|
Author
|
Topic: Rooms, roomettes, and an improved refund policy
|
Mr. Toy
Full Member Posts: 1446
Registered: Dec 2000
|
posted 10-11-2004 01:33 PM
  
The latest edition of Destination Freedom has several interesting items of note regarding Amtrak. Among them, Standard bedrooms are now officially "Roomettes" and Deluxe bedrooms are now simply "Bedrooms" And here it is: http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df10112004.shtml This quote from the newsletter should be of interest to Mr. Norman:
“Long-time Amtrak riders may remember the name “roomette” from the past as a room that included a single bed,” noted Marketing and Sales Vice-President Barbara Richardson. “While the current Roomettes accommodate up to two people, some of our passengers have found them most comfortable when traveling by themselves.” (Personally, my wife and I fit just fine in a roomette, but we're fairly small people.) The newsletter also has an interesting article on the new maintenence facility at Oakland. Looks like there will be less deadheading on the starlight as it passes my area. Also of note, NARP reports this week that refund and exchange policies have become more user friendly. They have dropped the flat $30 charge for refund or exchange transactions. There will now be NO CHARGE to exchange a ticket for a different train/date as long as the new ticket is of equal or greater value. For transactions involving refunds, you can now apply that refund as a 100% credit towards future travel, or get money back minus a 10% charge. Full story here: http://www.narprail.org/hot368.htm [This message has been edited by Mr. Toy (edited 10-11-2004).] IP: Logged |
David
Full Member Posts: 62
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 10-11-2004 07:32 PM
It is good to see a traditional term restored. Of course, a "classic" roomette contained a sink and toilet, unlike the Superliner versions.Interestingly, VIA Rail, which operates sleepers with roomettes on most overnight trains, has changed the terminology. They are now called single bedrooms. (Drawing rooms are called triple bedrooms.) I never use the new terminology when dealing with VIA personnel and I find that most of them don't either. IP: Logged |
yukon11
Full Member Posts: 33
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 10-11-2004 07:38 PM
Mr Toy: I have ridden passenger trains from the 1960's ...the Santa Fe Chief and Empire Builder come to mind. I cannot remember a roomette in a configuration other than the usual lower fold-down bed and upper berth. The article, also, says something about the new roomette having a toilet..where will they put the thing? Maybe a completely re-designed sleeper car is in store.
I really wish they would re-design the seats in the roomette..those fold up lower seets do not provide good back support. One reason I find a need to book a more expensive delux sleeper has to do with, the delux bedroom, at least, has a lounge chair. I think VIA has more comfortable seats in their roomettes..I wish Amtrak would follow suit.
*PS* I read David's message, above. I think my memory is failing..yes, now that I think about it,the old, classic roomettes did have a sink and toilet. It would be great if the old design would return. Now, how about a Barcalounger chair! (just kidding).
[This message has been edited by yukon11 (edited 10-11-2004).]
[This message has been edited by yukon11 (edited 10-11-2004).] IP: Logged |
jp1822
Full Member Posts: 156
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted 10-11-2004 08:08 PM
Picked up the new timetable in Chicago Union Station yesterday, 10/10 - it has a lot of changes, which are hard for this frequent rider to swallow. IP: Logged |
Mr. Toy
Full Member Posts: 1446
Registered: Dec 2000
|
posted 10-12-2004 01:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by yukon11:
Mr Toy: I have ridden passenger trains from the 1960's ...the Santa Fe Chief and Empire Builder come to mind. I cannot remember a roomette in a configuration other than the usual lower fold-down bed and upper berth.
Which describes an Amtrak standard bedroom, er, roomette. quote:
The article, also, says something about the new roomette having a toilet..where will they put the thing?
The only reference to toilets I saw was in regards to deluxe rooms (now "bedrooms") and Viewliner roomettes: "Beginning November 1, sleeping accommodations equipped with showers, toilets and a vanity will simply be called “bedrooms.” The smaller rooms that rely on shared restroom facilities, a bed-and breakfast on steel wheels, will again be known as “roomettes.” "On Viewliner equipment, roomettes include their own toilets.
[This message has been edited by Mr. Toy (edited 10-12-2004).] IP: Logged |
PullmanCo
Full Member Posts: 278
Registered: Oct 2001
|
posted 10-12-2004 11:45 AM
The term for:One upper berth One lower berth Facing seats IS A SECTION. IP: Logged |
royaltrain
Full Member Posts: 174
Registered: Mar 2001
|
posted 10-12-2004 12:52 PM
Yukon11 stated that he could not remember a roomette other than in a configuration of a lower fold down and an upper berth. The "classic" roomette never had an upper berth only a single fold down bed. I think Amtrak's resurrection of this term will confuse passengers who will think that this "new" roomette will only have one bed and will contain a toilet and sink which the Superliner version certainly does not, and the Viewliner version will have an upper berth. This is the third term used for these sleeping accomodations. I always though that the "economy bedroom" was the most accurate. Why is Amtrak making these changes, it will only confuse potential passengers. IP: Logged |
Mr. Toy
Full Member Posts: 1446
Registered: Dec 2000
|
posted 10-12-2004 01:12 PM
What the terms were once upon a time is not particularly important to the modern traveler, especially those who have never traveled by train - i.e. the vast majority of Americans. What is important is having a name that accurately, and concisely, conveys the room's size to the uninitiated. I think "roomette" does that quite well. The suffix "ette" implies to the modern reader a miniature version, as my dictionary lists it:-ette
· suffix forming nouns:
1 denoting small size: kitchenette.
I think we've all read reports from new travelers who read "standard bedroom" in the bruchure or website and were shocked at how small it was in real life. In that context, I think the new names are appropriate, even if they are slightly altered from historic usage.
I doubt many people traveling Amtrak today knows that historically, a roomette had its own toilet. I didn't even know that until this name change issue came up several weeks ago. Nor had I heard the term "section" until today. Let's face it, the historic terms are obsolete. They are no longer a part of the common language, as they once were, so nobody is likely to be confused. ------------------
Decisions are made by those who show up. VOTE on Nov 2!
The Del Monte Club Car IP: Logged |
mikesmith
Full Member Posts: 348
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 10-12-2004 06:43 PM
room, roomettes, standard bedroom... Who cares....I have enough points for my wife & I to go from Seattle to Houston in a standard room/roomette!!! If the company I work for needs more 42" plasma TV's between now and May 2005, I may get enough points for a deluxe! IP: Logged |
CoastStarlight99
Full Member Posts: 528
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 10-12-2004 07:47 PM
Roomette??? I think that doesnt sound very good. It sounds a bit to 50's. Standard and Deluxe were much more laid out. I hated when they called them "economy" that was under estimating the cost of a slepper. They could call it first class but that would turn people away from sleepers thinking they were very very expensive as first class air accomoadtions.Nice to see a good active topic on the board.  ------------------
--Anton L.
pillsbury09@excite.com
AIM: pillsburyMN IP: Logged |
JONATHON
Full Member Posts: 542
Registered: Nov 2003
|
posted 10-12-2004 11:07 PM
I never rode in a Roomette, but I have seen them, very nice, I think they are great, you get the Privecie of a Sleeper and dont pay as much!------------------
JONATHON D. ORTIZ
EMD455@Blue-Rail.com IP: Logged |
RRRICH
Full Member Posts: 486
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 10-13-2004 05:01 AM
To PullmanCo - I have always thought of a "section" as a compartment WITHOUT A DOOR in which there is one upper berth and one lower berth, which convert to 2 seats for daytime travel, with curtains separating the space from the aisle (like in that old Marilyn Monroe film -- wasn't that "Some Like It Hot?" I saw the film a couple years ago, but forgot which one it was). VIA Rail still has sections on the Canadian.A private room (with a door) containing one fold-down bed and a toilet has always been a "roomette." Whether the term is still applicable to AMTRAK Superliner/Viewliner accomodations, I have no comment on..... IP: Logged |
royaltrain
Full Member Posts: 174
Registered: Mar 2001
|
posted 10-13-2004 07:28 AM
With respect to Mr. Toy, anyone who has had any sleeping-car experience will know that a roomette means a single bed with a sink and toilet, and for those who don't have a clue, the roomette designation will not provide any more information as to room size amenities etc. I never understand why anyone would pay good money for a sleeping compartment and not do any research as to what they are purchasing. If one looks at Amtrak.com or other sites (such as this one)one should not be shocked to find himself in a very tiny economy,standard, roomette. As well, I always thought Amtrak's "deluxe" bedroom designation was a bit of a stretch, as it is not deluxe by any definition of the term--it is merely large and has extra amenities such as a toilet/shower sink. I think most people would say that the Blue Train, or the AOE, or the India Pacific are deluxe and are deserving of that designation, but certainly not the trains of Amtrak.[This message has been edited by royaltrain (edited 10-13-2004).] IP: Logged |
rresor
Full Member Posts: 181
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 10-14-2004 01:19 PM
I'll agree with Royaltrain, and add a point. Amtrak has no business referring to "first class" service on the LD trains, so it's fine with me if they simply use the terms "roomette" and "bedroom" without any mention of "class".First class meant: - A Pullman conductor and extra fare
- On many trains, separate lounge and dining accommodations for first class passengers
- A level of service Amtrak has never offered To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen in his debate with Dan Quayle, "I've traveled first class on trains, I know what first class is like, and Amtrak, you haven't ever offered first class service". IP: Logged |
CoastStarlight99
Full Member Posts: 528
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 10-14-2004 06:28 PM
Jonathon--A roomette is a sleeper, its the new/old name for a standard sleeper, and they ARE costly. YOu travel in coach..so they really jumo the rail fare.
------------------
--Anton L.
pillsbury09@excite.com
AIM: pillsburyMN
[This message has been edited by CoastStarlight99 (edited 10-14-2004).] IP: Logged |
JONATHON
Full Member Posts: 542
Registered: Nov 2003
|
posted 10-14-2004 07:50 PM
I knew that.------------------
JONATHON D. ORTIZ
EMD455@Blue-Rail.com IP: Logged |
PullmanCo
Full Member Posts: 278
Registered: Oct 2001
|
posted 10-15-2004 10:23 AM
To RRRich:Early in the streamline era, Pullman experimented with enclosed sections. UP M-10002, the City of Portland, M-10003/4, the first Cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco, and M-10005/6, the City of Denver twins, all had cars with this accommodation. Pullman seems to have withdrawn the accomodation from its construction inventory after the roomette was patented. I object to the rebranded accomodation being called a roomette for other reasons. Amtrak has sliced width off both the upper and lower berths in its rooms. Compare anything except the lower berth of a Deluxe (or now bedroom) with its peer accomodation from the Heritage fleet, and you will find the racks are narrower. John ------------------
The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations IP: Logged |
CoastStarlight99
Full Member Posts: 528
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 10-15-2004 06:19 PM
Well^ you did say a bit different.Roomette is a sleeper
and Sleepers (all) are much more expensive then Coach Railfare. IP: Logged |
RAILforum
