Why is Amtrak coach more expensive than flying?

[jebr]

All I know is, if there was a way to sleep economically and comfortably on Amtrak, more people would use it for overnight trips. (Roomettes aren't what I think of as economical and the coach seats aren't comfortable for sleeping.)

Full stop.

The question is: would enough people do it to justify the expense of new or retrofitted cars?

Aside: do the sleepers pay their own way in terms of funding? That is, does the cost at least cover the additional cost of another train car (as in additional fuel for that car), the cost to maintain/set up those rooms (staff wise, linens, etc) and cover the cost of food? If not, why not?

 

[SarahZ]

Couchettes would be nice, but if that is not happening, give me just a coach seat that reclines full-flat, similar to modern Business class seats on international flights and I'd be a happy traveler. No doors or curtains or any other fancy stuff needed.

I would LOVE this. We go to ABQ more often than anywhere else. It's a 26-hour trip, so it feels weird to pay for a roomette since our time on the train isn't very long at all. We're perfectly happy bringing cheese, crackers, and beef jerky. We do just fine with that and don't need four huge meals. The problem is, I cannot sleep in those coach seats. I get maybe, MAYBE thirty minutes of sleep. More often than not, I just stay awake the entire time. So, we get a roomette and basically end up paying for me to be able to lay flat.

I'd love if we could pay a bit more than Coach but not as much as a roomette to have the option of fully-reclined seats. I don't need a room to myself. I don't need four huge meals. I just need to be able to lay flat.

 

[RRUserious]

I just checked United Airlines business class one way in April to Amtrak sleeper one way on the same date. The air trip is $780. The sleeper car trip is $350. The premise of this thread is that Amtrak is higher priced than flying. Yet, people are comparing pitch in business class with coach. Seems like things are wandering way, way away from the original premise. The coach fare was $179. At $780, the business class space better be way better. That's 4 to 5 times more money. It is more than twice a sleeper with all meals paid. Of course, I did not inquire at a consolidator. I went to United's site to get what would be the ordinary price. Apples to apples.

 

[Texan Eagle]

I just checked United Airlines business class one way in April to Amtrak sleeper one way on the same date. The air trip is $780. The sleeper car trip is $350. The premise of this thread is that Amtrak is higher priced than flying. Yet, people are comparing pitch in business class with coach. Seems like things are wandering way, way away from the original premise. The coach fare was $179. At $780, the business class space better be way better. That's 4 to 5 times more money. It is more than twice a sleeper with all meals paid. Of course, I did not inquire at a consolidator. I went to United's site to get what would be the ordinary price. Apples to apples.

Sure, apples to apples. I hope the train you compared with the flight takes you from Chicago to Los Angeles in five hours.

You are completely missing the point here. Nobody is comparing airline Business Class with Amtrak coach class. The discussion is about how Amtrak can possibly add a class of service that offers lie-flat seats and that's it, no other frills of sleeper travel- private showers, three meals included in the fare etc etc. Just a more comfortable coach, let's call it Coach+ or Premium Coach.

 

[Ziv]

All I know is, if there was a way to sleep economically and comfortably on Amtrak, more people would use it for overnight trips. (Roomettes aren't what I think of as economical and the coach seats aren't comfortable for sleeping.)

Full stop.

The question is: would enough people do it to justify the expense of new or retrofitted cars?

Aside: do the sleepers pay their own way in terms of funding? That is, does the cost at least cover the additional cost of another train car (as in additional fuel for that car), the cost to maintain/set up those rooms (staff wise, linens, etc) and cover the cost of food? If not, why not?

I think that people traveling overnight would pay at least 20% more for a lie-flat seat, whether it was fully flat or inclined by 15 degrees would matter little. Would they pay 50% more? Some would, some wouldn't. The only way to find out would be to invest in a few sections of lie-flat seats and see how they sell. I believe that you can get a decent lie-flat seat that is inclined around 15 degrees into 55 or 56" of pitch and the normal pitch for a Superliner seat is 50" so the space behind the staircase might be a good spot to start because there is around 8 rows of seats. Remove them and put in 7 rows of sleep flat seats. Market them as 'Business Class Lie-Flat Seats' and see if you can get 50% more than regular coach. I know that I refuse to pay double, let alone triple for a Roomette, but I know that I would pay 50% more for a lie-flat seat that I could really sleep in, not just doze intermittently in.

As to your second question, I would guess that sleeper cars make as much for Amtrak if not more than a coach car. Those meals they get for free aren't worth all THAT much money. And I do like the food in the diner cars, so that isn't sniping.

If your question was, 'Would the new sleeper lie-flat seats pay their own way', again, I would say, most likely they would. I would pay 50% more for the comfort and Amtrak only loses 10% of the seating capacity. Plus it would bring in more mid-range passengers who previously refused to pay double or triple coach to get a roomette.

Now if we could just get lie-flat seats in a 55-56" pitch and have most of Amtrak's LD routes set up for going 110 mph over much of their routes with enough double tracking to limit the delays! That would be golden! LOL!

 

[Anderson]

I'm going to throw out a hypothesis on the SCL situation at A-Day: Seaboard was turning a profit on its Florida services, if only barely. The RF&P, however, may have been substantially in the hole on their segments and have been unwilling to not join Amtrak for that reason. This, in turn, would fit in well with the comment I think I once saw about Seaboard worrying about having to do transfers at Richmond rather than Southern's transfers at DC, since for example, I believe that the pre-Amtrak Crescent went past DC while a transfer was forced in DC post-A-Day.

Post A-Day Southern Crescent continued to run to New York under the pre-Amtrak agreement between PC and Southern, which Amtrak continued to honor. Same as the case with the Silvers and Champion. Of course the latter were Amtrak trains post-A-Day.

Really Amtrak has not very often been hopelessly nasty to collaborating with private operators to run trains. Yes there have been cases of such but nothing like what URPA would like to have us believe. Right now they are in the process of entering into a joint ticketing arrangement with S&NCR. It would be suicide for them to start being nasty with private operators at this point in time.

There is one piece of evidence to the contrary, namely their expressly-stated reluctance to sell disused equipment to possible startup operators (noting concerns of competition) as stated in their equipment plan. It would seem to me that encouraging other operations that offer interline travel opportunities ought to be Amtrak's position (since such operations would expand destination possibilities where Amtrak can't because of legal issues and provide a "network effect" bump) . Of course, with that said, I do recognize the risks of direct competition.

S&NCR is an odd case because it is in an area that Amtrak is unlikely to even want to extend a competing train. The FEC situation is a bit of a mess to some extent, but the station lockout concerns (expressed if FECI goes "on their own") are what I would point out as a counter-example. There, you have an Amtrak train (two, actually) running the same A-B route (be it ORL-MIA or JAX-MIA) and Amtrak doesn't seem too fond of the possibility. I'm going to wonder what Amtrak's relationship with Iowa-Pacific starts looking like going forward...that seems to fall more into the second category, but they're also hooking cars onto Amtrak trains, so presumably Amtrak is getting at least some revenue in the deal.

 

[Ryan]

Doubt the couchette/common sleeping area would catch on in the US.

Why?

I think part of the reason is that our culture is a bit different than many of the European countries, in that our expectations of Privacy and personal space are greater than many Europeans.

If privacy and space are the core issues then how can we explain the millions of American coach passengers that put up with ZERO privacy and NO personal space?

Let me take a swing at this. I think that the hangup is that Americans don't like to share what they think of as a "private space" with strangers. I think that you can see that in how hostels seem to be much less popular here in the US than they are elsewhere in the world. Rooms in a sleeping car would fall under that "private space", whereas 60 people in a coach car is certainly not private.
I think that airline style lay flat seats are a great idea. It seems backwards, but I'd rather sleep in a lay flat seat in a coach with 40 other strangers than I would with 2 other strangers in a walled off (or curtained off) area within that same car. Odd? Absolutely. But I think that's the mindset that is being talked about.

Now if we could just get lie-flat seats in a 55-56" pitch

The problem with that is that many people are taller than 55-56", so to make that work you'll have to turn things on an angle (as Jis made mention of earlier). As soon as you do that, you lose your ability to go 4 across in a railcar, and you start losing seating density (meaning your ticket costs have to go up to compensate).

 

[jis]

Amtrak's role as an entity that is able to get direct government subsidy for operations should be to serve areas that no one else wants to serve. That is not to say that it should discontinue any services that they already run. If the government decides that areas that cannot be served by any private operator should not be served at all and the great representatives of the people go along with it then that would be a problem for Amtrak.

If a railroad wants to operate its own passenger service where Amtrak wants to operate serving the exact same purpose then it is not clear why Amtrak should get involved there. In case of FEC the goals of FEC is Corridor Service. The goals of Amtrak is LD service. They are not at odds at each other, and traditionally FEC has conveyed tains from the north primarily owned and run by other railroads all the way to Key West at one time, so this should not be anything new for them. Also not that FEC has not even decided yet who is going to actually operate the trains on its road for the corridor service, and have not said that it will be something that they will do in house. So let us wait and see what develops before discussing how FEC will Amtrak's life hell etc.

Interline operations both of passengers and even through equipment should be encouraged. That is the way to get a vibrant passenger rail industry. Not contemplating in how many ways Amtrak and the private railroads can screw each other, to the detriment of the riding public. We see enough of that nonsense among 4 government owned outfits around New York City. We don't want to encourage such behavior nationwide.

It would be nice if Amtrak (or something else) were to provide a nationwide uniform ticketing system at such a price that others could reasonably subscribe to it to provide the passengers a seamless experience.

 

[jis]

I just checked United Airlines business class one way in April to Amtrak sleeper one way on the same date. The air trip is $780. The sleeper car trip is $350. The premise of this thread is that Amtrak is higher priced than flying. Yet, people are comparing pitch in business class with coach. Seems like things are wandering way, way away from the original premise. The coach fare was $179. At $780, the business class space better be way better. That's 4 to 5 times more money. It is more than twice a sleeper with all meals paid. Of course, I did not inquire at a consolidator. I went to United's site to get what would be the ordinary price. Apples to apples.

This is a meaningless and bogus comparison over such distances where one takes 5 hours and one take more than 2 days, IMHO. In one case you have to spend less than 5 hours in a seat and in the other case you basically have to set up household in the seat for several days. That comparison makes sense only in consideration of Corridor service like between New York and Washington DC.

Think of it this way. If you can measure the cost and discomfort (the CD Index or CDI) of the seat on a scale of 1 to 10,and compute the net CDI for a trip as the product of the base CDI and the number hours spent in that state, then you will immediately see that a plane will come out way ahead in terms of total Cost-Discomfort Index than the plane even if Amtrak's is 1 and the planes is 6.

Anyhow this has precious little to do with what is being discussed here, which is whether airline business class style lie flat seats (which BTW are not really available on too many Chicago - San Fran United flights) in trains.

 

[jis]

I'm going to throw out a hypothesis on the SCL situation at A-Day: Seaboard was turning a profit on its Florida services, if only barely. The RF&P, however, may have been substantially in the hole on their segments and have been unwilling to not join Amtrak for that reason. This, in turn, would fit in well with the comment I think I once saw about Seaboard worrying about having to do transfers at Richmond rather than Southern's transfers at DC, since for example, I believe that the pre-Amtrak Crescent went past DC while a transfer was forced in DC post-A-Day.

Really Amtrak has not very often been hopelessly nasty to collaborating with private operators to run trains. Yes there have been cases of such but nothing like what URPA would like to have us believe. Right now they are in the process of entering into a joint ticketing arrangement with S&NCR. It would be suicide for them to start being nasty with private operators at this point in time.

There is one piece of evidence to the contrary, namely their expressly-stated reluctance to sell disused equipment to possible startup operators (noting concerns of competition) as stated in their equipment plan. It would seem to me that encouraging other operations that offer interline travel opportunities ought to be Amtrak's position (since such operations would expand destination possibilities where Amtrak can't because of legal issues and provide a "network effect" bump) . Of course, with that said, I do recognize the risks of direct competition.

As I said there have been cases of such but it is not a constant theme. I agree that Amtrak's goal should be to be a part of an eco system of rail passenger transport providers, perhaps even taking up the role of the keeper of passenger rail technical standards, sort of like AAR is for freight, and Amtrak almost de-facto already is for passenger rolling stock. It should set the standrds for inter-line operations and centralized ticket and tariff clearing house etc., sort of like the British Rail Regulators play in that area.

S&NCR is an odd case because it is in an area that Amtrak is unlikely to even want to extend a competing train. The FEC situation is a bit of a mess to some extent, but the station lockout concerns (expressed if FECI goes "on their own") are what I would point out as a counter-example. There, you have an Amtrak train (two, actually) running the same A-B route (be it ORL-MIA or JAX-MIA) and Amtrak doesn't seem too fond of the possibility. I'm going to wonder what Amtrak's relationship with Iowa-Pacific starts looking like going forward...that seems to fall more into the second category, but they're also hooking cars onto Amtrak trains, so presumably Amtrak is getting at least some revenue in the deal.

No. Amtrak provides NYP - JAX - ORL - MIA service. FEC has no dream or desire to do so. Even Amtrak where it operates its own Corridor Service and LD service as on the NEC keeps the two quite separate with distinct and different types of equipment and service. So I do not agree that it is a counter example. If Amtrak were split into an NEC operations and an LD operation, would you claim that LD operations on the NEC was in competition with Amtrak. Do you really think Amtrak is competing with NJT between new York and Trenton or Metropark in any meaningful way. By design they are trying to make it unsavory for those short turn passengers to take Amtrak.

 

[Ziv]

Now if we could just get lie-flat seats in a 55-56" pitch

The problem with that is that many people are taller than 55-56", so to make that work you'll have to turn things on an angle (as Jis made mention of earlier). As soon as you do that, you lose your ability to go 4 across in a railcar, and you start losing seating density (meaning your ticket costs have to go up to compensate).

I don't understand why you would lose anything other than the 5 or 6" of increased pitch, i.e. distance front to back the seat takes. If it is a lie-flat seat at a 15 degree angle (approximately) when in sleeping position, the feet of one passenger are under the chest of the passenger in front of them, so the 'bed/seat' is around 80" long from foot to head with the lower 25" overlapping the seat ahead with room for my feet to sit upright without brushing the seat back of the person in front of me. Lie-flat seats are the same width as an Amtrak seat so the width won't be a factor. So my feet will be 6" off the ground and my head will be 22" off the ground. Is it as comfortable as a 'lie-flat seat horizontally mounted'? No, but the horizontal mount takes up 82" of pitch and has my feet 6" from the passenger in front of me.

I don't know what the answer is to getting comfortable seats/compartments that make Amtrak money and encourage more riders to use them, but I would bet that between Couchettes and Lie-flat at an angle seats, Amtrak could find a lot of new riders, and at least with the latter, do so by increasing ridership and revenue per passenger. As an added bonus, lie-flats could be installed relatively easily in any Superliner car on a test basis when they are re-furbed.

 

[Anderson]

No. Amtrak provides NYP - JAX - ORL - MIA service. FEC has no dream or desire to do so. Even Amtrak where it operates its own Corridor Service and LD service as on the NEC keeps the two quite separate with distinct and different types of equipment and service. So I do not agree that it is a counter example. If Amtrak were split into an NEC operations and an LD operation, would you claim that LD operations on the NEC was in competition with Amtrak. Do you really think Amtrak is competing with NJT between new York and Trenton or Metropark in any meaningful way. By design they are trying to make it unsavory for those short turn passengers to take Amtrak.

Amtrak holds express ambitions on at least JAX-MIA direct service, and they currently serve ORL-MIA. FECI wants to do the latter, and has the former in their long-term sights. Particularly south of Orlando on the Meteor and Tampa on the Star, I have gathered that Amtrak has trouble keeping seats full because of the amount of net disembarkation in central Florida. Losing that business would be a noticeable net loss for Amtrak.

On the NEC, there is a synergy between Amtrak and the commuter agencies. However, all parties concerned are essentially public entities...for the most part, I doubt that NJT or MNRR care much about lost market share.

 

[jis]

Well just because Amtrak has ambitions does not mean that it makes sense under all circumstances. If the choice is between Amtrak requiring more in way of subsidy than FEC because of FEC's extensive property holdings in FL guess which makes more sense? Amtrak will just need to adjust to the new situation. Given its financial situation as far as the LD BU goes, the writing is very clearly on the wall should FEC come up with a viable business case and move forward with a plan that requires less subsidy than Amtrak woul require.

 

[RRUserious]

The thread title says coach is more expensive than flying. It is not. As to the time involved, I've always said that if all you are paying for is reaching the destination, and you don't mind having you junk jiggled, buy a plane ticket! There is hardly an amenity worth mentioning on a plane, but you don't care about the vehicle that takes you anyway. Me, I am blessed with tons of time, and my AIM is not merely to travel fast to some destination. I have slightly higher standards nowadays. Also, I know trains are increasingly in our future. So I'm pitching in my bit so that the next generations don't have to build totally from scratch. Plane passengers are so focused, they can't see past a cheap fare and a fast trip. They might object to being felt up, but they manage to overlook it by thinking how cheap their ticket was and how little time the trip took.

Such people are really aliens on this board. There's little or anything of value to them in the train system. I'd go nearly as far as to think them trolls. But this is the Open Internet, so being mocked by strangers here is like being massaged by ugly people from TSA. Just part of life.

 

[Texan Eagle]

The thread title says coach is more expensive than flying. It is not.

Except when it is. Just a couple of quick figures. I checked from the city where I live.

Dallas-Chicago. Several days in May 2012. Amtrak coach cheapest: $119. Flight cheapest: Spirit Airlines $79. (Both fares for same day- May 16)

Dallas-Boston. Several days in May 2012. Amtrak coach cheapest: $219. Flight cheapest: Spirit Airlines $79 (Both fares for same day- May 16)

Dallas-Houston. Several days in May 2012. Amtrak coach cheapest: $84. Flight cheapest: Southwest Airlines $60 (Both fares for same day- May 16)

Want more examples?

As to the time involved, I've always said that if all you are paying for is reaching the destination, and you don't mind having you junk jiggled, buy a plane ticket!

I have never really figured out why do folks here on AU mention so much about physical interaction by TSA. Is it based merely on media report? In the last two years I have taken over 25 domestic flights within USA and 10 international flights arriving and departing from airports in USA and not once have I been touched by a TSA agent. And FYI, I am not any frequent flier or have any special privileges. In fact, I would fall under what paranoid Americans would call high-risk passengers- a young male non-white guy, and have always traveled economy class, but never has the TSA checkpoint involved more than a cursory walk through X-ray scanner. That's it.

Me, I am blessed with tons of time, and my AIM is not merely to travel fast to some destination.

But not everyone is. This is what some politicians had mentioned and many people didn't like it, that only retired people with truckload of free time travel on Amtrak! Of course that statement is not entirely true, but it is not entirely false either.

Such people are really aliens on this board. There's little or anything of value to them in the train system. I'd go nearly as far as to think them trolls. But this is the Open Internet, so being mocked by strangers here is like being massaged by ugly people from TSA. Just part of life.

Sorry, I do not approve of this observation. I've flown over 40,000 miles on airplanes in the past two years, so that makes me alien on this board? What if I tell you I have also done over 50,000 miles of train travel so far? In fact, with statements like these, I feel it is you who is out here to troll people.

 

[trainman74]

In fact, I would fall under what paranoid Americans would call high-risk passengers- a young male non-white guy, and have always traveled economy class, but never has the TSA checkpoint involved more than a cursory walk through X-ray scanner. That's it.

Then you're lucky you haven't encountered the "backscatter" scanners that are in use at many airports, which require more than a "cursory" walk through. A fair number of people choose to decline going through those scanners for various reasons, but if you decline going through one of those, then you get a somewhat intense physical search from the TSA.

 

[PRR 60]

In fact, I would fall under what paranoid Americans would call high-risk passengers- a young male non-white guy, and have always traveled economy class, but never has the TSA checkpoint involved more than a cursory walk through X-ray scanner. That's it.

Then you're lucky you haven't encountered the "backscatter" scanners that are in use at many airports, which require more than a "cursory" walk through. A fair number of people choose to decline going through those scanners for various reasons, but if you decline going through one of those, then you get a somewhat intense physical search from the TSA.

I have gone through a scanner, and it was pretty much a walk-through. No problems at all.

If people here want to believe the stories about physical probing by TSA, they are welcome to do so. I also go through TSA maybe 20-30 times a year and also have never been touched.

 

[PRR 60]

The thread title says coach is more expensive than flying. It is not. As to the time involved, I've always said that if all you are paying for is reaching the destination, and you don't mind having you junk jiggled, buy a plane ticket! There is hardly an amenity worth mentioning on a plane, but you don't care about the vehicle that takes you anyway. Me, I am blessed with tons of time, and my AIM is not merely to travel fast to some destination. I have slightly higher standards nowadays. Also, I know trains are increasingly in our future. So I'm pitching in my bit so that the next generations don't have to build totally from scratch. Plane passengers are so focused, they can't see past a cheap fare and a fast trip. They might object to being felt up, but they manage to overlook it by thinking how cheap their ticket was and how little time the trip took.

Such people are really aliens on this board. There's little or anything of value to them in the train system. I'd go nearly as far as to think them trolls. But this is the Open Internet, so being mocked by strangers here is like being massaged by ugly people from TSA. Just part of life.

Watch out! There may be an "alien" and "troll" serving as a moderator here.

There is no regulation that prohibits someone who often travels by air (and maybe even enjoys it once in a while) from enjoying rail travel as well. Indeed, there is at least one airline pilot active here. Those people, and their opinions, are as welcome here as are those who, by desire, travel only by rail.

 

[Texan Eagle]

In fact, I would fall under what paranoid Americans would call high-risk passengers- a young male non-white guy, and have always traveled economy class, but never has the TSA checkpoint involved more than a cursory walk through X-ray scanner. That's it.

Then you're lucky you haven't encountered the "backscatter" scanners that are in use at many airports, which require more than a "cursory" walk through. A fair number of people choose to decline going through those scanners for various reasons, but if you decline going through one of those, then you get a somewhat intense physical search from the TSA.

I have gone through a scanner, and it was pretty much a walk-through. No problems at all.

If people here want to believe the stories about physical probing by TSA, they are welcome to do so. I also go through TSA maybe 20-30 times a year and also have never been touched.

I have been through the "backscatter" scanners at Denver, San Francisco and Albuquerque, and except for the fact that you have to stand in a weird pose with hands in the air for 5 seconds, it really is no big deal or different from the usual walk through the metal detector. The horror stories that you read in media start when the passengers decide to be a pain in the posterior and decline passing through the scanner. The TSA and scanners may be a theater and may or may not be effective at ensuring security for us, but if one keeps one's opinion to self and not argue with those guys and make a scene, the whole TSA security part is hardly an annoyance to travel. In fact I have had to deal with more annoying folks at Amtrak stations (kindergarten-walk-scheduler, rude lady at inquiry counter not telling what time train is expected etc) than I've had at airports.

 

[jmbgeg]

Alan and Anthony,

Perhaps when a subject gets this huge over years, maybe it should be locked, and upon interest; others may restart.

 

[George Harris]

As to the time involved, I've always said that if all you are paying for is reaching the destination, and you don't mind having you junk jiggled, buy a plane ticket!

I have never really figured out why do folks here on AU mention so much about physical interaction by TSA. Is it based merely on media report? In the last two years I have taken over 25 domestic flights within USA and 10 international flights arriving and departing from airports in USA and not once have I been touched by a TSA agent. And FYI, I am not any frequent flier or have any special privileges. In fact, I would fall under what paranoid Americans would call high-risk passengers- a young male non-white guy, and have always traveled economy class, but never has the TSA checkpoint involved more than a cursory walk through X-ray scanner. That's it.

Sounds more like they are afraid of being accused of discrimination than anything else.

I am a plus 60 white guy with a wife that is likewise (except female) and always get the full treatment going through the TSA theatre. Well, I have metal in my leg, my wife has metal in her back and neck and artificial knees, so we always set off the metal detector so that we get the full pat down or X-ray experience. Then, I am frequently carrying a laptop (I stll work) so I have essentially disassemble to go through security. And, if we have baggage to check, there is that process to go through as well. And, after getting on the plane, there is the lecture, the no electronic devices, etc. foolishness to go through. Therefore, it is a huge relief when we can go somewhere by train where all we have to do is show up with ticket and get on. Even the baggage checking process is easier.

We fly when the time or end point locations demand it.

Me, I am blessed with tons of time, and my AIM is not merely to travel fast to some destination.

But not everyone is. This is what some politicians had mentioned and many people didn't like it, that only retired people with truckload of free time travel on Amtrak! Of course that statement is not entirely true, but it is not entirely false either.

That is part of the whole problem of transportation issues being turned into politicl issues.

 

[RRUserious]

There is no regulation that prohibits someone who often travels by air (and maybe even enjoys it once in a while) from enjoying rail travel as well. Indeed, there is at least one airline pilot active here. Those people, and their opinions, are as welcome here as are those who, by desire, travel only by rail.

And you're implying that the OP, with the claim that he can fly cheaper than go coach is such a person? If so, that's a very mixed up person. Maybe one who simply resents every penny given to any carrier for the privilege of traveling.

As I say, you willing to take the whole "flying package" as market conditions have created it today, then just don't hassle train-lovers about it. You aren';t GONNA get your lowball deal on the train. Deal with it!

Besides my unwillingness to deal with the endless round of crap by the aviation industry and its friends in DHS, I also happen to enjoy the TRIP. It isn't some meaningless blur between departure and arrival. And it is affordable. So I find myself irked by these people who think the mindset of flyers should apply everywhere. If they don't find the whole world of travel a loving reflection of air travel, they think they've grounds to stir up a fuss. How self-indulgent. I hope they DON'T get on the trains. I don't need to deal with that type while I'm enjoying my train trip.

 

[Ispolkom]

I have heard this argument several times whenever the topic of economic sleeping accommodation comes up, and it begs a question- if for once I accept your point that the expectations of Americans of privacy and personal space are greater than Europeans and Asians (?) and they would never accept sleeping in any thing that is less than a private room, so does that mean people in America never travel by planes? All those transcontinental and international flights with Business Class and First Class must be running so empty out of America, no? I wonder why there are so many international airports and airplanes in this country then.

I've traveled in shared compartments a few dozen times, mostly in Eastern Europe, and I've never had a problem with it. The issue I think that you would have in the U.S. is with strangers, especially of different genders, sharing compartments with doors that close. Questions of theft, harassment, and assault come up, when I mention such accommodations to Americans. Has any U.S. railroad, even in less litigious times, ever offered sleeper service where strangers shared a compartment?

Lie-flat chairs, on the other, hand, make a lot of sense for coach. Let's remember that Amtrak long-distance coaches were designed in the 70s, and reflect standards of those time. I only traveled in first class internationally a couple of times in the 80s and early 90s, but what I remember (through the haze of champagne, caviar, and 25-year-old scotch) is seats that were broadly similar to what Amtrak Superliner coaches have. When did lie-flat chairs come into service on airliners?

One concern I'd have, though, is that Amtrak has enough trouble keeping their present chairs in service. How much harder would it be to maintain a lie-flat one?

 

[jis]

I have heard this argument several times whenever the topic of economic sleeping accommodation comes up, and it begs a question- if for once I accept your point that the expectations of Americans of privacy and personal space are greater than Europeans and Asians (?) and they would never accept sleeping in any thing that is less than a private room, so does that mean people in America never travel by planes? All those transcontinental and international flights with Business Class and First Class must be running so empty out of America, no? I wonder why there are so many international airports and airplanes in this country then.

I've traveled in shared compartments a few dozen times, mostly in Eastern Europe, and I've never had a problem with it. The issue I think that you would have in the U.S. is with strangers, especially of different genders, sharing compartments with doors that close. Questions of theft, harassment, and assault come up, when I mention such accommodations to Americans. Has any U.S. railroad, even in less litigious times, ever offered sleeper service where strangers shared a compartment?

Actually if you look at the situation in India, just as a random example (the situation is similar in most of Southeast Asia) the only compartment accommodation where doors close is AC First Class, and IR takes extreme care in assigning accommodation making sure that Indian sensibilities about separation of sexes, which is way way more strict than in the US, is adhered to strictly.

All other sleeping accommodation is in open section cubicles with no doors, and depending on the class of travel curtains to give some privacy in ones berth, or not. Theft is always a possibility and most who have such concerns carry along a bicycle chain and lock to lock their baggage to a fixed post under the seat or in the luggage rack. But broadly speaking, the risk of theft is no more in an open section than in Coach.

Lie-flat chairs, on the other, hand, make a lot of sense for coach. Let's remember that Amtrak long-distance coaches were designed in the 70s, and reflect standards of those time. I only traveled in first class internationally a couple of times in the 80s and early 90s, but what I remember (through the haze of champagne, caviar, and 25-year-old scotch) is seats that were broadly similar to what Amtrak Superliner coaches have. When did lie-flat chairs come into service on airliners?

The first time I flew in one was about 10 or so years back in Sept 2001 one week after 9/11 on BA in Business Class (when I had to make an emergency trip to India to attend to my Dad's illness). So it might have come in a little before that, though the US airlines were late getting into that game.

One concern I'd have, though, is that Amtrak has enough trouble keeping their present chairs in service. How much harder would it be to maintain a lie-flat one?

Yes that would be a concern.

I happened to be on Amtrak today and had a measuring device with me, so I took a few rough measurements. It looks like in a regular 85 footer with single vestibule, an ADA restroom and a regular restroom like on Amfleet 2, you can find room for 10 rows of 72" pitch lie flat seats without doing any herringbone. Which means you can fit 40 passengers. This would imply that all else being equal, if you do not also burden the passengers with god knows how much extra for meals and premium service, you could get away with charging a little less than double the coach fare to come out even. It would be considerably less than double if compared with a 66 seater. The cost of service would depend on whether some bedding is provided or not.

To provide a slightly broader berth in the sleeping position one could go with 60" herringbone 3 abreast with effective bed length of 72" to accommodate 36. The only difference will be about 4 to 6" wider sleeping space above ones knees, and a quite a bit narrower below.

In either arrangement luggage space would be exactly the same as in Coach. In classic sections which would have similar capacity there was a problem with luggage space because the ample overhead storage space was not available, being occupied by the upper berth.

But as Anderson rightly points out, these seats are more complex pieces of machinery, though I hear that they are very robust, modular, reliable and relatively light for what they do, and do not require a lot of maintenance. I suppose technology has come some ways in the area of electrical servo mechanisms.

 

[Ziv]

jis, 72" pitch is a huge amount of space, that is halfway between first class size and business in most airlines. I think 56" pitch, 'lie-flat at an angle' (business class 'lie flat') are probably the only way Amtrak would see it work profitably. Adding 6" to a 50" pitch gives a pretty comfortable 79" flat, albeit slanted, 'bed'. No herring-bone sort of arrangement needed. And since your feet would only go 9 or 10 inches under the seat in front and your seat back would go only 10 inches back from its upright position, you wouldn't intrude either in front or in back so all the seats wouldn't have to be 'turned down' at once. The top of the seat/bed would be 26" higher than the bottom, but it would be flat and it would be a decent way to sleep, much better than the standard Superliner seats now.

Heck, if you used 72" pitch you would be wasting at least a foot for each row.

I am sorry to disagree but I really would like to see Amtrak start to re-furb sections of the Superliners in a way that makes a decent sleep possible on LD routes without paying as much as a roomette costs. And it really looks like the only way that will ever happen is if Amtrak starts to buy 'lie-flat' 56" pitch seats from who ever makes them for business class travelers using American airlines. It would be cheap to try and the revenue would probably pay for itself in just a few years. And I would be able to get a decent nights sleep on the Empire Builder without paying double or triple the coach fare.

http://www.airlinequality.com/Product/seats_americas.htm