It would appear that if a LD train had 4 sleepers or say 3 sleepers and a business class or 4 sleepers and business car then why cannot at least 2 sleeper / business class attendants work the diner ? That way only maybe one additional person in kitchen for diners that way lowering loss per passenger .
CJtrainguys for flying, that's just a miserable experience, especially at night. Coach on Amtrak is way, way better any day or night.
Most travelers would disagree with that remark. They vote by flying far more than they use trains. Outside the NEC, most people have never ridden a train.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
CJtrainguyThen where did the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to get a sleeper unless they travelled on that train for 2 nights or more come from?
You misunderstood. I said on LD trains that traveled only one overnight in duration. Such as the Capitol Limited, Southern Crescent, City of New Orleans, etc. The restriction would be at the train level not the passenger level based on how long the train operated (one over night). California Zephyr would continue to have Sleeping Cars.
BaltACD To my experience, diners and lounge cars that sold adult beverages never used full size liquor bottles. All liquor was dispensed from single serve minature bottles. Personnel also had to be aware of when they were in 'wet' or 'dry' jurisdictions in selling adult beverages - state & local inspectors would ride the trains from time to time to ensure compliance.
To my experience, diners and lounge cars that sold adult beverages never used full size liquor bottles. All liquor was dispensed from single serve minature bottles. Personnel also had to be aware of when they were in 'wet' or 'dry' jurisdictions in selling adult beverages - state & local inspectors would ride the trains from time to time to ensure compliance.
I suspect the mini-bottles were a creation for the airline industry and then later adopted by passenger trains but I don't know for sure. I have seen pictures of both. For example on Lounge Car requisition forms on the internet from the 1960's to 1970's the form clearly indicated the serving of the bottle was individual (small bottles). However, also remember seeing full bottles of open liquor.
Check out the below pictured of a Milwaukee Road Tip-Top Lounge car (prior to 1952), the bottle on the counter by the guys elbow on the left......clearly a liquor bottle (the rest of the folks are drinking beer). Also look on the shelf in the background under the mirror. There are other pictures out there that show full bottles and small ones.
http://digitalcollections.lib.washington.edu/utils/ajaxhelper/?CISOROOT=transportation&CISOPTR=63&action=2&DMSCALE=80&DMWIDTH=512&DMHEIGHT=470&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=&DMROTATE=0
When Amtrak still operated the upstairs Superliner lounge bar with an attendent, they did use the mini-bottles same with the Dome Lounge Cars on the Empire Builder back in the day when they still had Dome cars on that train.
And he looks like a real bartender, not some attendant. Running a liquor service or bar, even with limited choices (little individual bottles), has always been a way to increase revenue at relatively low cost. Restaurants have done so for years. Amtrak?
A business class seat between Philadelphia and Atlanta? I'd try it. Particularly if they'd let me pick the seat.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd A business class seat between Philadelphia and Atlanta? I'd try it. Particularly if they'd let me pick the seat.
DON: Hope you can give us a ride report.
schlimm CJtrainguy s for flying, that's just a miserable experience, especially at night. Coach on Amtrak is way, way better any day or night. Most travelers would disagree with that remark. They vote by flying far more than they use trains. Outside the NEC, most people have never ridden a train.
CJtrainguy s for flying, that's just a miserable experience, especially at night. Coach on Amtrak is way, way better any day or night.
The "vote" by "most travelers" is most frequently like voting on a ballot with only one candidate listed, and no write-ins allowed!
Most travelers don't have a rail option. Many others only have a once-a-day option (if that), frequently at absurdly inconvenient times.
If fast, frequent, comfortble rail service was available, then the travelers' "vote" might actually signify a true choice.
And I don't think we can say that we had that "vote" in the '50s and '60s, because travel dynamics and demographics are very different today than they were then.
Dragoman schlimm CJtrainguy s for flying, that's just a miserable experience, especially at night. Coach on Amtrak is way, way better any day or night. Most travelers would disagree with that remark. They vote by flying far more than they use trains. Outside the NEC, most people have never ridden a train. The "vote" by "most travelers" is most frequently like voting on a ballot with only one candidate listed, and no write-ins allowed! Most travelers don't have a rail option. Many others only have a once-a-day option (if that), frequently at absurdly inconvenient times. If fast, frequent, comfortble rail service was available, then the travelers' "vote" might actually signify a true choice. And I don't think we can say that we had that "vote" in the '50s and '60s, because travel dynamics and demographics are very different today than they were then.
1. The thread was about LD trains, i.e., >500 miles endpoints. Barring an unlikely upgrade of those routes to VHSR, relatively few people will "vote" to ride the train from CHI-DEN (currently 18 hours) or CHI-NYC (currently almost 20 hours), as examples. The only ones that would will be seeking a leisurely land cruise, which seems to be a poor use of subsidized transportation funding. Trying to run anything approaching an HSR service as an unwanted, incompatible tenant on freight lines is a non-starter.
2. OTOH, fast, frequent, convenient and on-time HSR on congested corridors will display a shifting of "votes" just as it already has long since done in the quasi-HSR NEC.
DragomanAnd I don't think we can say that we had that "vote" in the '50s and '60s, because travel dynamics and demographics are very different today than they were then.
Completely disagree. In the late 1940s, the RRs invested heavily in streamliners and speed. In less than a decade, they lost the businessman to the airlines and the family traveller to the automobile. It happened fast and dramatically.
RRs then tried to do the fast, corridor thing with all sorts of experimental lightweight trains. Train X, Aerotrain, Roger Williams, Talgo, Keystone to name a few. All failed - many because the RRs couldn't capture enough interest to justify any more investment.
Only the Metroliner - because of Federal investment and being inserted into the most viable corridor in the land - managed to turn the tide - and stave off total extinction for intercity rail service.
schlimm 1. The thread was about LD trains, i.e., >500 miles endpoints. Barring an unlikely upgrade of those routes to VHSR, relatively few people will "vote" to ride the train from CHI-DEN (currently 18 hours) or CHI-NYC (currently almost 20 hours), as examples. The only ones that would will be seeking a leisurely land cruise, which seems to be a poor use of subsidized transportation funding. Trying to run anything approaching an HSR service as an unwanted, incompatible tenant on freight lines is a non-starter. 2. OTOH, fast, frequent, convenient and on-time HSR on congested corridors will display a shifting of "votes" just as it already has long since done in the quasi-HSR NEC.
1) LD trains: Point taken -- though don't forget that it is not just endpoints, but as amny as dozens of city-pair combinations, given intgermediate stops. Would be interesting to have a decent daytime service on the routes you mention, and see the response ...
2) We agree on the success possible in corridors.
oltmannd Dragoman And I don't think we can say that we had that "vote" in the '50s and '60s, because travel dynamics and demographics are very different today than they were then. Completely disagree. In the late 1940s, the RRs invested heavily in streamliners and speed. In less than a decade, they lost the businessman to the airlines and the family traveller to the automobile. It happened fast and dramatically. RRs then tried to do the fast, corridor thing with all sorts of experimental lightweight trains. Train X, Aerotrain, Roger Williams, Talgo, Keystone to name a few. All failed - many because the RRs couldn't capture enough interest to justify any more investment. Only the Metroliner - because of Federal investment and being inserted into the most viable corridor in the land - managed to turn the tide - and stave off total extinction for intercity rail service.
Dragoman And I don't think we can say that we had that "vote" in the '50s and '60s, because travel dynamics and demographics are very different today than they were then.
Yes, Don, that is what happened then. But air travel today is not what it was in the '50s and '60s, when it was stealing away all of those rail passengers. Between the tighter sqeezes and less (or zero) service on board, and the hastles (long lines, long walks, long waits) at airports which are further and further from where people are going to and coming from, the comfort possible on downtown-to-downtown rail service might produce a different calculus, even in the LD realm (if done properly).
And corridor services have become quite successful -- where they have been made available.
But, I'm sorry -- I did not intend to divert this discussion to a re-hash of the question of the successes/failures and potentials of corridor/LD/HrSR/HSR services. Bottom line, I agree with those who beleive that there could be a place for a properly-marketed level of service between coach and private compartment, whether it be on corridor or LD services.
DragomanYes, Don, that is what happened then. But air travel today is not what it was in the '50s and '60s, when it was stealing away all of those rail passengers. Between the tighter sqeezes and less (or zero) service on board, and the hastles (long lines, long walks, long waits) at airports which are further and further from where people are going to and coming from, the comfort possible on downtown-to-downtown rail service might produce a different calculus, even in the LD realm (if done properly).
With closer, time-competitive endpoints, HSR and maybe even HrSR can almost certainly do so. But where the distances and time are greater, I fail to see (or have ever seen) a coherent, persuasive argument as to why large numbers of passengers would switch to the train. There's places for modern passenger rail in the US, but not universal.
To go back to the example of a long corridor, if there are several midpoints with large populations, it is far better to divide the route into segments so that frequent, fast services could be run between those points and/or an endpoint at times people can use. Eg., CHI-DEN. Depending on trackage acquired or built, middle points could include some/all of the following: the Quad Cities, Iowa City, Des Moines, Omaha, Lincoln. If analysis showed that by air and road there is a market for various segments, they could be tried. But running a train the entire length always means many of those midpoints are served at inconvenient times in the middle of the night, unless you run many trains. And with length, delays compound.
Bottom line is this. If I can fly to Denver from Chicago in under 3 hours, for under $90 RT (looking for bargains), why would I want to spend 18 hours on a train and spend $336 coach ($1200) roomette)? Or drive in ~15 hours?
schlimm ... To go back to the example of a long corridor, if there are several midpoints with large populations, it is far better to divide the route into segments so that frequent, fast services could be run between those points and/or an endpoint at times people can use. Eg., CHI-DEN. Depending on trackage acquired or built, middle points could include some/all of the following: the Quad Cities, Iowa City, Des Moines, Omaha, Lincoln. If analysis showed that by air and road there is a market for various segments, they could be tried. But running a train the entire length always means many of those midpoints are served at inconvenient times in the middle of the night, unless you run many trains. And with length, delays compound. Bottom line is this. If I can fly to Denver from Chicago in under 3 hours, for under $90 RT (looking for bargains), why would I want to spend 18 hours on a train and spend $336 coach ($1200) roomette)? Or drive in ~15 hours?
...
Schlimm --
You arefar too intelligent and articulate to argue with, and I won't even try. I cetainly cannot present "a coherent, persuasive argument as to why large numbes of passengers would switch to the train", other than my own feeble thought processes and observations of what has happened elsewhere now and in the past, and drawing what appear to me to be logical conclusions. It's sort of a "build it and they will come" leap of faith, which (I know well) is not a reasonable basis to undertake a new enterprise.
Two minor nuances I would like to point out, however.
Regarding a long corridor vs. several (possibly contiguous) corridors: Corridors A-B, B-C, and C-D might each be successful each on its own. But A-D can cover these, plus A-C, A-D, and B-D. (Of course, some service might not have to go the full length.) And, even in a 16-18 hour corridor, there need not be any middle-of-the-night stops.
Regarding your CHI - DEN example, if you are actually leaving from and going to somewhere near the downtowns, with transit and check-in/security/baggage pick-up times, your "under 3 hours" could actually be closer to 5-6 hours. Still less than 16-18, but little of that 5-6 hours is productive or comfortable. (How much work can you really get done in the cab, or in the security line or while waititng for baggae, or even in that tight little airline seat?)
Seems to me that half day productive and half day stressed and minimally productive (flying), or nearly all day relaxed and productive (on the train) -- or part of a day and a night, which would probably be in a hotel room anyway), I would lean towards the train (assuming workable schedules and fares).
But, a lot of "if's" there, and it is all speculative.
When I went to France, the TGV from Paris to Marseille took 3 hr nonstop (456 mile) and was almost full. On the same route 10 min behind us was a non stop to Lyon. And there were more trains all day long leaving Paris on this route. So this was one corridor that was well served and utilized. Almost all of Europe is served in a similar manor. However when we left France, we chose to fly from Marsielle to Paris (Charles DeGaulle) since we were flying back to Chicago. Flight took 1:15 hour. I think the California example of the Capitol Corrider and the San Diego Corrider show that the public will ride. Quote "If you build it, they will come". California built it and they came. I also noted that they started with single level TGV's and then mu'ed two as the load grew, then went to double decker TGV's. If the political will was there, the US could do it but that story has been beat to death so I won't go there.
DragomanTwo minor nuances I would like to point out, however. Regarding a long corridor vs. several (possibly contiguous) corridors: Corridors A-B, B-C, and C-D might each be successful each on its own. But A-D can cover these, plus A-C, A-D, and B-D. (Of course, some service might not have to go the full length.) And, even in a 16-18 hour corridor, there need not be any middle-of-the-night stops. Regarding your CHI - DEN example, if you are actually leaving from and going to somewhere near the downtowns, with transit and check-in/security/baggage pick-up times, your "under 3 hours" could actually be closer to 5-6 hours. Still less than 16-18, but little of that 5-6 hours is productive or comfortable. (How much work can you really get done in the cab, or in the security line or while waititng for baggae, or even in that tight little airline seat?)
1. Check my remarks about the problems with a long corridor A-B-C-D.
2. Assuming most traffic is downtown to downtown is true for Europeans and makes the argument stronger for trains in the US. But it ignores the American demographics. For most travelers here, the suburbs are on the origination or destination end or even both.
blue streak 1 oltmannd A business class seat between Philadelphia and Atlanta? I'd try it. Particularly if they'd let me pick the seat. DON: Hope you can give us a ride report.
I may try an Atlanta to B'ham round trip, just for fun.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.