>Amtrak’s all-sleeper California Zephyr ended service between Chicago and Emeryville, California, in 1997
Interesting statement since it still runs and you can book a private sleeper room for that route. Same with the coast starlight train that already runs the SF-LA route with sleeper cars.
Note the weasel word all-sleeper. They run a non-sleeper passenger also car on both of the above for those getting off at the smaller stations on the way so that’s how they can claim those services don’t exist when you can just go book them online right now.
Btw for anyone curious the zephyr between emeryville and denver is up there for one of the most scenic routes in the world.
Along the inlets of the bay, up the sierra nevadas, through the great basin, through the moab desert with mesas either side and then into the rocky mountains winding along cliff tops. It goes through the salt flats and salt lake city at night but the daytime views either side of that one night are incredible and make the train trip entirely worthwhile. A great way to experience a sleeper car, you’ll see why people do it rather than fly and a great experience all round.
Don’t bother with the denver to chicago leg though unless you really like corn fields (chicago is absolutely worthwhile visiting but probably not worth the extra night on the train when you can fly)
I've done a long sleeper solo from NY -> Chicago (it's just overnight, so not as long). It was fantastic, but I got reverse seasick after getting off the train. Trying to sit on a bar stool was a challenge for about 36 hours after my inner ear had got so accustomed to the rocking of the train itself.
8am start in emeryville. 7:30pm finish in denver the next day.
Getting from a to b is definitely not the point of such a trip. Think of it as a hotel where the view changes constantly and you just happen to end up somewhere new at the end of the stay.
"They run a non-sleeper passenger also car on both of the above for those getting off at the smaller stations on the way..."
...Or for people who just don't but the sleeper ticket but go any distance. I went coast to coast with regular seat tickets once. It's better than Greyhound, and people do long hauls with them daily.
Unfortunately this is unlikely to be successful. There is just no way you can run a reliable overnight passenger service on the intercity rail infrastructure of the US.
The track is mostly single track and heavily used by freight (where a few hours delay isn't the end of the world). Multi hour delays are extremely common and even with it being overnight, if you set off at say 11pm and aim to arrive at 8am, a 3 hour delay could see you arriving at 11am and your VIP passengers missing all their business meetings. They won't return!
FWIW I don't think Europe's push to overnight rail trains will be very effective either. It doesn't work well with overnight maintenance windows, and the yield per train is extremely low (100 passengers in 50 'rooms' vs 1000 normal seating passengers dictate a 10x ticket price). Also is extremely complex in Europe with many different signalling/communication systems, traction systems, etc.
Have taken this in Europe, was really nice, and I consider this quite competitive with inter-European airlines:
It saves a lot of time, because you can use central train stations instead of transfering to/from the airport, and you depart late in the evening (get full use out of the departure day) and arrive somewhat early in the morning (don't lose much of that day, either).
So it does not have to be cheaper than an inland flight, it just has to be competitive with flight + 2x transfer + hotel, and while it might be slightly less comfortabel than a hotel room, you avoid airport transfer and -security, which is nice.
Yes but it's clearly not competitive because it has such a tiny marketshare and runs at a giant loss. And that's in Europe with exceptional infrastructure compared to the US (a lot of 4 track lines, with everything at least double track, allowing freight to get out the way).
Agree with all of this. The ridership might be there but I doubt the business case is - and this is true in Europe as well. As far as I can tell sleeper services generally are not money-makers, and are subsidized by regular passenger service.
Which may be a desirable policy outcome for state rail agencies - but this is a private venture!
I think cost is an under-appreciated aspect of this. You're carrying 5-10x fewer passengers per-train, at greater cost (the cost of turning over a stateroom is many times higher than cleaning a coach seat, along with linens, food, etc.), on very expensive custom equipment that isn't suitable for other uses.
There seem to be two "major" (really heavy scare quotes here) players in the US private sleeper service scene. Dreamstar IMO is the more promising of the two (heavy caveat that this is relative to each other, not absolute odds) by realizing the only way to make the economics work is the ability to charge $$$$$ for tickets.
The other (Lunatrain) IMO is just out to lunch, with a claimed focus on affordability. None of the above leads to affordable tickets.
As somebody who is working on exactly this problem, I’d say the problem can be solved technically if one can get a high density of passengers, while providing privacy and comfort.
Most of the sleeper startups basically just work with renderings, we work with iterating on full sized mock ups. We did ergonomics/market testing with hundreds of test users. We have evidence that with the right cabin technology, you can be profitable, even produce a margin, and significantly disrupt air travel.
Northeast Regional (including Acela) is also very successful. But you may not consider that long distance. In fact, I thought most of the Amtrak's profits came from that. There are a couple other city pairs that do reasonably but, yes, mostly not.
I took the Acela NY to Boston this year, and won't ever do it again. What was the time difference from the non-high speed supposed to be? I think it's a 40 minute difference or something.
We had multiple delays along our route and the 4 hour trip turned into almost 7.
Yeah, there are various regions but I don't consider it long distance until it has a sleeper (which I don't believe Acela has).
Pacific Surfliner is also very popular and close to profitable.
To be fair, Amtrak could make some or more of its routes profitable depending on how it allocates expenses - after all, they get hired to run some of the commuter rails, too.
No, Acela doesn't really make sense for Boston to DC travelers in general although I've done it when time wasn't really critical. Yeah Pacific SW combinations can work--again if time isn't of the essence. Have also done other relatively short routes like Raleigh to Charlotte.
I would be surprised if it has even 1% marketshare on the routes they are on (vs driving, coach, day trains and flights.
For example; in the UK on London -> Edinburgh, Caledonian Sleeper has on average 250 passengers per day (but this is the entire route - not just london to edinburgh). Given there is roughly ~2tph throughout the day for about 16 hours a day, each with ~1000 seats (with very high load factors), that's about 30,000 passengers/day on the "day" train. Probably roughly that again flying. Plus driving and coaches and it is absolutely tiny.
I almost reflexively avoid both intra-European air travel and renting a car when I can. But if you're being cost-conscious, it's hard to avoid the European budget airlines compared to other alternatives a lot of the time, especially if you're traveling between major cities.
Like, where? I lived in four EU countries and travelled to most of member states. I only heard of Austrian sleeper and some luxury Swiss expertise. Never heard anyone taking a sleeper in the modern times. Moscow-Paris train used to be a thing, but that’s in the past.
The fact that _you_ have not heard of it does not mean that it does not exist. The Austrian ÖBB has created a massive network over the last few years, including some innovative new rolling stock with sleeping cap capsules. Many classic routes within larger countries still exist, like the multiple routes in the UK, France and Sweden. There are new private startups like European Sleeper that operate an Antwerp - Prague sleeper
There's the London to Edinburgh Caledonian Express which I took and I took a sleeper from Brussels to Koln to Vienna? Koln was a stopover. Forget where the sleeper segment was. But I'll admit it was situations where neither time nor money were critical and were intermixed with business trips.
I live in europe and have taken overnight trains to various destinations and they've all been nice - quiet, smooth, good food, decent nights sleep...
I've also taken them in Egypt and Morocco and they were loud, jerky, and smelly...
When I see pictures of trains in the USA they look very old and look like the locomotive is actually pulling the train vs providing electricity to each individual car's motors. This was the problem in Egypt and Morocco - the engine accelerate and all of the cars get jerked and when it slows down all of the cars get jerked again, making it hard to sleep.
European sleeper trains are usually also powered by locomotives, and the individual cars don't have motors, so I think the jerk motion you've experienced is caused my poor couplings or something else.
In the places where the average commenter lamenting US rail lives the track are crap because there's no reason to have everything be "cruise at 80mph" level smooth when you can't get a train up to such speeds before the next curve and even if you could there's invariably other rail traffic or a grade crossing soon thereafter.
In BFE Texas or Utah or whatever the rails are like glass because crossing 300mi of nothing in 4hr instead of 8 has enough positive impact on the rest of the system that they deem it worth paying for.
It makes sense if you think about everything in terms of time between points.
95%+ of North American intercity trains run on freight tracks, which are not designed to be as "smooth". On top of this, freight having priority means passenger schedules get messed up all the time.
Freight trains carry heavy loads and have cars that are not inspected to have perfectly maintained wheels to the same level as trains that run on tracks for only passenger traffic, especially high speed rail (which runs on dedicated , highly engineered tracks).
The big reason that passenger rail, even overnight, isn't as economical in north america is because rather than sleeping on a train, it's cheaper and more reliable to just fly in a few hours across the country.
HSR makes sense in the dense US northeast or between Windsor and Quebec city in Canada (and probably California if it wasn't politically ruined with it's meandering lines), but sleeper trains for further distances would have to be dirt cheap to compete with flying. It'd essentially be for college kids or poorer people.
Most people who do long distance trains in North America are doing it as a cruise-like vacation/adventure.
> 95%+ of North American intercity trains run on freight tracks, which are not designed to be as "smooth".
All over the US, the tracks are being upgraded to 110mph standards. It just a slow process: 5 miles here, 20 miles there. Whenever they can find the money they do a new section. Every single grade crossing must be upgraded, every single curve regraded, etc. Amtrak can run at 90mph on those sections with the locomotives they currently have.
Sometimes they string together enough upgraded rail. Essentially everything in Michigan has been running 110mph for 10+ years, with the newer Siemens locomotives that can handle it. Also, the Texas Eagle and Lincoln Service - the entire time they are in Illinois they are running 110mph.
Upgrading 5 miles of rail doesn't make the news. That doesn't mean it didn't happen :)
Historically US passenger service was secondary to express mail service. Without express mail service provided by the same trains, passenger service became unprofitable.
>95%+ of North American intercity trains run on freight tracks, which are not designed to be as "smooth". On top of this, freight having priority means passenger schedules get messed up all the time.
> In BFE Texas or Utah or whatever the rails are like glass because crossing 300mi of nothing
Europe is densely populated, you'll rarely see 300mi of nothing. High speed rail is still common. Only realistically limited by cost, not by the difficulty to get the train up to speed before the next curve, or other rail traffic, or grade crossings.
Pretty much. It is obviously a for-profit freight system - In areas where the RR's top-dollar freight customers (especially domestic parcel delivery companies) want speed, they'll happily spend big to make that happen. And in areas where the RoI on speed (whether upgrades, or ongoing maintenance of existing track) ain't there, they can be happy with 25MPH maximums:
Even with a traditional diesel, you can get a good ride. I took the sleeper train from Istanbul to Pamukalle (Laodicea), and even over the single track sections it was smooth. It might be down to the driver planning ahead - this one was definitely proud of his work!
For those who don't know: The "roomette" is still your own room, with two beds that are couches during the day, and the porter converts them and makes your bed for you. Roomettes also have a toilet in them, so if you're with someone else they may be going to the dining car for a few minutes here and there. The car itself has a shower in it as well that shared by everyone on that car. It's really fun taking a shower at 80mph.
I was on my own, so it was great. About 28 hours with various delays. Had the bed up top overnight, a few beers watching a couple of films on my laptop in the evening, nice dinner, great steak. Went to bed just after Washington, woke up somewhere around Georgia, nice breakfast, back to my "office" and a decent days work (no meetings as it was a Sunday, but I was sshed into many servers and didn't see any major issues with phone connectivity).
Basically a moving hotel and office in one.
There are more expensive rooms with private shower but that wasn't really value for money.
I suspect the roomette would feel more cramped for two people, but it was better than spending 24 hours trying to relax and work in a new york hotel room.
You’re talking about EMU/DMUs versus locomotives. Higher-speed travel is less efficient with an MU than with a locomotive-pulled train. Higher-speed is important when North America is so large.
There's not a lot of electrified track in the US. The distances are just too great and our railroads are freight-first, passengers second (the opposite of Europe).
Even so, the passenger trains don't make abrupt starts/stops like the freight trains do, because people would complain. :)
Actually there used to be a lot more electrified track in the US but the freight railroads tore it out to reduce capital ratios and allow tall-stacking containers.
It's the difference between "should be" and "reality". (I blame precision scheduled railroading for creating freight trains so long that they can't use sidings)
Many American freight trains are diesel-electric where the locomotive supplies electricity but the motors are distributed. Notably train routes in Western Europe tend to be electrified and get all their energy from a catenary.
99 % of Class I freight locomotives in North America are diesel-electrics where a diesel genset provides power to electric motors on the locomotive. There are - to a rounding error - no freight locomotives provide electrical power to motors on the rake.
As others have said. Freight is first in the US. I imagine Europe probably has more semis on the road transporting cargo. Except for special routes, passenger travel by rail is only for those dedicated individuals.
> I imagine Europe probably has more semis on the road transporting cargo.
They absolutely do: unlike the US where more freight is transported by rail than truck, the opposite is true in Europe. And personally I think this is the right tradeoff. The efficiencies of rail over road vehicles scale up with mass. The US has 200 car freight trains hauling 400 shipping containers at a time; compared to 400 semi trucks that’s a massive improvement. European freight rail isn’t even capable of this level of scale; their railroads have maximum train lengths well below the US average.
Freight is also much less fussy than passengers when it comes to scheduling, comfort, or speed, which is why this level of scale is possible for freight rail and not passenger rail.
Wait, so is this first-class rail service for who? For those whose private jets are in the shop?
I instead so look forward to just making the existing services more convenient/affordable where you would prefer taking the train — look forward to it even. I still have a memory of walking through a train car at night (going from Kansas City to Chicago) when I was 4 or 5 years old. Passengers sitting, sipping cocktails in the observation car like a scene out of "The Thin Man".
I've taken the California Zephyr to Omaha a few times over the past decade. It was okay. But expensive as I recall.
Overnight trains are awesome. Yes, they move slowly compared to planes, but you may actually waste less time using them, think of them as moving hotels. You don't travel to the hotel, the hotel travels for you!
The idea is that you get to the station in the evening, board the train, then on the train, you eat, relax or do some work depending on how busy you are, take a shower, and sleep and in the morning, you are at your destination. Train stations are usually closer to downtown than airports and you spend less time with security, check-in, etc... another advantage. If you account for the hotel stay you saved, net travel time can be effectively zero.
And that's just the "transportation" aspect. In addition, train cruises are a thing. Not as big as cruise ships, but that's the same idea.
If I had first-class air travel money, which is probably their target demographic, I would definitely ride such a train.
> Train stations are usually closer to downtown than airports
This is handy if your destination is in downtown (and your origin is convenient to downtown as well), but if not, you'll need to find other ground transportation. If a rental car makes sense, they're typically easy to find near airports, but a lot of train stations don't offer them. Long term parking is hit or miss, too.
Locally, going from where I live in Massachusetts to Manhattan only makes sense because I'm going to Manhattan where I don't need/want a car and Amtrak has a south suburban station I can go to. (And even then it's marginal because it's basically an hour in the wrong direction but I hate driving into Manhattan.)
Downtown to downtown is great if you live and want to go to downtown which is sometimes true but not always.
And slow. For many ‘muricans, they only get two weeks of vacation, and it is very rare that their employer will allow them to take all of that time at once. I don’t care what you get as a cushy HN reader, your situation is not most ‘murican. When you only get to take a couple of days, you don’t want to be spending it in transit. As it is now, air travel pretty much takes up a full day with arriving x hours early, delays, etc.
That’s where, theoretically at least, the “sleeper” part comes in. Travel great distances while you sleep and save the money on a hotel room.
If the conditions were good enough I’d be perfectly happy to be on a train e.g. 6pm-6am rather than arriving at an airport at 6pm, doing security, baggage etc etc, taxiing to the center of a city then checking into a hotel late. But every time I look the pricing for that is way out of whack.
It's unlikely that you come close to saving money with a long distance sleeper even if the additional time you spend isn't a factor. But this isn't even all that specific to US. As was just noted on a Facebook thread I was reading, the Caledonian Sleeper from London to Edinburgh isn't a particular bargain and I recall other European night trains I've taken didn't really save me money either.
For sure. But I think it’s still worth pointing out that it would be an attractive option if the price were right. Governments looking to combat climate change could subsidise such things if they wanted to.
Sure. It's one of the MANY climate change subsidies governments could make. Which may or may not make sense in this particular case. Personally, I like taking trains in a lot of situations, but they're usually not cheaper or often especially more convenient.
What you do save is the bedraggled feeling of dealing with air travel. When I get off the sleeper, after billing hours on the way of course, I arrive refreshed with a full stomach and right out into the city.
That's the one thing that's a little annoying about the gaotie in China. It doesn't run at night, so you are limited to about 1200km a night on the slower overnight D trains (Beijing Shanghai say). Otherwise you could hop on a train in Beijing in the evening and wake up in Hong Kong, Shenzhen or Guangzhou.
Oh I see! I went midweek and didn't realise it is different around weekends. I was so disappointed to have to fly to get there for 9am, I really hate planes and shorthaul really hates me! Hopefully I can arrange a Monday or Tuesday next time!
That sounds like a great argument in favor of making sleeper trains a luxury experience. That way the train ride can be a destination in itself. The first stop on your holiday, rather than just a means to get to your holiday destination.
I think they typically are. In the US the distances tend to be too lage thouhg equating Amtrak with luxury is probably a stretch. I've taken night trains in Europe (and China) and it may have beaten navigating airports but not sure by how much.
Tourists. Luxury multi-day trains are a pretty common concept around the world. This is also why they are highlighting that the price will be comparable to a flight + hotel stay.
Exactly. This reads like a puff piece. If they were serious about this and their timetables, they would’ve already rented a train set from Europe somewhere and have it running on our rails.
I'm surprised there isn't already a west-coast Auto Train like was briefly mentioned. The east coast one (used to bypass I-95 traffic) is often sold-out. Drop off your car for loading, take your carry-on to your seat or cabin, arrive the next morning.
This should be developed more indeed: doing anything more than 200km by road is annoying and tiring. The solution in the video seems great with cars and passengers on the same train, if the "loading" time is not long. Why don't people drive their cars themselves in and then go to the passenger spaces?
The american trains seems too high for Europe though. Would it work for vans and RVs too?
I agree with the other posters that 200 km is not very far for Americans (My trips to the dentist are 294 km each way).
So far as self-loading - for comparison, I believe the Eurostar loads cars on a single-level. The Auto Train loads cars into two-levels where the decking is open mesh and not safe for the public to walk on. The published time is a little misleading - that's when you have to check-in. Departure time is about 90 minutes after last check-in. You could have nearly completed a 200 km drive in that time, so something like the Auto Train is only useful for much longer distances (it currently runs ~1400 km)
Amtrak has two sizes of cars. The single-level cars have to be used in the Northeast because of the lower clearances of tunnels & bridges (legacy infrastructure...) The bi-level Superliners can be used everywhere else. The Auto Train cars are bi-level height and cannot operate any further north than they presently do.
That’s short enough distance that most Americans would regard it as a day trip: wake up, go, do whatever, come back. And I do mean 200 km each way.
I have, at the more extreme end, done not just 400 but 1250 km in one day as a round trip. A single 200 km segment is nothing. I go 300 km each way for a weekend break!
Apart from the traffic causing other (slower) drivers to enter the left lane. Not to mention that you have to be way more aware of everything around you if you're going 200. The cognitive load is bigger than parking on a train and taking a nap, perhaps even overnight so you're set to continue driving in the morning.
Definitely that! Going faster is more intense: more stimulation, more reactions, but also more noise, more vibrations, ... so for the same distance, even with less time, you'll end up tired the same or more.
They suffer from as much congestion as any other major road; you aren't easily going to achieve, let alone maintain, that speed during 'ordinary' day-to-day traffic.
I have, top speed I used to do was around 250 km/h... and my longest stretch was a non-stop Munich-Vienna-Munich, 24 hours on the road. I'll admit though that I was dead after that one.
There's a fair bit of NY to Florida traffic where people need to drive once they arrive and often do fairly long stays when they do. (And it's a doable drive but fairly lengthy.) Not sure you have quite the same dynamic in California.
LA to SF doesn't make a lot of sense to me as an overnight route. Suppose you leave at 10pm. You get in at maybe 4am, maybe you got 5 hours of sleep, and have to wait 12 hours to check into a hotel...?
6 hours is maybe justifiable for the comfort compared to getting to LAX in traffic, checking in for a flight, then crawling out of SFO... why not run it during the day? Save the sleeper portion for getting to PDX and Seattle?
Thats not how it works normally. The train doesn't get in till around 7-8am. Often sleeper trains will park of a few hours overnight. So you'll be able to sleep for around 8 hours.
The idea is you get in around 8am (hopefully in station near the middle of the city) and then you can get on with you days activities immediately.
Now that airports are crowded with peasants thanks to low-cost companies, and private jets are still a bit too expansive, the new hype is to stay in a moving hotel?
Assumption is probably that you're willing to pay (a reasonable amount) for comfort, a day or two of extra travel time isn't a big deal, you find advantages for city to city center travel (though you don't actually get that with San Francisco), and don't really like driving long distances.
And private jets are more than a "bit" more expensive for most people. Multiples of first/business class even for a group.
> That includes 400 miles between San Jose and Ventura, which the partners say has minimal overnight freight and passenger traffic.
If this is the route the Coast Starlight takes (this train already runs daily and offers sleeper cars https://content.amtrak.com/content/timetable/Coast%20Starlig... ) it has enough freight activity that the only time I've taken it we were delayed because a car had derailed.
As for the rest of it, not having a locomotive selected or any cars and hoping to start service by 2028 is ... shall we say, optimistic?
I took the coast starlight from SD to Seattle last year. I loved it. I wished there were more availability for LA to SF other than a single train. So long as the route had better internet than it does now, I’d prefer that to driving up in the future.
LA-SF distance is roughly 560km, that feels relatively short for overnight train? Like it's comparable to Madrid-Barcelona (500ish km) which is 2h37min by train, or Paris-Bordeaux at 2h11min; I doubt anyone is considering sleepers for those routes?
LA-SF is nearly 500 MILES. That's close to 800km and driving through LA makes it feel like 1000km. If the sleeper would extend on to San Diego, this would be a sweet item for me.
There's another variation of this I'd like to see. A train you can work on during the day. With a private desk space with monitor etc where you could do zoom calls. Wouldn't need sleeping space.
And... there's convenient car rental at arrival which will almost certainly be needed in LA. And the price will almost certainly be in the hundreds of dollars. Without looking it up, I'm assuming the price for a non-sleeper is over $100 today.
In the Washington, DC area, the Dover Harbor is a private rail car available for charter or one can join on select public trips. I believe it attaches to Amtrak trains.
https://doverharbor.com/
Just looked up tickets on the Coast Starlight, Emeryville to LA is a $790 round trip in a standard bedroom. Assuming a "luxury" train service is at least double that, you could hire a private driver for less than this and be there in less than half the time... or take a $150 flight. Nothing will change about the economics of rail in this country until we actually make the investment in having legitimate service.
As I get older, overnight train journeys are less and less appealing. My last few go-arounds on the Caledonian Sleeper have been expensive and left me exhausted with a very poor night's sleep. That "Dreamstar stateroom" they have a picture of is going to be excessively expensive.
I enjoyed it as an experience but it wasn't cheap and not sure I would necessarily do again. With light enough luggage getting to Heathrow (or one of the other London airports) isn't a big deal and don't recall getting in from Edinburgh's airport being an ordeal either.
>Amtrak’s all-sleeper California Zephyr ended service between Chicago and Emeryville, California, in 1997
Interesting statement since it still runs and you can book a private sleeper room for that route. Same with the coast starlight train that already runs the SF-LA route with sleeper cars.
Note the weasel word all-sleeper. They run a non-sleeper passenger also car on both of the above for those getting off at the smaller stations on the way so that’s how they can claim those services don’t exist when you can just go book them online right now.
Btw for anyone curious the zephyr between emeryville and denver is up there for one of the most scenic routes in the world.
Along the inlets of the bay, up the sierra nevadas, through the great basin, through the moab desert with mesas either side and then into the rocky mountains winding along cliff tops. It goes through the salt flats and salt lake city at night but the daytime views either side of that one night are incredible and make the train trip entirely worthwhile. A great way to experience a sleeper car, you’ll see why people do it rather than fly and a great experience all round.
Don’t bother with the denver to chicago leg though unless you really like corn fields (chicago is absolutely worthwhile visiting but probably not worth the extra night on the train when you can fly)
AND if you do the zephyr during the full moon, you will see the salt flats in the moonlight. That's definitely a reason to stay up all night.
I've done a long sleeper solo from NY -> Chicago (it's just overnight, so not as long). It was fantastic, but I got reverse seasick after getting off the train. Trying to sit on a bar stool was a challenge for about 36 hours after my inner ear had got so accustomed to the rocking of the train itself.
The only time I took a sleeper was uh...at night. Is that not the case/point with them? (Scenic or not would be moot)
8am start in emeryville. 7:30pm finish in denver the next day.
Getting from a to b is definitely not the point of such a trip. Think of it as a hotel where the view changes constantly and you just happen to end up somewhere new at the end of the stay.
I took a sleeper from Shanghai to Urumqi, spent 3 days on the train (this is before HSR).
"They run a non-sleeper passenger also car on both of the above for those getting off at the smaller stations on the way..."
...Or for people who just don't but the sleeper ticket but go any distance. I went coast to coast with regular seat tickets once. It's better than Greyhound, and people do long hauls with them daily.
Some of the long distance trains have a bigger mix of cars - if this train really does only have one coach car, it's a bit of an anomaly.
Unfortunately this is unlikely to be successful. There is just no way you can run a reliable overnight passenger service on the intercity rail infrastructure of the US.
The track is mostly single track and heavily used by freight (where a few hours delay isn't the end of the world). Multi hour delays are extremely common and even with it being overnight, if you set off at say 11pm and aim to arrive at 8am, a 3 hour delay could see you arriving at 11am and your VIP passengers missing all their business meetings. They won't return!
FWIW I don't think Europe's push to overnight rail trains will be very effective either. It doesn't work well with overnight maintenance windows, and the yield per train is extremely low (100 passengers in 50 'rooms' vs 1000 normal seating passengers dictate a 10x ticket price). Also is extremely complex in Europe with many different signalling/communication systems, traction systems, etc.
Have taken this in Europe, was really nice, and I consider this quite competitive with inter-European airlines:
It saves a lot of time, because you can use central train stations instead of transfering to/from the airport, and you depart late in the evening (get full use out of the departure day) and arrive somewhat early in the morning (don't lose much of that day, either).
So it does not have to be cheaper than an inland flight, it just has to be competitive with flight + 2x transfer + hotel, and while it might be slightly less comfortabel than a hotel room, you avoid airport transfer and -security, which is nice.
Yes but it's clearly not competitive because it has such a tiny marketshare and runs at a giant loss. And that's in Europe with exceptional infrastructure compared to the US (a lot of 4 track lines, with everything at least double track, allowing freight to get out the way).
Agree with all of this. The ridership might be there but I doubt the business case is - and this is true in Europe as well. As far as I can tell sleeper services generally are not money-makers, and are subsidized by regular passenger service.
Which may be a desirable policy outcome for state rail agencies - but this is a private venture!
I think cost is an under-appreciated aspect of this. You're carrying 5-10x fewer passengers per-train, at greater cost (the cost of turning over a stateroom is many times higher than cleaning a coach seat, along with linens, food, etc.), on very expensive custom equipment that isn't suitable for other uses.
There seem to be two "major" (really heavy scare quotes here) players in the US private sleeper service scene. Dreamstar IMO is the more promising of the two (heavy caveat that this is relative to each other, not absolute odds) by realizing the only way to make the economics work is the ability to charge $$$$$ for tickets.
The other (Lunatrain) IMO is just out to lunch, with a claimed focus on affordability. None of the above leads to affordable tickets.
As somebody who is working on exactly this problem, I’d say the problem can be solved technically if one can get a high density of passengers, while providing privacy and comfort.
Most of the sleeper startups basically just work with renderings, we work with iterating on full sized mock ups. We did ergonomics/market testing with hundreds of test users. We have evidence that with the right cabin technology, you can be profitable, even produce a margin, and significantly disrupt air travel.
What's your view on the ÖBB mini cabins? It seems to me you can't possibly be much more dense than that within the European gauge
Definitely can be optimized along several dimensions. They got 40 cabins, we got 60 per rail car.
The Autotrain is the only successful long distance Amtrak train (all the rest are subsidized).
Local and short distance can be profitable.
Northeast Regional (including Acela) is also very successful. But you may not consider that long distance. In fact, I thought most of the Amtrak's profits came from that. There are a couple other city pairs that do reasonably but, yes, mostly not.
I took the Acela NY to Boston this year, and won't ever do it again. What was the time difference from the non-high speed supposed to be? I think it's a 40 minute difference or something.
We had multiple delays along our route and the 4 hour trip turned into almost 7.
I'll fly for the same price next time.
Not much usually. Maybe an hour. Dealing with NYC airports isn't really worth it most of the time. Will never fly if I'm not connecting.
Yeah, there are various regions but I don't consider it long distance until it has a sleeper (which I don't believe Acela has).
Pacific Surfliner is also very popular and close to profitable.
To be fair, Amtrak could make some or more of its routes profitable depending on how it allocates expenses - after all, they get hired to run some of the commuter rails, too.
No, Acela doesn't really make sense for Boston to DC travelers in general although I've done it when time wasn't really critical. Yeah Pacific SW combinations can work--again if time isn't of the essence. Have also done other relatively short routes like Raleigh to Charlotte.
It's quite successful in Europe
I would be surprised if it has even 1% marketshare on the routes they are on (vs driving, coach, day trains and flights.
For example; in the UK on London -> Edinburgh, Caledonian Sleeper has on average 250 passengers per day (but this is the entire route - not just london to edinburgh). Given there is roughly ~2tph throughout the day for about 16 hours a day, each with ~1000 seats (with very high load factors), that's about 30,000 passengers/day on the "day" train. Probably roughly that again flying. Plus driving and coaches and it is absolutely tiny.
I almost reflexively avoid both intra-European air travel and renting a car when I can. But if you're being cost-conscious, it's hard to avoid the European budget airlines compared to other alternatives a lot of the time, especially if you're traveling between major cities.
Like, where? I lived in four EU countries and travelled to most of member states. I only heard of Austrian sleeper and some luxury Swiss expertise. Never heard anyone taking a sleeper in the modern times. Moscow-Paris train used to be a thing, but that’s in the past.
The fact that _you_ have not heard of it does not mean that it does not exist. The Austrian ÖBB has created a massive network over the last few years, including some innovative new rolling stock with sleeping cap capsules. Many classic routes within larger countries still exist, like the multiple routes in the UK, France and Sweden. There are new private startups like European Sleeper that operate an Antwerp - Prague sleeper
There's the London to Edinburgh Caledonian Express which I took and I took a sleeper from Brussels to Koln to Vienna? Koln was a stopover. Forget where the sleeper segment was. But I'll admit it was situations where neither time nor money were critical and were intermixed with business trips.
Yeah it's decent but the utter majority of cross European passenger travel happens by road and air.
I live in europe and have taken overnight trains to various destinations and they've all been nice - quiet, smooth, good food, decent nights sleep...
I've also taken them in Egypt and Morocco and they were loud, jerky, and smelly...
When I see pictures of trains in the USA they look very old and look like the locomotive is actually pulling the train vs providing electricity to each individual car's motors. This was the problem in Egypt and Morocco - the engine accelerate and all of the cars get jerked and when it slows down all of the cars get jerked again, making it hard to sleep.
European sleeper trains are usually also powered by locomotives, and the individual cars don't have motors, so I think the jerk motion you've experienced is caused my poor couplings or something else.
Quality of the rails makes a big difference, take the train from Ukraine to Poland and it's suddenly super smooth once you cross over into the EU
Track quality and maintenance by US mainlines are more Ukraine/Poland camp.
In the places where the average commenter lamenting US rail lives the track are crap because there's no reason to have everything be "cruise at 80mph" level smooth when you can't get a train up to such speeds before the next curve and even if you could there's invariably other rail traffic or a grade crossing soon thereafter.
In BFE Texas or Utah or whatever the rails are like glass because crossing 300mi of nothing in 4hr instead of 8 has enough positive impact on the rest of the system that they deem it worth paying for.
It makes sense if you think about everything in terms of time between points.
95%+ of North American intercity trains run on freight tracks, which are not designed to be as "smooth". On top of this, freight having priority means passenger schedules get messed up all the time.
Freight trains carry heavy loads and have cars that are not inspected to have perfectly maintained wheels to the same level as trains that run on tracks for only passenger traffic, especially high speed rail (which runs on dedicated , highly engineered tracks).
The big reason that passenger rail, even overnight, isn't as economical in north america is because rather than sleeping on a train, it's cheaper and more reliable to just fly in a few hours across the country.
HSR makes sense in the dense US northeast or between Windsor and Quebec city in Canada (and probably California if it wasn't politically ruined with it's meandering lines), but sleeper trains for further distances would have to be dirt cheap to compete with flying. It'd essentially be for college kids or poorer people.
Most people who do long distance trains in North America are doing it as a cruise-like vacation/adventure.
> 95%+ of North American intercity trains run on freight tracks, which are not designed to be as "smooth".
All over the US, the tracks are being upgraded to 110mph standards. It just a slow process: 5 miles here, 20 miles there. Whenever they can find the money they do a new section. Every single grade crossing must be upgraded, every single curve regraded, etc. Amtrak can run at 90mph on those sections with the locomotives they currently have.
Sometimes they string together enough upgraded rail. Essentially everything in Michigan has been running 110mph for 10+ years, with the newer Siemens locomotives that can handle it. Also, the Texas Eagle and Lincoln Service - the entire time they are in Illinois they are running 110mph.
Upgrading 5 miles of rail doesn't make the news. That doesn't mean it didn't happen :)
>The big reason that passenger rail, even overnight, isn't as economical in north america...
That's a choice the country has made by subsidizing some kinds of transit more than others. Rail could be cheaper if we priced in externalities.
Why would really be cheaper if externalities were priced in - I can see cars and planes being more expensive but how would rail be cheaper?
Economies of scale.
If alternatives get more expensive more people use rail, and the cost per rail rider drops.
Historically US passenger service was secondary to express mail service. Without express mail service provided by the same trains, passenger service became unprofitable.
The timeline roughly matches up with that argument, but mail and people transitioned for similar reasons.
Or it just means nobody travels.
People will travel one way or another. They'll just prioritize the factors that are important to them.
Or the whole market shrinks because demand is fairly elastic.
To some degree.
At least in the US, people will tend to drive--perhaps shorter distances--if long distance travel gets too expensive.
>95%+ of North American intercity trains run on freight tracks, which are not designed to be as "smooth". On top of this, freight having priority means passenger schedules get messed up all the time.
Freight doesn't mean slow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_speed_limits_in_the_Unite...
It does when your passenger train has to wait on a siding for another train to pass.
> In BFE Texas or Utah or whatever the rails are like glass because crossing 300mi of nothing
Europe is densely populated, you'll rarely see 300mi of nothing. High speed rail is still common. Only realistically limited by cost, not by the difficulty to get the train up to speed before the next curve, or other rail traffic, or grade crossings.
Pretty much. It is obviously a for-profit freight system - In areas where the RR's top-dollar freight customers (especially domestic parcel delivery companies) want speed, they'll happily spend big to make that happen. And in areas where the RoI on speed (whether upgrades, or ongoing maintenance of existing track) ain't there, they can be happy with 25MPH maximums:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_speed_limits_in_the_Unite...
Poland is in the EU. The point being made was that once you cross over from Ukraine into Poland, you notice a big improvement in the track quality.
Even with a traditional diesel, you can get a good ride. I took the sleeper train from Istanbul to Pamukalle (Laodicea), and even over the single track sections it was smooth. It might be down to the driver planning ahead - this one was definitely proud of his work!
I took a train from New York to Miami last October in a "roomette". Sleep was fine, better than I get on UK sleepers. Food was amazingly good.
For those who don't know: The "roomette" is still your own room, with two beds that are couches during the day, and the porter converts them and makes your bed for you. Roomettes also have a toilet in them, so if you're with someone else they may be going to the dining car for a few minutes here and there. The car itself has a shower in it as well that shared by everyone on that car. It's really fun taking a shower at 80mph.
I was on my own, so it was great. About 28 hours with various delays. Had the bed up top overnight, a few beers watching a couple of films on my laptop in the evening, nice dinner, great steak. Went to bed just after Washington, woke up somewhere around Georgia, nice breakfast, back to my "office" and a decent days work (no meetings as it was a Sunday, but I was sshed into many servers and didn't see any major issues with phone connectivity).
Basically a moving hotel and office in one.
There are more expensive rooms with private shower but that wasn't really value for money.
I suspect the roomette would feel more cramped for two people, but it was better than spending 24 hours trying to relax and work in a new york hotel room.
You’re talking about EMU/DMUs versus locomotives. Higher-speed travel is less efficient with an MU than with a locomotive-pulled train. Higher-speed is important when North America is so large.
See also: https://thebeaverton.com/2019/08/european-relatives-visiting...
American passenger trains are significantly slower than in Europe.
There's not a lot of electrified track in the US. The distances are just too great and our railroads are freight-first, passengers second (the opposite of Europe).
Even so, the passenger trains don't make abrupt starts/stops like the freight trains do, because people would complain. :)
Actually there used to be a lot more electrified track in the US but the freight railroads tore it out to reduce capital ratios and allow tall-stacking containers.
> our railroads are freight-first, passengers second (the opposite of Europe).
Common misconception. Amtrak actually has preference on US rails, but the track operators frequently ignore the law.
It's been the law since 1973.
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_r...
It's the difference between "should be" and "reality". (I blame precision scheduled railroading for creating freight trains so long that they can't use sidings)
Many American freight trains are diesel-electric where the locomotive supplies electricity but the motors are distributed. Notably train routes in Western Europe tend to be electrified and get all their energy from a catenary.
99 % of Class I freight locomotives in North America are diesel-electrics where a diesel genset provides power to electric motors on the locomotive. There are - to a rounding error - no freight locomotives provide electrical power to motors on the rake.
As others have said. Freight is first in the US. I imagine Europe probably has more semis on the road transporting cargo. Except for special routes, passenger travel by rail is only for those dedicated individuals.
> I imagine Europe probably has more semis on the road transporting cargo.
They absolutely do: unlike the US where more freight is transported by rail than truck, the opposite is true in Europe. And personally I think this is the right tradeoff. The efficiencies of rail over road vehicles scale up with mass. The US has 200 car freight trains hauling 400 shipping containers at a time; compared to 400 semi trucks that’s a massive improvement. European freight rail isn’t even capable of this level of scale; their railroads have maximum train lengths well below the US average.
Freight is also much less fussy than passengers when it comes to scheduling, comfort, or speed, which is why this level of scale is possible for freight rail and not passenger rail.
Wait, so is this first-class rail service for who? For those whose private jets are in the shop?
I instead so look forward to just making the existing services more convenient/affordable where you would prefer taking the train — look forward to it even. I still have a memory of walking through a train car at night (going from Kansas City to Chicago) when I was 4 or 5 years old. Passengers sitting, sipping cocktails in the observation car like a scene out of "The Thin Man".
I've taken the California Zephyr to Omaha a few times over the past decade. It was okay. But expensive as I recall.
Overnight trains are awesome. Yes, they move slowly compared to planes, but you may actually waste less time using them, think of them as moving hotels. You don't travel to the hotel, the hotel travels for you!
The idea is that you get to the station in the evening, board the train, then on the train, you eat, relax or do some work depending on how busy you are, take a shower, and sleep and in the morning, you are at your destination. Train stations are usually closer to downtown than airports and you spend less time with security, check-in, etc... another advantage. If you account for the hotel stay you saved, net travel time can be effectively zero.
And that's just the "transportation" aspect. In addition, train cruises are a thing. Not as big as cruise ships, but that's the same idea.
If I had first-class air travel money, which is probably their target demographic, I would definitely ride such a train.
> Train stations are usually closer to downtown than airports
This is handy if your destination is in downtown (and your origin is convenient to downtown as well), but if not, you'll need to find other ground transportation. If a rental car makes sense, they're typically easy to find near airports, but a lot of train stations don't offer them. Long term parking is hit or miss, too.
Locally, going from where I live in Massachusetts to Manhattan only makes sense because I'm going to Manhattan where I don't need/want a car and Amtrak has a south suburban station I can go to. (And even then it's marginal because it's basically an hour in the wrong direction but I hate driving into Manhattan.)
Downtown to downtown is great if you live and want to go to downtown which is sometimes true but not always.
> But expensive as I recall
And slow. For many ‘muricans, they only get two weeks of vacation, and it is very rare that their employer will allow them to take all of that time at once. I don’t care what you get as a cushy HN reader, your situation is not most ‘murican. When you only get to take a couple of days, you don’t want to be spending it in transit. As it is now, air travel pretty much takes up a full day with arriving x hours early, delays, etc.
That’s where, theoretically at least, the “sleeper” part comes in. Travel great distances while you sleep and save the money on a hotel room.
If the conditions were good enough I’d be perfectly happy to be on a train e.g. 6pm-6am rather than arriving at an airport at 6pm, doing security, baggage etc etc, taxiing to the center of a city then checking into a hotel late. But every time I look the pricing for that is way out of whack.
It's unlikely that you come close to saving money with a long distance sleeper even if the additional time you spend isn't a factor. But this isn't even all that specific to US. As was just noted on a Facebook thread I was reading, the Caledonian Sleeper from London to Edinburgh isn't a particular bargain and I recall other European night trains I've taken didn't really save me money either.
For sure. But I think it’s still worth pointing out that it would be an attractive option if the price were right. Governments looking to combat climate change could subsidise such things if they wanted to.
Sure. It's one of the MANY climate change subsidies governments could make. Which may or may not make sense in this particular case. Personally, I like taking trains in a lot of situations, but they're usually not cheaper or often especially more convenient.
What you do save is the bedraggled feeling of dealing with air travel. When I get off the sleeper, after billing hours on the way of course, I arrive refreshed with a full stomach and right out into the city.
That's the one thing that's a little annoying about the gaotie in China. It doesn't run at night, so you are limited to about 1200km a night on the slower overnight D trains (Beijing Shanghai say). Otherwise you could hop on a train in Beijing in the evening and wake up in Hong Kong, Shenzhen or Guangzhou.
Sleeper train G897 leaves Beijing Xi (West) at 20:13 Friday, Saturday, Sunday & Monday nights, arriving Hong Kong West Kowloon 07:12.
Oh I see! I went midweek and didn't realise it is different around weekends. I was so disappointed to have to fly to get there for 9am, I really hate planes and shorthaul really hates me! Hopefully I can arrange a Monday or Tuesday next time!
That sounds like a great argument in favor of making sleeper trains a luxury experience. That way the train ride can be a destination in itself. The first stop on your holiday, rather than just a means to get to your holiday destination.
I think they typically are. In the US the distances tend to be too lage thouhg equating Amtrak with luxury is probably a stretch. I've taken night trains in Europe (and China) and it may have beaten navigating airports but not sure by how much.
Im in Europe and taking a train is the last thing I’d do. It’s expensive and extremely unreliable for long-distance.
I think you underestimate just how much more expensive a private plane is :D
Tourists. Luxury multi-day trains are a pretty common concept around the world. This is also why they are highlighting that the price will be comparable to a flight + hotel stay.
> Wait, so is this first-class rail service for who? For those whose private jets are in the shop?
For all the VCs whose money they are going to burn.
Exactly. This reads like a puff piece. If they were serious about this and their timetables, they would’ve already rented a train set from Europe somewhere and have it running on our rails.
Elderly European tourists seems to be the market from my experience on via rail in Canada
I'm surprised there isn't already a west-coast Auto Train like was briefly mentioned. The east coast one (used to bypass I-95 traffic) is often sold-out. Drop off your car for loading, take your carry-on to your seat or cabin, arrive the next morning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29KW3OAPrD4
This should be developed more indeed: doing anything more than 200km by road is annoying and tiring. The solution in the video seems great with cars and passengers on the same train, if the "loading" time is not long. Why don't people drive their cars themselves in and then go to the passenger spaces?
The american trains seems too high for Europe though. Would it work for vans and RVs too?
I agree with the other posters that 200 km is not very far for Americans (My trips to the dentist are 294 km each way).
So far as self-loading - for comparison, I believe the Eurostar loads cars on a single-level. The Auto Train loads cars into two-levels where the decking is open mesh and not safe for the public to walk on. The published time is a little misleading - that's when you have to check-in. Departure time is about 90 minutes after last check-in. You could have nearly completed a 200 km drive in that time, so something like the Auto Train is only useful for much longer distances (it currently runs ~1400 km)
Amtrak has two sizes of cars. The single-level cars have to be used in the Northeast because of the lower clearances of tunnels & bridges (legacy infrastructure...) The bi-level Superliners can be used everywhere else. The Auto Train cars are bi-level height and cannot operate any further north than they presently do.
> more than 200km by road
That’s short enough distance that most Americans would regard it as a day trip: wake up, go, do whatever, come back. And I do mean 200 km each way.
I have, at the more extreme end, done not just 400 but 1250 km in one day as a round trip. A single 200 km segment is nothing. I go 300 km each way for a weekend break!
> doing anything more than 200km by road is annoying and tiring.
Unless you are on a German Autobahn: drive on, go left lane, floor the gas pedal, and you cross that distance in an hour (or less).
Apart from the traffic causing other (slower) drivers to enter the left lane. Not to mention that you have to be way more aware of everything around you if you're going 200. The cognitive load is bigger than parking on a train and taking a nap, perhaps even overnight so you're set to continue driving in the morning.
Definitely that! Going faster is more intense: more stimulation, more reactions, but also more noise, more vibrations, ... so for the same distance, even with less time, you'll end up tired the same or more.
Clearly you have never driven on an autobahn.
They suffer from as much congestion as any other major road; you aren't easily going to achieve, let alone maintain, that speed during 'ordinary' day-to-day traffic.
> Clearly you have never driven on an autobahn.
I have, top speed I used to do was around 250 km/h... and my longest stretch was a non-stop Munich-Vienna-Munich, 24 hours on the road. I'll admit though that I was dead after that one.
There's a fair bit of NY to Florida traffic where people need to drive once they arrive and often do fairly long stays when they do. (And it's a doable drive but fairly lengthy.) Not sure you have quite the same dynamic in California.
LA to SF doesn't make a lot of sense to me as an overnight route. Suppose you leave at 10pm. You get in at maybe 4am, maybe you got 5 hours of sleep, and have to wait 12 hours to check into a hotel...?
6 hours is maybe justifiable for the comfort compared to getting to LAX in traffic, checking in for a flight, then crawling out of SFO... why not run it during the day? Save the sleeper portion for getting to PDX and Seattle?
Also, is the spa going to be open at 1am?
Thats not how it works normally. The train doesn't get in till around 7-8am. Often sleeper trains will park of a few hours overnight. So you'll be able to sleep for around 8 hours.
The idea is you get in around 8am (hopefully in station near the middle of the city) and then you can get on with you days activities immediately.
What's up with luxury trains?
Now that airports are crowded with peasants thanks to low-cost companies, and private jets are still a bit too expansive, the new hype is to stay in a moving hotel?
They are launching something similar in France https://legrandtour.com/en
Assumption is probably that you're willing to pay (a reasonable amount) for comfort, a day or two of extra travel time isn't a big deal, you find advantages for city to city center travel (though you don't actually get that with San Francisco), and don't really like driving long distances.
And private jets are more than a "bit" more expensive for most people. Multiples of first/business class even for a group.
> That includes 400 miles between San Jose and Ventura, which the partners say has minimal overnight freight and passenger traffic.
If this is the route the Coast Starlight takes (this train already runs daily and offers sleeper cars https://content.amtrak.com/content/timetable/Coast%20Starlig... ) it has enough freight activity that the only time I've taken it we were delayed because a car had derailed.
As for the rest of it, not having a locomotive selected or any cars and hoping to start service by 2028 is ... shall we say, optimistic?
I took the coast starlight from SD to Seattle last year. I loved it. I wished there were more availability for LA to SF other than a single train. So long as the route had better internet than it does now, I’d prefer that to driving up in the future.
LA-SF distance is roughly 560km, that feels relatively short for overnight train? Like it's comparable to Madrid-Barcelona (500ish km) which is 2h37min by train, or Paris-Bordeaux at 2h11min; I doubt anyone is considering sleepers for those routes?
LA-SF is nearly 500 MILES. That's close to 800km and driving through LA makes it feel like 1000km. If the sleeper would extend on to San Diego, this would be a sweet item for me.
Google Maps gives LA-SF straight line distance as 347 miles and driving instructions (via I-5) as 381 miles.
There's another variation of this I'd like to see. A train you can work on during the day. With a private desk space with monitor etc where you could do zoom calls. Wouldn't need sleeping space.
These would be especially good for 3-4hr trips.
Best is if you combine the private office during the day with the sleeping cabin at night. Bonus points if you can get that at high density.
An overnight SF-LA train will work IF:
- They time it exactly right, so something like boarding at 10pm, reaching at 7am, and I am able to get a full night of sleep in the middle.
- They price it to be competitive with a $79 flight or $60 worth of gas.
I'm assuming both of them, especially the second, will be a solid "no".
USD 80 values your time at 0, one extra night in a hotel at 0, the wear and tear on your car at 0, parking at 0…
And... there's convenient car rental at arrival which will almost certainly be needed in LA. And the price will almost certainly be in the hundreds of dollars. Without looking it up, I'm assuming the price for a non-sleeper is over $100 today.
In the Washington, DC area, the Dover Harbor is a private rail car available for charter or one can join on select public trips. I believe it attaches to Amtrak trains. https://doverharbor.com/
I wish someone would bring back the Snow train that used to go SF -> Sugarbowl.
Check out the ski train from Denver to Winter Park.
Just looked up tickets on the Coast Starlight, Emeryville to LA is a $790 round trip in a standard bedroom. Assuming a "luxury" train service is at least double that, you could hire a private driver for less than this and be there in less than half the time... or take a $150 flight. Nothing will change about the economics of rail in this country until we actually make the investment in having legitimate service.
who need a overnight train if you have a high speed rail!
Sleeper trains can be more convenient for some business travel. Leave in the evening, arrive right in the beginning of the business day well rested.
We also did a lot of tourism in Europe with night trains. No need to book hotels or lose daytime in travel, always start the day in a new city.
As I get older, overnight train journeys are less and less appealing. My last few go-arounds on the Caledonian Sleeper have been expensive and left me exhausted with a very poor night's sleep. That "Dreamstar stateroom" they have a picture of is going to be excessively expensive.
I enjoyed it as an experience but it wasn't cheap and not sure I would necessarily do again. With light enough luggage getting to Heathrow (or one of the other London airports) isn't a big deal and don't recall getting in from Edinburgh's airport being an ordeal either.
I love the aromatherapy candles :lol:
[dead]