Sleeping cars under attack

[lyke99]

As for "FIRST CLASS". Amtrak sleeper cars at this point are well worn and far from real First Class. While they are the best accomodations onboard, the bedrooms and roomettes can hardly be called luxurious. They are cramped, the trip can be rough and they are utilitarian at best.

I'd have to agree. I just took my wife on her first long train trip - she compared our Superliner bedrooms to camping. Lots of living functions in a small space similar to a tent. We very much enjoyed the service from the SCAs and dining car crews and the privacy, when we wanted it. We will travel this way again, but to call it luxurious is a stretch.

 

[dlagrua]

Another thing to consider. In a sleeper there are 11 bedrooms + four roomettes (AT) or other combinations of roomettes and bedrooms. I believe that the number varies from 14 to 18 sleepers in a car

The average cost of a bedroom is about $350 per night + the coach fare added in. For instance a one way trip for two in a sleeper on the CL from WAS to Chicago costs a minimum (low bucket)of $500. Times this by the number of sleeping rooms or roomettes and the revenue per sleeper is easily $5,000-$6,000 or more. Yes there are other costs involved but the point is that Amtrak should be making out very well on their sleeper accomodations. Cut them or raise prices and you will sink Amtrak. Sleepers are necessary for their survival.

 

[jphjaxfl]

Attitudes like that of the representative from Virginia about Sleeping Cars may be the reason that the badly needed new equipment has not been funded yet. The order for the additional viewliner sleeper and dining cars along with baggage cars was supposed to be placed by now. If new equipment is not funded in the current congress, it may not happen in 2011 after the November elections. There also needs to be orders for additional Superliners for western trains just to maintain the current route structure. If no new equipment is ordered and existing equipment wears out, the long distance trains will likely disappear except for some luxury "cruise" type trains for those who can afford it to see the beautiful scenery. We all need to write our representative and encourage a specific long term funding source for Amtrak that will allow them to operate a national network with modern equipment that can be ordered when Amtraks needs to order it and not just when there is the right congessional support. Even if Amtrak placed an order for new equipment tomorrow, it will be 2-3 years before that equipment be delivered and operated in trains. Yikes, some of those heritage dining cars that have served so well will be close to 70 years old!

 

[rrdude]

Let us not discount competitiveness in this debate. First off, sleepers are an essential part of long distance travel via rail. Eliminate and or greatly increase the price of the sleepers and Amtrak will lose business. Revenue will go down as people like myself will no long consider LD trains an appealing form of travel. Sleeper passengers pay three times as much per mile of travel as coach passengers do. There comes a price point when rail travel no longer becomes affordable and Amtrak must consider that.

Let's not assume that only affluent people ride the sleepers. You will find mostly middle class people, senior citizens, families and the handicapped in them. Over dinners onbord I have met very few people that seem rich. On the AutoTrain you have mostly seniors during certain periods of the year and some months there are many students.

Point is that everything has a value. When you already charge three times as much for an average sleeper trip (and take in more revenue per mile than in coach) leave well enough alone. As a frequent Amtrak travelers, we are NOT going to buy a sleeper fare for $350 to $800 per night plus coach fare. Our limit is $200-$300 per nite (in addition to coach fare) and that's it. If Amtrak fares rise much more, then we drive.

As for "FIRST CLASS". Amtrak sleeper cars at this point are well worn and far from real First Class. While they are the best accomodations onboard, the bedrooms and roomettes can hardly be called luxurious. They are cramped, the trip can be rough and they are utilitarian at best.

After having just boarded #51, bound for Huntington, WV and checking into Roomette #3, car 5100, I'd have to agree. "First Class" is a misnomer.

 

[AlanB]

Here is the report generated by NARP based upon numbers from the GAO showing that sleepers help to subsidize those riding in coach. It's not a huge subsidy, but without sleepers, taxpayers would have to increase their subsidies to the coach passengers.

 

[sunchaser]

Here is the report generated by NARP based upon numbers from the GAO showing that sleepers help to subsidize those riding in coach. It's not a huge subsidy, but without sleepers, taxpayers would have to increase their subsidies to the coach passengers.

Thank you for posting the info, Alan. Are there any newer reports?

 

[Jambo Bound]

My wish would be for a lay down option that's affordable for the lone passenger, as cramped as the roomette on the Cardinal was it DID feel like a luxury compared to riding coach as I had PRIVATE space, more than just me needed.

All I would need is a bed to lay on, a curtain for a little privacy so I can pretend the rest of the world is not there and fresh clean air to breath. Can that be done for twice what a coach seat costs? No meals included, maybe a mealplan add on for those who want it?

Could a railcar like that hold 2/3 (my guess) the passengers as a coach car for twice the ticket gross make money? I think so. Build a few and try them on the CL, I don't see them replacing the sleepers and roomettes but as a upgrade for those in coach class.

Guess that was all off topic.

 

[Rail Freak]

Sleepers are essential, I believe, to the success of long distance trains. It's a big country, and you can't make all that distance in the daytime. You wind up riding overnight. My recent (and last) experience on an overnight coach indicated to me that sleep may not be possible anymore. Too many other passengers, juiced on caffeine (or whatever) and amused by DVDs and laptop games (without using headphones), may not even attempt to sleep, especially if they must board or disembark on the wee hours. In a sleeper, you're insulated from the increasing hubub in coach and guaranteed a chance to sleep. While sleeping, you won't count the hours spent enroute. That's the unique advantage of a train- you can sleep through the miles in comfort that's unattainable in a car or a plane.

Planes do those speeds even before liftoff. Speed comes naturally to air travel, just as the nature of trains enables them to carry more weight and provide more space. why not build on rails' natural advantages?

So the current goal to rebuild our national passenger rail network to allow 100+mph speeds over thousands of miles of track seems rather misguided. Keep your HSR, and give me cheaper sleepers, and a lot of 'em.

Very Well Said!!!

 

[AlanB]

Here is the report generated by NARP based upon numbers from the GAO showing that sleepers help to subsidize those riding in coach. It's not a huge subsidy, but without sleepers, taxpayers would have to increase their subsidies to the coach passengers.

Thank you for posting the info, Alan. Are there any newer reports?

I haven't seen any newer reports, probably in part because I don't believe that there has been a new report issued by the GAO. However, I've no doubt that a new report would only improve the picture, seeing as how sleeper prices have gone up considerably since that first report.

 

[sunchaser]

Here is the report generated by NARP based upon numbers from the GAO showing that sleepers help to subsidize those riding in coach. It's not a huge subsidy, but without sleepers, taxpayers would have to increase their subsidies to the coach passengers.

Thank you for posting the info, Alan. Are there any newer reports?

I haven't seen any newer reports, probably in part because I don't believe that there has been a new report issued by the GAO. However, I've no doubt that a new report would only improve the picture, seeing as how sleeper prices have gone up considerably since that first report.

That's what I was thinking too. Plus, LD ridership has been increasing, not decreasing. I do think there is a real need for sleepers, & I would be surprised if they were discontinued.

 

[Cruiser]

Just saw this on the NARP news site.

It may be true that sleeping car passengers make up a small percentage of Amtrak's long distance passengers, but they sure provide a huge amount of revenue, actually subsidizing the coach passengers in essence.

I also find it interesting that whenever I see a "per passenger loss" or per passenger subsidy" it's always a different number depending who you ask.

On week five of the web page you link to, the most popular idea was to save 15 billion by not hiring additional IRS agents to handle health care reform. Since there is no plan to hire additional IRS agents, and it has been publicly debunked repeatedly, you can get a pretty good idea of the accuracy of the data presented. The fact that the claim is made that first class travel is subsidized twice as heavily as coach can be assumed to be as accurate as the myth of the IRS agents.

The fact that the claim is being made on Cantor's website should be all of the de-bunking that is necessary.

 

[sunchaser]

Just saw this on the NARP news site.

It may be true that sleeping car passengers make up a small percentage of Amtrak's long distance passengers, but they sure provide a huge amount of revenue, actually subsidizing the coach passengers in essence.

I also find it interesting that whenever I see a "per passenger loss" or per passenger subsidy" it's always a different number depending who you ask.

On week five of the web page you link to, the most popular idea was to save 15 billion by not hiring additional IRS agents to handle health care reform. Since there is no plan to hire additional IRS agents, and it has been publicly debunked repeatedly, you can get a pretty good idea of the accuracy of the data presented. The fact that the claim is made that first class travel is subsidized twice as heavily as coach can be assumed to be as accurate as the myth of the IRS agents.

The fact that the claim is being made on Cantor's website should be all of the de-bunking that is necessary.

You may want to do a search about this (IRS Agents) subject. I just did one, & did not see anything 'debunking' it.

It might help if you actually read the law-if you have the time. Apparently Congress did not have the time to read it.

 

[pebbleworm]

Sunchaser, your google -fu needs practice:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/

 

[sunchaser]

Sunchaser, your google -fu needs practice:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/

It does not matter the exact number of people they will need to hire-they will still need more employees.

Quoting from the Article-

The law does make individuals subject to a tax, starting in 2014, if they fail to obtain health insurance coverage. But IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman testified before a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee March 25 that the IRS won’t be auditing individuals to certify that they have obtained health insurance. He said insurance companies will issue forms certifying that individuals have coverage that meets the federal mandate, similar to a form that lenders use to verify the amount of interest someone has paid on their home mortgage. "We expect to get a simple form, that we won’t look behind, that says this person has acceptable health coverage," Shulman said. "So there’s not going to be any discussions about health coverage with an IRS employee." In any case, the bill signed into law (on page 131) specifically prohibits the IRS from using the liens and levies commonly used to collect money owed by delinquent taxpayers, and rules out any criminal penalties for individuals who refuse to pay the tax or those who don’t obtain coverage. That doesn’t leave a lot for IRS enforcers to do.

At his March 25 appearance, IRS Commissioner Shulman said that the bulk of the IRS’ efforts would go to informing individuals and businesses of the various tax incentives available under the new law. Under questioning from Democratic Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin, Shulman said: "What we’re going to do is try to make sure people are educated, there’s information, that we process payments quickly."

He said the IRS hadn’t yet figured out what staffing levels would be required, and he didn’t deny that some new agents might be hired. "We also will make sure there’s no fraud and abuse in the system as we always do," he said. "We will need resources to implement the tax provisions."

Sorry for the excessive quote. The IRS does not need to know if anyone has 'acceptable health coverage', period.

As for factcheck.org, even though it claims to be nonpartisan, it actually is not. That is why I did not go there first. I googled the subject. MY BAD!! :lol:

Now can we go back to discussing trains, please!

 

[Devil's Advocate]

As for factcheck.org, even though it claims to be nonpartisan, it actually is not.

How so? (Please include specific examples)

 

[sunchaser]

As for factcheck.org, even though it claims to be nonpartisan, it actually is not.

How so? (Please include specific examples)

I guess you would rather discuss politics?? It was several years ago, IIRC, concerning Senator John Kerry's war record. You might want to research the staff for factcheck.org. I try to get info from multiple sources, not just one.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

How so? (Please include specific examples)

They are probably non-partisan, in that they probably do not specifically endorse a particular party. Being non-partisan and being impartial, however, are two totally different things. I have yet to find ANY news source that is impartial. The New York Times seems to be the closest, so far as their actual news reporting goes. But it is not at all perfect. And their editorial articles, which can often look like news articles, are certainly not impartial.

But that's fine. All you need to do is heed Sunchaser's most valuable advice- look for more than one source of information. Look for many sources of the same information. Keep looking until you can see enough of the picture to strip off all the BS piled onto it and have an actual idea of reality.

Lastly, I've read the having health insurance tax. There is no taxation of private citizens laid out in that law. I've skimmed a good portion of it, and looked for just about all kinds of taxes and levys. None are on private citizens. Under numerous circumstances, an EMPLOYER can be fined or taxed if his employees do not have adequate coverage.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

It was several years ago, IIRC, concerning Senator John Kerry's war record. You might want to research the staff for factcheck.org.

I just wanted to you explain how exactly you came to the conclusion that factcheck was partisan and in what way, instead of asking us to research your own conclusions for you.

 

[sunchaser]

It was several years ago, IIRC, concerning Senator John Kerry's war record. You might want to research the staff for factcheck.org.

I just wanted to you explain how exactly you came to the conclusion that factcheck was partisan and in what way, instead of asking us to research your own conclusions for you.

As I said, if I remember correctly it involved Senator John Kerry's war record, & his personal background. The info was incorrect, based on reading first hand accounts from him & those who knew him. I don't base this decision on just one source. I spent days & days researching it. That was several years ago.

So, IMHO, that is partisan when you try to slant the information in one way or another.

All I was saying is look at the backgrounds of the people who work there, that will explain their viewpoints.

I'm not telling you to research for me.

Time to get back to trains!!!

 

[pebbleworm]

Any source of information is partisan if you don't agree with their conclusions. However, I'll just smile and nod like I do in the lounge car...

 

[sunchaser]

Any source of information is partisan if you don't agree with their conclusions. However, I'll just smile and nod like I do in the lounge car...

:giggle: Careful, you just might turn into a bobblehead!! :giggle:

 

[Devil's Advocate]

As I said, if I remember correctly it involved Senator John Kerry's war record, & his personal background. The info was incorrect, based on reading first hand accounts from him & those who knew him.

Merely being "incorrect" doesn't make it partisan. Partisan implies intentional manipulation to match a predetermined view or a desired outcome. Kerry's war record could fill a book. Suggesting we use multiple sources is a great idea, but it doesn't answer the question. I might even agree with you, but there's no way to know until you explain what exactly you're talking about.

 

[volkris]

We ran across a factually incorrect factcheck.org report just last weekend where it disagreed with primary sources from the Treasury Department about federal debt growth over the past decade. I've seen factcheck.org reports conflicting with primary sources an awful lot over the years, considering that it's entire point of existing is to be factual--and always in directions that support the Democrats' stances. Take from that what you want.

Anyway, getting back on topic, the numbers supporting Cantor can be found here. See table 1 for the route-by-route breakdown.

In the end, part of the contradiction may come down to two groups asking different questions: the NARP, as it states, is asking what can be done to most efficiently maintain rail services it considers appropriate, while the DOT report is asking how much rail service is worth in the first place. Those are very different questions requiring different types of analysis, but in the end the DOT direction is probably more correct since the government is holding the lifeline.

Accounting is a tricky thing when there's no chance to see a profit. At that point you can lose revenues and actually come out ahead for it.

 

[sunchaser]

As I said, if I remember correctly it involved Senator John Kerry's war record, & his personal background. The info was incorrect, based on reading first hand accounts from him & those who knew him.

Merely being "incorrect" doesn't make it partisan. Partisan implies intentional manipulation to match a predetermined view or a desired outcome. Kerry's war record could fill a book. Suggesting we use multiple sources is a great idea, but it doesn't answer the question. I might even agree with you, but there's no way to know until you explain what exactly you're talking about.

If you paint a picture of someone as a certain way, to make them look much better than reality, you are doing it for a reason. That is what I found. The information was presented in such a way to dispell any questions about his record, but the information did not include the truth. It was to show him as a good candidate to defeat Bush. I do not have the information anymore, but I do remember clearly two details. The Government of Viet Nam considers him a hero, & have pictures of him in one of their museums. When he came back, he threw all his medals away. He said he committed war atrocities, then backed away from it later. Now we are to believe that he was proud to serve.

 

[Ryan]

We ran across a factually incorrect factcheck.org report just last weekend where it disagreed with primary sources from the Treasury Department about federal debt growth over the past decade. I've seen factcheck.org reports conflicting with primary sources an awful lot over the years, considering that it's entire point of existing is to be factual--and always in directions that support the Democrats' stances. Take from that what you want.

I'm sure that you won't have any trouble posting an example, then.

When he came back, he threw all his medals away. He said he committed war atrocities, then backed away from it later. Now we are to believe that he was proud to serve.

How does that relate to factcheck at all? Is it unreasonable for people to change their mind on something over 30+ years? As a former Naval officer, I was damn proud of my service in the opening weeks of OIF (I was aboard a cruiser that fired Tomahawks into Iraq and provided defense to two carriers while they flew strikes into Iraq. These days, with the myth of WMDs debunked and the war looking like a colossal mistake, I'm significantly less proud of my service.