Found this in the blog section and thought I would post a link. I think Schlimm mentioned this before and it looks like someone else had the same thought. Very interesting read.
I tried to activate the link but no luck. It’s a good article. The slumbercoach or 2-person couchette might work well as an alternative.
I was a frequent user of both sections and Sleeper/Slumbercoachers when they were available. In Europe I did use the couchettes. I did not have any experience with lie-flat 1st-Class air travel. My preferences based on experience are Slumber/Sleepercoaches for overnight-only travel, sections for long trips involving one or more overnight but also considerable daytime, but not couchettes. I would rather lack privacy completely than share one compartment privately with five strangers. I think most Americans would share these preferences. The Slumber/Sleepercoach is really claustrophobic for daytime travel, and the open section is a comfortable non-private shared experience with only one person. Did not have any problems the few times used an upper berth, but did do my clothes changing in the men’s restroom and used full pajamas.
Eequipping each room with private toilets will be a huge problem today with retention toilets, as it has been for the so-called Amtrak roomette, which is not really a roomette since it lacks that facility.
All-in-all, return to the open section might be best for this market.
On European shared couchette services, one does not normally change into ones pj’s, but sleep in your day clothes.
I think a version of the airline lie flat seat would be a good option. By staggering the height of the seats, (aka an open version of the Slumbercoach) one passengers feet could be under the seat of the passenger in front of them. This could mean seat spacing of not much more than existing LD spacing. I also think standard coaches could have dividing walls(glass), which would help to keep noise levels down, and provide conductors with options to seperate different groups. i.e , lump all the teenagers in together .
Too many feel good ideas and no marketing or research. Overnight trains in the manner that people remember in Europe are fading away. City Night Line is a shell of its former self, SNCF ended private room sleeper service,international sleeper routes are becoming fewer and fewer. I miss it as much as the next afficianado but Mr. Kenton is lost in the fog or gazing from his private dome car seat. Probably could make business class travel more attractive and innovative and maybe some of that would transfer into some sort of upgraded overnight service. Again dreams should be connected to marketing and hard research.
Good comments. But the night Scottland sleeper service seems to be holding, with subsidies from the Scottland government. I realize the Section alternative I like may be a non-starter, because the space it occupies is just as large as the Amtrak roomette, and both sleep only two. Indeed, the Amtrak roomette is really just an enclosed and thus more private section. So maybe, the deal should be that Amtrak should offer this kind of room to individual travelers at a reduced cost if they are willing to share the room with a stranger? A second-class first-class?
A big reason for the decline of sleeper service in Europe has been the introduction of high speed rail.As soon as people can get there in 3 or 4 hours during the day, they are a lot less likely to take a 8 hour sleeper train .
It seems to me we have plenty of options already for the once-a-day service we have on most LD routes. If you can’t find what you want among coach, roomette or bedroom, there are always planes and buses with their wealth of choices.[;)]
But those of us that wish LDs`to continiue are always looking for ways to improve their business.
Also Easyjet and Ryan Air are killing the European sleeper trains. Funny thing about Europe, jet fuel isn’t taxed but diesel fuel is, so as usual it’s politics.
Any analysis / speculation of potential sleeper riders is difficult.
What are the ages
what are financial resources
How much time to travel
What are transportation motivies
Going single or with others
Handicapped
departure and arrival times of train(s)
Coach seat accomodations
Length of trip in time and distance
other posters can come up with many items.
We just wish there were a few “true believers” at Amtrak…
I support Amtrak, and believe it to be the best we can do under present political and economic conditions, but to be a true believer, I would have to believe it is the ideal situation, which it is not.
To me, the ideal situation would be for all modes of passenger travel to pay the full share of their costs to the economy, including use of real-estate (Interstates and similar roads being part of the highway transportation industry), the freight railroadds unburdened of harmful regulation, and the freight railroads seeing passenger service as their best window to the public.
Subsidization of commuter transportation to make cities and towns work better is a different matter.
Maybe the true believers at Amtrak understand that the future for passenger rail lies in relatively short, high density corridors, where the cost to expand the highways and airways is prohibitive.
Maybe the true believers at Amtrak know that long distance passenger trains don’t make any economic sense, and bowing to politics is the only reason for running them.
The land that has been taken off the tax rolls for roadways, including the interstate highways, which make up approximately 2.5 per cent of the roadway miles in the United States, would be difficult if not impossible to value for current tax purposes.
What goes unsaid in this argument is all the value that has been added to the tax rolls as a result of the nation’s roadways. The 10s of thousands of businesses that have been spawned by roadways, i.e. motels, restaurants, service stations, etc., pay taxes. And while it would be difficult to prove it, I suspect that they pay far more in taxes than the owners of the land that was taken for the roadways ever paid.
Motorists pay for the roadways, but they don’t see the true cost at the price point, i.e. pump, motorist fees, etc. I have argued that they should see it, but I have had some second thoughts about it.
Following WWII millions of Americans were encouraged by government policy to buy cars and flee to the suburbs. Today most of them don’t have a good alternative to their cars to get to work, shopping, entertainment, etc.
If the U.S. all of a sudden passed the true cost of driving through to motorists, it probably would ca
A true believer is a person who cares beyond just getting a paycheck for doing a day’s work. One who is always thinking about ways to do things better. One who, no matter how beat down he gets, can’t help but keep trying to move the ball forward.
In this case, that person would be thinking about making the most of the LD routes that exist. How to tweak the schedules to serve more people. How to arrange the product to attract the most patrons.
Ed Ellis is a “true believer”. Jim McClellan is a “true believer”. Fred Frailey is a "true believer.
They really care what happens.
I don’t think Amtrak has many of those.
No. A true believer would say, “If we have to run them, why not make the best we can from them?” He would care. He would want to be proud of the effort.
What is so difficult about it? The taxing authorities seem to have no problem determining an assessment value for the rail rights of way. Just use the same metrics for roads. Consider value of the land (adjacent use?), value of the improvements, especially bridges, number of lanes, traffic density. These numbers are all immediately to hand at city hall.
John
[quote user=“oltmannd”]
After 40 years of failure anyone who believes in the long distance passenger probably is not realistic. A true business believer knows when to cut the loses and get out of the game.
I don’t understand why anyone with a business sense would work for a commercial enterprise (Amtrak) that continuously loses money.
Fred Frailey, et. al. can afford to be true believers. They don’t wear the consequences, i.e. continuous losses, funding constraints, etc. of their true belief in long distance passenger trains.