3 ms·

I don't understand why they won't run a platform car on the back of the trains and sell tickets as a super-premium class. It'd be the most profitable seats on

by chiph 7y ago

I don't understand why they won't run a platform car on the back of the trains and sell tickets as a super-premium class. It'd be the most profitable seats on the train because of what you'd charge for the experience, much like how the few 1st class seats on an jet earns the airline more than the entire economy class. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzB5xtGGsTc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzB5xtGGsTc Sure, the product is basically the same - a ride from Point A to Point B. But if you offer a private dining room, an observation lounge, a steward who attends to just you and 3 other cabins, you can charge way more than an economy seat. By only focusing on the "Point A to Point B" aspects, they're entering a downward financial spiral.

klez 7y ago
In Italy we have a business class which also has small (4 people) private rooms so you can have meetings while traveling. Not exactly what you had in mind, but still an extra over the "point a to point b" aspect.
- chiph 7y ago
  I specifically didn't mention a business class ticket, because except for the Northeast US, there won't be any business travelers because the trip takes too long -- they'll fly. But in the Northeast, offering a small private office so that some colleagues can work during the otherwise non-productive 4 hour trip from Boston to New York makes a lot of sense.
  - klez 7y ago
    I'm not familiar with travel times in the US at all, but aren't there any trips outside of the North-East area (I don't know, North to South California?) that would make sense by train and that are long enough that this small meeting room concept would make sense?
    - therealcamino 7y ago
      There are cities within distances where it would make sense in several regions, but the speeds would be terrible because infrastructure is not up to the task (example: 300 miles in 7 hours 45 minutes). The rails don't support high speed service, there is no electrification, and the rails themselves are owned by freight companies. If the time was productive, you might get some small number of people to take it, but the excruciating slowness wouldn't appeal to many people.
    - chiph 7y ago
      What I have heard is that the sweet spot for high-speed rail travel in the US is to place major stations about 300 miles (500 km) apart. So running from Texas to Minnesota up the middle of the country you'd have 6 or 7 major stations. Travelling East-West from New York to Los Angeles, you'd have 11 or 12 major stations. The only viable (and still not funded) project is the Southeast Corridor project, from Washington DC to Atlanta Georgia. Top speed is likely to be about 110 mph (180 kph). Average speed will be lower because the passenger trains will always be held up by slower freight trains (no dedicated tracks, like the TGV has)
wool_gather 7y ago
Unfortunately for the cross-country routes they already have pricing -- for the sleeping berths -- that's airline first class level, with service that's nearly indistinguishable from just having a bucket seat. One of the few "perks" was...wait for it...meals in the dining car.

by chiph 7y ago

klez 7y ago

In Italy we have a business class which also has small (4 people) private rooms so you can have meetings while traveling. Not exactly what you had in mind, but still an extra over the "point a to point b" aspect.

chiph 7y ago
I specifically didn't mention a business class ticket, because except for the Northeast US, there won't be any business travelers because the trip takes too long -- they'll fly. But in the Northeast, offering a small private office so that some colleagues can work during the otherwise non-productive 4 hour trip from Boston to New York makes a lot of sense.
- klez 7y ago
  I'm not familiar with travel times in the US at all, but aren't there any trips outside of the North-East area (I don't know, North to South California?) that would make sense by train and that are long enough that this small meeting room concept would make sense?
  - therealcamino 7y ago
    There are cities within distances where it would make sense in several regions, but the speeds would be terrible because infrastructure is not up to the task (example: 300 miles in 7 hours 45 minutes). The rails don't support high speed service, there is no electrification, and the rails themselves are owned by freight companies. If the time was productive, you might get some small number of people to take it, but the excruciating slowness wouldn't appeal to many people.
  - chiph 7y ago
    What I have heard is that the sweet spot for high-speed rail travel in the US is to place major stations about 300 miles (500 km) apart. So running from Texas to Minnesota up the middle of the country you'd have 6 or 7 major stations. Travelling East-West from New York to Los Angeles, you'd have 11 or 12 major stations. The only viable (and still not funded) project is the Southeast Corridor project, from Washington DC to Atlanta Georgia. Top speed is likely to be about 110 mph (180 kph). Average speed will be lower because the passenger trains will always be held up by slower freight trains (no dedicated tracks, like the TGV has)

wool_gather 7y ago

Unfortunately for the cross-country routes they already have pricing -- for the sleeping berths -- that's airline first class level, with service that's nearly indistinguishable from just having a bucket seat. One of the few "perks" was...wait for it...meals in the dining car.