Passenger

I rode train 20 from Gainesville GA to Philly last Friday night.

The good: The scenery in VA was very nice.  Ate breakfast in the diner.  Food was decent.  Service was good - but a bit slow and inconsistent.  Plastic dishes were nicely done and more than acceptable.  The coach seating and HVAC systems were all in good working order.  The train was sold out north of Charlotteville and the sleepers north of Charlotte.  The train was 1:10 late at Gainseville but only 35 min late at Philly.  And, of course, there are no bad train rides.....

The bad:  Apparent worn wheels on my coach got the truck hunting started at anything approaching 80 mph.  Made it hard to sleep, particularly considering I was over the offending truck.  It was REALLY bad at the 100 and 110 mph running on the NEC.  The station stops were rather long.  Always longer than the 3 minutes allotted.  Some of this was due to their method of seating people in the coaches - see below.

The ugly:  The coach attendent had all the personality and appeal of dryer lint.  He performed almost adequately.  For some reason, they assign you your seat on the Crescent - unlike any other Amtrak LD train I've ridden (most in the distant past).  They do manage to keep groups together, but that's about the best I can say for their method. They segregate riders by destination partly to minimize disruptions in the middle of the night but, I think, mostly for their own convenience.  Rather than giving the better seats to those with the longest journey, the just fill the car up from one end to the other so that those on the longest get stuck out over the trucks.  The attendant also assigned a 400 lb man to a seat next to another fairly big guy rather than finding the big guy his own seat pair in another coach.  What a terrible "service" for both men!  I'm sure they'll both be back on Amtrak real soon.

There is a station attendant a Gainseville who mans the station at train time.  No uniform or visible ID of any kind.  Stuck her railroad radio in the top of her dress in a rather unattractive manner.  Won't let you wait on the platform - have to stay in the dingy waiting room.  All in all, a rather depressing and unprofessional experience.

The icky:  the Amfleet I bathrooms.  There were in working order, but hardly kept clean and supplied by the coach attendent.  I had to hunt up a new pack of paper towels in the one bathroom.  On the design side, they are totally inadequate for overnight travel.  No real place to change, should you care to, without dropping you stuff all over the floor.  No cups that have a bottom to them, should you care to brush your teeth.  Bad design, bad supplies, bad cleaning.  Ick!

A lot of this stuff is easily and cheaply fixed.  But, mgt has to pay attention and care to set the tone.

 It does look like Amtrak has problems!

  Amfleet Cars, based on the Budd Metroliners, were designed for high speed, short haul service in the Northeast Corridor. Many have been displaced by the 20 Acela Bullet Trains in the corridor.

 In other uses, lots of stops on a long haul train will tend to flatten the wheels, also, few use bathrooms when on short haul trains.  While the aging Amfleets might be on the end of a train for local passengers, AMTRAK NEEDS NEW LONG HAUL CARS!  At least you got a seat, unlike the airlines, Amtrak does not "over book". 

I sure the enemies of our country will want to know of the complete lack of Security at Gainesville. Wake up Amtrak!

Greetings!

Read your report 'n must agree with your appraisal - there are no bad train rides, but there surely are times when the service 'n material condition of the equipment could 'n should be better.

Don't kow if you're interested, but I hang out over on Classic Trains (General Discussion) at "Our" Place . . . I recently Posted my "trip report" of an AMTRAK roundtrip between St. Louis 'n Kansas City . . . been riding that route for nearly 20 years, and it isn't getting better.

Most of my passenger rail travels are aboard VIA Rail in Canada, and there's evidence of deterioration there as well. Not looking good . . .

Hang in there!

oltmannd wrote:

I rode train 20 from Gainesville GA to Philly last Friday night. The ugly:  The coach attendent had all the personality and appeal of dryer lint.  He performed almost adequately.  For some reason, they assign you your seat on the Crescent - unlike any other Amtrak LD train I've ridden (most in the distant past).  They do manage to keep groups together, but that's about the best I can say for their method. They segregate riders by destination partly to minimize disruptions in the middle of the night but, I think, mostly for their own convenience.  Rather than giving the better seats to those with the longest journey, the just fill the car up from one end to the other so that those on the longest get stuck out over the trucks.  The attendant also assigned a 400 lb man to a seat next to another fairly big guy rather than finding the big guy his own seat pair in another coach.  What a terrible "service" for both men!  I'm sure they'll both be back on Amtrak real soon. There is a station attendant a Gainseville who mans the station at train time.  No uniform or visible ID of any kind.  Stuck her railroad radio in the top of her dress in a rather unattractive manner.  Won't let you wait on the platform - have to stay in the dingy waiting room.  All in all, a rather depressing and unprofessional experience.

The "minimize disruptions in the middle of the night" probably has a lot more to do with the seating arrangement than "attendant convenience." Are you coherent enough at 2 AM to tell the attendant that just woke you that this isn't your stop?

Finding a "fairly big guy" another seat due to his size sounds like it would be impossible, especially since you said the train was full above Charlotte. Plus, in the old days, if you took up two seats (due to your size or baggage), you paid for two seats. I know I sure wouldn't volunteer to change seats to sit next to one of them, on an aircraft, "been there, done that, not doing it again." Did you volunteer to change seats so you'd be next to the "400 pound guy?"

Can't comment on the personal appearance of the station attendant. The "won't let you wait on the platform" is a safety consideration. The Amtrak trains are probably not the only ones going through the station. Except for most of the NEC, Amtrak is a tennant on the tracks, and may be working with mandates from the host railroad regarding where passengers go and when.

You really need to look at both sides of the story.

It ain't rocket science.

You give the passengers the option.  You either let them pick their own seats when they book ala the airlines or you designate the cars by destination and let folks pick their own seat when they board.  The seat checks are plain enough to make sure you get the right folks up for their stop.  You just might have to walk a whole TWO coaches rather than one, though. 

In the interest of customer service, you give the fat guy one of the two pair you've roped off for the trainmen and have them squat in the lounge car - which is empty all night any way.  Or seat him in your "local" coach, which will be nearly empty until morning.  There is likely always a certain number of passengers who really should be seated next to anyone - either charge'm double or allow for it in your booking.  You don't penalize some other "regular" sized passenger!

The train didn't fill out until the breakfast-time AM stops in Lynchburg and Charlottesville - lots of options for the overnighters w/o jamming them all in the rear car.  Just takes a bit more creativity and customer focus other than "this is how we always do it".  (I rode the Cresecent in the early 80s a few time and it was the same way, then, too)

And, I missed another, minor irritant.  The car attendent did pass out pillows, but rather than just collecting them and stripping off the disposable pillow cases, he made an general anouncement and had the passengers strip off the pillow cases and throw them away.  It's not like the guy was so busy cleaning the bathrooms.... What's next?  We get to buss our own tables in the diner?

I think I am with Don Oltmann on this one.  There is that natural been-around-railroads outlook that whatever is done on a railroad operation is optimal and the best of all possible worlds, and that a "civilian" (like Don!) couldn't possibly have any ideas of how to improve the operation.

First, the large guy.  Yeah, yeah, people that heavy should be expected to pay for two seats and so on, but what is with exercising a little coach-attendant discretion and giving the fellow a break?  Don was on the scene and I would defer to Don whether there was room to accomodate this passenger or not.

Second, this business of the platform.  I suppose wanting to stand on the platform is a railfan thing, but again, and yes, there are hazards getting swept off on to a train, but can't goodwill and letting people stretch their legs be balanced against making everyone stay inside a not-well-kept station?

Third, the truck hunting.  Many of my rail-travelling friends have complained about stretches of "bad track", but I have been wondering if sometimes it is a case of worn wheels or perhaps worn rails.  The wheel profile together with the rail profile provide the steering control (flanges are only a backstop), and the experience in England is that worn wheels (also worn journal guides and other truck hardware) can cause a bad ride at speed.  It is not a matter of flat spots; it is a question if the wheel has the right "cone taper" after it is in service long enough.  Talgo has on board technicians with data pads keeping track of when wheels need reprofiling -- perhaps something low-tech like conductors or coach attendants writing up that a coach rides rough and then doing the maintenance on that car could help.

Finally the bathrooms.  I always wondered about the tradeoff between airliner style bathrooms and the rather large Men's and Women's rooms on the chair cars of old streamliner equipment, and I guess if you need to change, the closet-sized bathroom is an issue.  I also experienced some time ago the long-distance version of Amfleet coaches with the lower seating density, and I remember somewhat larger bathrooms than airline water closets that had changing tables.

New equipment would be sure nice, but maintaining and keeping clean the equipment they have would also go a long way.

DMUinCT wrote:

It does look like Amtrak has problems!   Amfleet Cars, based on the Budd Metroliners, were designed for high speed, short haul service in the Northeast Corridor. Many have been displaced by the 20 Acela Bullet Trains in the corridor.  In other uses, lots of stops on a long haul train will tend to flatten the wheels, also, few use bathrooms when on short haul trains.  While the aging Amfleets might be on the end of a train for local passengers, AMTRAK NEEDS NEW LONG HAUL CARS!  At least you got a seat, unlike the airlines, Amtrak does not "over book".  I sure the enemies of our country will want to know of the complete lack of Security at Gainesville. Wake up Amtrak!

Actually, there was some security at Gainesville.  It just wasn't very pretty! 

The equipment I'm taking issue with is the 60 seat, Amfleet IIs, which were long distance adaptations of the Metroliner shell Amfleet I's and are the mainstay of the all the eastern LD trains.  They should have a changing room/sink only area like the older LD coaches did.  I never realized that the Amfleet IIs, which only have one vestibule, actually are built with two, but have electric lockers in the blind end rather than exterior doors.

And, I'm OK with the "no platform" edict, generally, but the station was sooo shabby.  They really need to blackmail Gainesville into better accomodations.  Perhaps have Buford and/or Duluth GA compete for the stop.  Most of the Gainesville riders are coming from the northern ATL suburbs anyway.   Just another case of Amtrak not paying attention to business.  When Amtrak took over the Crescent from SOU, there were 50,000 people in Gwinnett Co., a similar number in neighboring north Fulton and just about nobody in adjacent Forsyth.  Gainesville was the next logical place to stop north of Atlanta in 1960 and maybe even 1980, but now there are over 600,000 people in Gwinnett alone, with similar growth in Fulton and Forsyth.  Helloooo Amtrak?  Anybody home?  A million people who are within 10 miles of the route but who would have to travel 45 minute or more to the nearest station.  Who's minding the store?

oltmannd wrote:

In the interest of customer service, you give the fat guy one of the two pair you've roped off for the trainmen and have them squat in the lounge car - which is empty all night any way.  Or seat him in your "local" coach, which will be nearly empty until morning.  There is likely always a certain number of passengers who really should be seated next to anyone - either charge'm double or allow for it in your booking.  You don't penalize some other "regular" sized passenger!

But when there's no known available seat to give the "fat guy" two seats, they should block off extra seats "just in case" there's one or two guys that fit that description? My sympathy for them went out the door after a flight from Philly to Chicago had me crammed into a seat with my right shoulder against the inside of the fuselage and my left shoulder behind his right. I, as a "regular sized passenger," was penalized by the airline because I was unlucky enough to get that seat. Should airlines set aside a seat for clearance of this size passenger, too? For airlines, busses, or trains, I fully support the old rule, if you take up two seats, you pay two fares.

PS, I noticed you didn't volunteer to take the seat next to the "fat guy," in your original or rebuttal, but you're all for relocating the crew members away from their duty area.

TomDiehl wrote:

oltmannd wrote: In the interest of customer service, you give the fat guy one of the two pair you've roped off for the trainmen and have them squat in the lounge car - which is empty all night any way.  Or seat him in your "local" coach, which will be nearly empty until morning.  There is likely always a certain number of passengers who really should be seated next to anyone - either charge'm double or allow for it in your booking.  You don't penalize some other "regular" sized passenger! But when there's no known available seat to give the "fat guy" two seats, they should block off extra seats "just in case" there's one or two guys that fit that description? My sympathy for them went out the door after a flight from Philly to Chicago had me crammed into a seat with my right shoulder against the inside of the fuselage and my left shoulder behind his right. I, as a "regular sized passenger," was penalized by the airline because I was unlucky enough to get that seat. Should airlines set aside a seat for clearance of this size passenger, too? For airlines, busses, or trains, I fully support the old rule, if you take up two seats, you pay two fares. PS, I noticed you didn't volunteer to take the seat next to the "fat guy," in your original or rebuttal, but you're all for relocating the crew members away from their duty area.

There should be some sort of "fat guy" strategy.  An couple of hours in a plane isn't quite the same thing as 14 hours on the train when you're trying to get comfortable to sleep.  Whether it's punative (charge'm double) or a "service" (hold a couple of seats out), depends on what you can afford vs. your public image.

I'm not following your logic why I should have felt compelled to offer up my seat instead of the crew who are being paid to see to my safety and comfort.  The trainmen's duty area is the train - not a couple of seats they put a sign over.  Their "duty" includes standing if no space is available for them.  No passengers = no job.

Here's another one, the trainman in my car north of DC though taking a nap was a perfectly good way to discharge her duty between stations, since there were no fares to lift!  Nice public image (and safety rule violation, to boot!) 

oltmannd wrote:

I'm not following your logic why I should have felt compelled to offer up my seat instead of the crew who are being paid to see to my safety and comfort.  The trainmen's duty area is the train - not a couple of seats they put a sign over.  Their "duty" includes standing if no space is available for them.  No passengers = no job.

Simple. All your "solutions" are the modern "someone else should be inconvenienced so I'm not" attitude, but offers no practical solution. Stick 'em in a seat with a smaller guy, but not you. BTW, did either of the large guys complain, or is it just you?

You are correct is saying that the Trainman's duty station is the entire train, but the Coach Attendants and Sleeping Car Attendants are assigned to a particular car, which would be their duty station, not the entire train.

As far as crew members sleeping on the job, did you mention it to the Conductor?

Paul Milenkovic wrote:

I think I am with Don Oltmann on this one.  There is that natural been-around-railroads outlook that whatever is done on a railroad operation is optimal and the best of all possible worlds, and that a "civilian" (like Don!) couldn't possibly have any ideas of how to improve the operation. First, the large guy.  Yeah, yeah, people that heavy should be expected to pay for two seats and so on, but what is with exercising a little coach-attendant discretion and giving the fellow a break?  Don was on the scene and I would defer to Don whether there was room to accomodate this passenger or not. Second, this business of the platform.  I suppose wanting to stand on the platform is a railfan thing, but again, and yes, there are hazards getting swept off on to a train, but can't goodwill and letting people stretch their legs be balanced against making everyone stay inside a not-well-kept station? Third, the truck hunting.  Many of my rail-travelling friends have complained about stretches of "bad track", but I have been wondering if sometimes it is a case of worn wheels or perhaps worn rails.  The wheel profile together with the rail profile provide the steering control (flanges are only a backstop), and the experience in England is that worn wheels (also worn journal guides and other truck hardware) can cause a bad ride at speed.  It is not a matter of flat spots; it is a question if the wheel has the right "cone taper" after it is in service long enough.  Talgo has on board technicians with data pads keeping track of when wheels need reprofiling -- perhaps something low-tech like conductors or coach attendants writing up that a coach rides rough and then doing the maintenance on that car could help. Finally the bathrooms.  I always wondered about the tradeoff between airliner style bathrooms and the rather large Men's and Women's rooms on the chair cars of old streamliner equipment, and I guess if you need to change, the closet-sized bathroom is an issue.  I also experienced some time ago the long-distance version of Amfleet coaches with the lower seating density, and I remember somewhat larger bathrooms than airline water closets that had changing tables. New equipment would be sure nice, but maintaining and keeping clean the equipment they have would also go a long way.

The handicap bathroom has enough space, but lacks sufficient hooks, seat and shelving.  And since the floor was alway a bit wet around the sink/toilet area, you would be kind of reluctant to let anything drag on the floor....

How about a fold down seat and a couple of hooks?  Also, replace the "cone" drinking cups with flat bottomed cups and that woud be a big help, too.

I guess inquiring foamer minds needs answers to questions about bathrooms.

Back in the late 1970's when the family was moving from Chicago to Detroit, we were taking the Amtrak Michigan trains a lot.  Initially they had the French RTG Turboliners (by the way, these are lighweight trains although with conventional trucks, and they were the smoothest riding train cars I have ever been on in terms of controlling bumps, side sway, and truck hunting).  Some time in this they started phasing in Amfleet cars with F40PH locos in place of Turboliners.  The Amfleet cars rode OK, better than a lot of swing-hanger streamliner cars unless you like the swing-hanger side sway, but they were a bit firm, and not as silky smooth as the Turboliners.

Most of the time you got the corridor high-density seating, but I remember one time being on a low-density Amcoach that must have been new to the fleet.  Besides the fewer seats and more leg room, something tells me it had a somewhat bigger bathroom than the typical Amwatercloset.  Are we talking about the same thing?  Or have they remodeled Amfleet II's to give them smaller bathrooms?

Paul Milenkovic wrote:

I guess inquiring foamer minds needs answers to questions about bathrooms. Back in the late 1970's when the family was moving from Chicago to Detroit, we were taking the Amtrak Michigan trains a lot.  Initially they had the French RTG Turboliners (by the way, these are lighweight trains although with conventional trucks, and they were the smoothest riding train cars I have ever been on in terms of controlling bumps, side sway, and truck hunting).  Some time in this they started phasing in Amfleet cars with F40PH locos in place of Turboliners.  The Amfleet cars rode OK, better than a lot of swing-hanger streamliner cars unless you like the swing-hanger side sway, but they were a bit firm, and not as silky smooth as the Turboliners. Most of the time you got the corridor high-density seating, but I remember one time being on a low-density Amcoach that must have been new to the fleet.  Besides the fewer seats and more leg room, something tells me it had a somewhat bigger bathroom than the typical Amwatercloset.  Are we talking about the same thing?  Or have they remodeled Amfleet II's to give them smaller bathrooms?

I agree with you about the turboliners.  The NY State version was very smooth riding and quiet and the cars were a bit wider than the French version.  Also like those big windows, particularly for the scenery along the Hudson.

The Amfleet I cars typically came with 84 seats, but Amtrak modified a bunch for Metroliner service and reduced the pitch to 60 seats.  The Amfleet II cars came with 60 seats and have the leg rests that hinge up from the seat cushion as well as the pedal operated foot rest.

The Amfleet I cars came with a pair of tiny restrooms  - I'm not sure what Amtrak has done to make them ADA compliant.  The Amfleet II car I was just on had a large ADA compliant room and a smaller non-compliant room.  Not sure if the smaller one was larger than that std Amfleet I room or not.  If it was, it wasn't by too much.  Something makes me think that the Amfleet II cars might have been delivered with two small restrooms and a changing area and the changing area was sacrificed to make an ADA restroom. 

Talking about the Rohr Turboliners (Americanized version of the French Turboliner), wasn't there some kind of deal where New York State put up a bunch of money to rebuild them, but aren't they in storage because someone has "issues" with them?  Is it fuel consumption?   I looked up an article in June 1974 Aviation Week where they were giving fuel consumption numbers, and they were talking 60 gal/hour at 60 MPH -- about a gallon per mile -- is this much different than Diesel corridor trains?  While turbines are inherently thirstier, especially at part load, these are streamlined lightweight trains so perhaps some of the fuel use balances out, and the French trains are supposed to use a pair of turbines to accelerate but idle one turbine at cruise to cut down on fuel use.

Or was it more a question of some bureaucratic wrangling?  Or something to do with bringing them into Grand Central or Penn Station?