (We can't take the SM since it does not go to our destination)

Here's the part that we have a hard time with ...

There are two separate issues:

1. A Roomette will cost $317 for the two of us while traveling coach will be $114 - so, the overall difference in the cost is $203.
2. The pricing breakdown for this fare is not consistent/correct

1) For a $200 difference in the price I would expect to get more than a "lie-flat" bed and a Happy Meal. Although the Roomette has two seats and two beds (not at the same time) it does not have ample space to warrant the $200 dollar a night price.

2) If you look up the price and get the breakdown, according to Amtrak, the Roomette is only costing $152 because the tickets are $82.80 each. However, if you divide the Saver Fare by two, the tickets are only $57 each - even the Value Fare tickets are only 63.90 each ... so, where does this $82 dollar price come from. As far as we are concerned, the Roomette will cost $203 not $152 - since the coach seats will only cost us $114. After all, since we would sit in the same seats and have the same provisions with the Saver Fare as the Value - why would we buy the Value.

Now, if the Roomette could be priced at $75 for such a short ride - we would consider it .... but, it simply is not worth $200+ just to have 2 beds in a cramped cubicle overnight when we will not have anything to look at out the "private window" (it'll be dark outside) and no food is even being offered.

BTW - The prices for our trip are based on traveling as a Passenger with Disabilities and Companion ... if it were at "full price" the difference in the cost of a Saver Fare and the Roomette would be $222


So, in order to make a sleeper worth the additional cost - offering the dismal flex-dining does not help with the price disparity between coach and sleeper

It's a matter of COMFORT, for you. Personally, I chose not to sleep overnight in coach. (Noise, light, not flat bed, "aromas", privacy....) I've reached the point where If I go overnight, it's only in a room.

 

[niemi24s]

There are two separate issues:

1. A Roomette will cost $317 for the two of us while traveling coach will be $114 - so, the overall difference in the cost is $203.
2. The pricing breakdown for this fare is not consistent/correct

Your conclusion is faulty simply because you don't understand how Amtrak prices sleeping accommodations. The total fare for your particular Roomette is whatever the upcharge happens to be for a Roomette on your day of travel plus 2X the second highest Coach bucket - not the Saver or Value Coach fare.

Find out how much you're actually paying extra for your Roomette by using AmSnag to create a chart like this for the SS between your points of travel and subtract the appropriate number of second bucket coach fares (like the one shown with the >, below) from the total shown by AmSnag.

F'rinstance, the upcharge for a Low bucket Roomette between MIA and NYP for one adult is $404 - $212 = $192. IMHO, only when you actually know how much extra your Roomette will cost can you make an educated assessment about its worth.

[EDIT: But after a few hours of thought, I guess your comparison is valid - your Roomette would cost that much more than going by Coach. However, while it may not be worth the extra cost to you it may be worth the extra cost for others as Rrdude just said]

 

[Devil's Advocate]

It's a matter of COMFORT, for you. Personally, I chose not to sleep overnight in coach. (Noise, light, not flat bed, "aromas", privacy....) I've reached the point where If I go overnight, it's only in a room.

I get where you're coming from, and it closely mirrors my own feelings, but I can still remember a time when coach travel seemed perfectly fine and sleeper travel was treated like a rare luxury. Even though I'm able to travel in sleepers exclusively now all it would take is one major legal or medical problem and I'd be back to coach or nothing. That's one reason I try not to judge or second guess those who view sleepers as unnecessary or excessively priced.

 

[Rasputin]

I usually like to travel by sleeper but as a family we traveled by coach from Seattle to Whitefish and return about 20 years ago, had a great time and got some decent sleep and it didn't blow our travel budget as a sleeper would have done.

Last time I traveled by coach overnight was from El Paso to San Antonio in a full coach about 8 years ago. I could not justify the cost of a sleeper only to be bounced out of it in the wee hours at San Antonio. Had a nice cheeseburger from the café car for dinner. My seatmate was a student from Germany who sleep soundly all night. I enjoyed chatting with the passenger across the aisle. I put on my sleep mask and got some good sleep. I prefer to travel by sleeper but I would do that trip again in a flash.

 

[Qapla]

It's a matter of COMFORT, for you

It comes down to a little more than comfort - at times ... since I have no problem sleeping in coach (I need to sleep elevated anyway) COST is a factor every bit as much as "comfort" ... if I cannot afford the round trip in a sleeper and I can in coach - taking a sleeper would effectively cancel the trip. Part of the "comfort" is knowing you can afford the trip.

Your conclusion is faulty simply because you don't understand how Amtrak prices sleeping accommodations

Toe-may-toes - toe-mah-toes ... poe-tay-toes - poe-tah-toes

I really don't care what base price "they" calculate the fare from ...

My way of figuring the "cost" of the sleeper is no more "wrong" than their way is "right". I don't really care how they arrive at their price ... the fact is, if we ride coach our tickets cost "X", if we ride in a sleeper our tickets cost "Y" ... to find out how much we are actually paying extra for a Roomette we simply subtract the cost of our "actual" tickets from what we would pay if we took a sleeper.

Fortunately, they have just offered a "deal" so, even though the cost difference between a sleeper and a coach seat will now be $173 each way - we will be better served applying that $346 toward our accommodations at our destination so we don't have to postpone our trip for another year .... it has been 39 years since we got away together - just the two of us.

The thing is, on the Silver Star, the train we will be taking, it doesn't matter if you pay a Saver Fare, a Value Fare, a Flexible Fare or even a Sale Fare (like the one they are now offering - there are no Business Fares on the Star) you will be sitting in the exact same seat, using the exact same restrooms and have available the exact same amenities - so why not buy the cheapest fare possible if we are going to ride coach. At the moment, if we book during the sale, that would be $35.50 a seat. That is hard to argue with.

While I would like to try a sleeper - I would much rather my wife and I be able to take this trip then have to pass because we refused to ride coach ... neither of us has ever had a problem sleeping in coach.