posted
Maybe you need to be on Facebook to view this link
The other pics in this series are not train related, but nonetheless amusing. (Click on "Back to Album").
My favorite comment: "The message here is, if you choose to dress down with a powder blue v-neck instead of a jacket, you can expect to eat alone." Seems we were just discussing this.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
Great ad, TSR. Except for the nostalgia factor, Amtrak's SL diners are in many ways as good as these. So, if Amtrak places a new order for them, what if any changes should be made?
The only real drawback with the current version is the lack of windows at the ends. Unfortunately not much can be done about that given that the whole train is high level. But Amtrak could have the diners with the same expanse of glass as the their lounge cars.
Staffing of the cars is a whole different issue. The only way to return to that level of service would be a private enterprise such as the Pullman Co., if it ever gets off the ground.
For the record, people really did dress like that. Somewhere there is a photo of me in the adjoining lounge car in a 3 piece suit with drink in hand trying very hard to look grown up.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Yes, that is how they dressed; yes that is how I dressed for Dinner during most of my joyrides taken during the '60's.
I wonder what the dunderheads I have seen walk into an Amtrak Diner wearing shorts, tank tops, and flip flops. Guarantee you, a Dining Car steward would have tactfully and discretly told such an individual, age and gender notwithstanding, to "kindly get dressed for Dinner and at that time I would be happy ro seat you".
The downside: the "foul fog".
Southwest Chief Member # 1227
posted
On my most recent Southwest Chief trip I wore a suit shirt and tie to dinner.
Thought it would be nice to bring back some nostalgic class to the diner.
Although the tie I wore was an old Amtrak tie I got on eBay
Henry Kisor Member # 4776
posted
All these posts about proper attire (proper being neckties and jackets) in the dining car make me laugh. I remember vividly the 1950s college experience of the scratchy, uncomfortable wrinkliness of such clothing and the expense of having the suits pressed and the shirts washed. After both train and air travel.
Granted, wife-beaters and flip-flops are stupid and ugly, as is the redneck habit of wearing ball caps while eating, but I think one definite advantage of advancing civilization is that we can now travel in comfort (jeans, sweaters, Docksiders) without dress-code Grundys constantly looking askance at us.
Or sitting in the middle of their Herbert Tareyton miasma (as GBN says, the "foul fog.")
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Just as glad, save a few youthful rights of passage, I was never one of those "Discriminating people"
Vincent206 Member # 15447
posted
On my recent Starlight trip I ate dinner with a young, hipster type from Seattle who dressed to the nines for every meal. It was quite impressive and also very unusual. I'm more offended by bad table manners than what the diner is wearing. At dinner in the PPC, one diner kept raising his hand and calling the attendant's name. The problem was that the diner kept calling for "Juan" when the attendant's name was actually Diego. Even if that diner had been wearing a tuxedo, I would still consider him a boor.
On my return flight to Seattle (on AlaskaAir, which targets business fliers and doesn't cater to lowest cost/bargain basement fliers) I only saw one suit and tie passenger among the approximately 115 passengers on board. I think the days of formal business dress are dead.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Mr. Twin Star's title for this topic had me wondering if any railroad had a fleet of cars named Dreamliner (Superliner, Metroliner, Viewliner kind of stuff).
A search of my own memory bank, i.e. that one between the ears plus a little help from Mr. Google reveals no such a fleet name. The closest I can recall is the Sleeper within the "Train of Tomorrow" was named "Dream Cloud" - a car that was in consist of the Union Pacific Seattle-Portland train circa 1962.
While I'm confident that Boeing will address their current problems with the batteries on their 787 Dreamliners (what's the worst case? they replace the batteries with more proven technology and maybe lose 1000lb of payload in the process; after all, there appears nothing wrong with the stuff that really counts like the airframe, flight controls, and propulsion) and the aircraft may even end up being renamed. But that Boeing chose a name in the face of not naming their aircraft types beyond B-whatever is interesting - and that name could well have been such given to a fleet of trains or railcars.
Henry Kisor Member # 4776
posted
Boeing did name some of their commercial planes (the Stratoliner, based on the B-29) but like most aircraft builders chose to call their planes by the model number (707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, 787). Dreamliner seems to be an anomaly.
posted
I wonder if the naming of aircraft was an early attempt to 'brand' their product. Back in the early days of aviation the Pan Am 'Flying Clippers' was well known. More recently I recall, not too fondly, the Lockheed Electras - a turbo prop. And, as noted, Boeing's Stratocruisers were well respected as a unique two level long distance aircraft. It was also a favorite of Pan Am.
Perhaps the return to that practice by Boeing is an attempt to 'brand' the 787 as something more than just another jet. Unfortunately that approach may backfire if its ailments aren't quickly resolved.
Not particularly related to this discussion - why in the world did Guilford RR - a product of the purchase of the B&M and MEC RR - think they needed to buy the Pan Am name to use for their railroad?
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Guilford, as part of their strategy to become a diversified transportation company, had bought the "naming rights" as part of a start up airline that quickly "crashed and burned". Therefore, since it was already in the family, why not use it for the railroad.
quote:Originally posted by Henry Kisor: Or sitting in the middle of their Herbert Tareyton miasma (as GBN says, the "foul fog.")
Have not heard that brand name in years, Henry- thanks for reminding me of the smoke brand my fondly-remembered father <RIP> used to keep alight on a daily basis. HT's were a powerful smoke, not for beginners or lightweights...
But even in the 'foul fog' era, did not some railroads still prohibit smoking in the actual dining cars during service hours? I am thinking that some roads, including ATSF, did apply this rule. But of course, the Lounge, sleepers and coaches of trains like the El Capitan permitted mainly unlimited smoking back then. Kudos to Amtrak for slowly throttling the practice down, down and finally OUT.
Except for the notorious "smoke breaks" still happening at places like ABQ, etc. I believe there is some kind of a "stay 20 feet away from the door" rule that is haphazardly enforced now? Nothing against our members here who use the product; I cannot claim sainthood either-
Henry Kisor Member # 4776
posted
As a collegian and young adult I smoked Luckies and Camels and, when I was being emphatically pretentious (even to scarf and beret), Gauloises. It's a wonder I'm still alive.
I read somewhere that the most rabid and judgmental anti-smokers are ex-smokers themselves. I believe it. Every time I see a teenager light up, I feel like going over and laying The Lecture upon him . . . or her.
posted ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)