posted
For two considering Amtrak travel in a Bedroom, here would be a "boot camp". If two can't make it in there, then they best forego Amtrak overnight travel:
Two in a Roomette? well, I guess the best "boot camp" for that would be an MRI scan.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
These are pretty cool. Although I'd have to say that these "pods" are much roomier than an Amtrak Roomette. But it sure is a neat idea---I like it.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh please Richard, not those things; they made a lot of economic sense back when the Standard Sleeper capacity was 22, but their plumbing in a day and age when you no longer "dump it' would be some kind of labyrinth (remember: Amtrak is getting rid of a potty in every room with the new CAF Sleepers and intends to retrofit the existing Viewliners to same).
But again, even if you wouldn't catch me "dead" after one ride during the '60's in one of those, they were the only Econosnooze that made a wisp of economic sense. The worst was on "My" Milwaukee Road with their Touralux Sleepers (long LONG gone before I ever hired on).
But alas, demand pricing, along with a clientele that in great part goes when they WANT, as distinct from they HAVE, to go, has made any such Econosnooze cars simply obsolete.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
The CAF cars (there is no confirmation that they will be named Viewliners, lest we forget) will lose two Roomettes in favor of community "facilities". The Bedrooms will continue to have private "facilities'.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess that means no more toilets in the Viewliner (if they retain the name) roomette (?). I know the Superliner roomettes do not have toilets.
I can remember that many passenger train roomettes, before Amtrak, did have little fold-down sinks and toilets in each roomette.
I guess Amtrak must think too many toilets are too hard to maintain. Maybe Amtrak should bring back the "let it all fall on the tracks" type of toilet. Probably easier to maintain and kind of nostalgic.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Pullman designed Roomette did have a toilet and washstand in each room, however in order to use such, the bed had to be raised. That is why the doors for such had curtains over the hallway as a passenger would be in the hall to raise or lower the bed.
There were no showers for any passenger; and yes toilets are a "high maintenance" item in the days of no more "dump where it dumps'.
Returning now to the original intent of this topic and to the thought held by any reader that some kind of Economy sleeper would have a market on Amtrak, lets consider history. Referring to a 1962 CB&Q timetable, Chi Seattle in a Roomette (any route) was priced at $128.20; a Slumbercoach on the NP was $89.28, or a 30% saving. Some of course would rather "fight" for seats in the two Domes assigned for Coach passengers as opposed to 'always seats" in the two for Standard Sleepers and forgo use of the Sleeper Obs Lounge (the full service Diner was "on limits" to Coach passengers, but since there was an 'economy' Diner also on the train, very few made use of the former) just to save that 30%.
There was no demand pricing as fares were regulated and could only be changed after a petition to the ICC (that's the Interstate Commerce Commission, youngsters). Airline fares were regulated by the Civil Aeronautics Board - CAB; both those agencies have "Sunsetted", although their activities relating to safety have been assumed by other agencies (FRA and FAA).
All told, considering that demand pricing enables Sleeper travel to be available "on the cheap" at times and that Amtrak Sleeper travel is 99% discretionary (you really don't HAVE to go, do you?), there simply is no need for Amtrak to consider any kind of Economy Sleeper cars.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by yukon11: I guess Amtrak must think too many toilets are too hard to maintain. Maybe Amtrak should bring back the "let it all fall on the tracks" type of toilet. Probably easier to maintain and kind of nostalgic.
Richard
I'm strongly opposed to that idea. The old "do not flush toilet while train is standing in station" sign is why; it seems that most of this generation cannot read. If my information is correct then when a set-out sleeper was scheduled to stand in the station for several hours then a station employee would hang "honey pots" under the car where called for (and remove them before the car left); I kind of doubt that you could pay one of today's employees enough to tackle that job.
Posts: 413 | From: Houston, Texas | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Bowen, set out Sleepers all had honey pots attached to their receptacles when they were parked for occupancy.
At this time, Ebay does not show any listed, but in my files, I have a photo of a set out Sleeper (an ERIE car at Youngstown taken Sept 1961) - and the pots are clearly in view.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by yukon11: I guess Amtrak must think too many toilets are too hard to maintain. Maybe Amtrak should bring back the "let it all fall on the tracks" type of toilet. Probably easier to maintain and kind of nostalgic.
Richard
I'm strongly opposed to that idea. The old "do not flush toilet while train is standing in station" sign is why; it seems that most of this generation cannot read. If my information is correct then when a set-out sleeper was scheduled to stand in the station for several hours then a station employee would hang "honey pots" under the car where called for (and remove them before the car left); I kind of doubt that you could pay one of today's employees enough to tackle that job.
******************
Mr. Bowen: I was just kidding. I didn't know about the honey pots.
I once took a train excursion, back in the 70's, which used 1950 era coaches. The cars did have those "trap door" toilets. The excursion train only lasted a year or two. I have to think environmental concerns, with regard to the toilets, was one of the reasons.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The VL/SL roomette derives from the Double Slumbercoach room ... 18 sq ft with narrow bunks.
Lose the walls, lose the space for "dressing," put in proper mens/womens rooms, and call it what it should be... Pullman Sections.
OBTW, a Pullman berth was far more comfortable than the garbage for mattresses and linen Amtrak uses.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No argument, PullmanCo, but at least in the Superliner vertical height considerations prevent the upper from being as large or as comfortable as the upper in a heavyweight section.
-------------------- --------Eric H. Bowen
Stop by my website: Streamliner Schedules - Historic timetables of the great trains of the past! Posts: 413 | From: Houston, Texas | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
