CMStPnPIt's no wonder the Divorce rate is so high in this country. If I had to put up with that in a marriage I would probably shoot myself before the lawyer could even submit papers.
Divorce American style?
Usually, when my parents and I or just myself alone, traveled between New York and Charlotteseville, VA, we attempted to get reservations on the Southerner to avoid the change in Washington. One time when I used the alternative, a PRR unreserved to Washington, and the C&O George Washington to Charlottesville, I explored the GW's consist on the outside before boarding. (This a age 11.) After the train was underway, the conductor came through either to see seat checks or to collect tickets (tickets may have been collected at the head of the staris in the concourse, my memory isn'te clear on this.) I asked if I could go back and just visit the observation car. He said he had no objection, but it was up to the Pullman conductor. He said I could go back into the Pullman section until I found the Pullman conductor and ask him. Which I did and was told it was OK if I only spent a few minutes there before returning to my coach seat. We had already left Alexandria, I spent about five minutes on the back platform, and didn't push my luck more than that before returning to the coach. This was in 1942 or 1943.
As to the designation between the haves and first class and the nots-lower class. it's always been that way to a degree. Movie stars and other celebs who rode the Super Chief, 20th Century and Broadway Limited were treated royally from what I've read. Airlines have always divided classes when I flew, they'd even keep the curtain pulled across first class doorway so we couldn't peek in. Maybe the Legacy could be available for those who don't want to pay extra but are Guest Rewards members with many points.
When my parents and I traveled for free on Dad's pass, we never felt like we were treated less than anyone else, we could still use the diner and dome cars. I did notice the difference on Canadian National Super-Continental, friends and I booked the Daynighter car which had a reclining seat with a larger footrest, cost a a little more than coach but not first class. We went to be seated in diner, they asked our car # and found out their dining car was for first class passengers only, we had to eat in a snack car. I found that very elitist and wrote CN about it when we got home. They did apologize but said that was their policy. The maitre d'had taken our dinner reservations while we waited to board and we didn't hear the call to come to diner and were late. That's when he realized we were not first class, I guess they only announced it in those cars and had to tell us we couldn't eat there. I said that never happened on US trains, anyone could eat in the diner. Never rode VIA but doubt they have that policy. Probably similar to Amtrak with first class getting free meals and others paying.
I saw that when I was there recently to ride the City of NOLA. Did not know much about it and I was traveling first class so I was to the Metropolitan Lounge. A friend had came up to Chicago with me and she was sitting near the Legacy Lounge, she was traveling back to St. L on Lincoln Service that left about an hour before mine. Sounds like a nice idea and perks are similar to the Lounge, but I didn't see any beer or hear anyone talk about it being available at certain times.
Yes, Conrailman, it is a totally separate lounge than first class. Legacy is located right by the Grand Hall where passengers now wait, where the Lounge is located down a side hall. Has a red carpet in front which you can't miss. We did have pics taken on it.
dakotafred Personally, I'm enjoying the morphing of the subject of the new Legacy Club into another rehash of GM and streetcars, a discussion that goes back almost 100 years. To me, it's an example of what the freewheeling Internet is all about. Rave on, brothers! (Per the freewheeling model, those who insist on purity are encouraged to launch another thread on the Legacy Club.)
Personally, I'm enjoying the morphing of the subject of the new Legacy Club into another rehash of GM and streetcars, a discussion that goes back almost 100 years.
To me, it's an example of what the freewheeling Internet is all about. Rave on, brothers! (Per the freewheeling model, those who insist on purity are encouraged to launch another thread on the Legacy Club.)
This does not bother me either. What really gets under my skin is having to repeat myself like three or four times because of readers either skimming posts or just reading the first sentence and presumming the rest. It's no wonder the Divorce rate is so high in this country. If I had to put up with that in a marriage I would probably shoot myself before the lawyer could even submit papers.
That is a very good observation from you. I agree that this is a money making issue but it makes the world go around.
thanks, guys
Either way, beats paint scheme rehashes or a bunch of dull record shots.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Without the introduction of considerable cognitive dissonance, entrenched beliefs are seldom shaken by mere logic or facts.
Again, it was not a conspiracy. I do not have the resources to do the research at the present time. But the fact is that GM did have a meeting on how to expand its market, and the immediate result was the purchase of Chicago Motor Coach, Fifth Avenue Coach Company, and New York Railways. Having successfully brought those under its wing (although it took nine years for GM to be confident that its Yellow Coach buses would be so superior to the rather obsolete streeetcars NY Railways was operating, for the conversion process in New York), all it needed was a simple phonecall from Alfred Sloan to the Fitzgeralds to start the formation of NCL. In the late 30's Boston Elevated and SF's MUNI were buying White buses. Detroit's Dept. of Street Railways was buying Ford Transit buses. The economies of diesel buses started in 1940 or 1941, and the first GM diesel buses went to provide transportation at Army, Navy, and Marine bases, with only a few going to public transit systems until after the war.
Some of the NY publc saw the gasoline GM buses as an improvement over the streetcars, but some felt that the PCCs being introduced into Brooklyn, those that had the opportunity to ride them, were vastly superior. And those that never had that opportunity did have a comparison with some of the lightweight homemade Third Avenue streetcars (really 1920's technology in the 1930's), and Third Avenue did report a rise ridership in their Third and Amsterdam Line when NY Railways converted the Lexington and Lenox Line to buses. But after the New York Railways to New York Omnimbus conversions, it was really Mayor LaGuardia (with Sydney Bingham), not GM, that forced the rest of the conversions in New York City.
Again, my understanding is that the fine was in connection with excluding other bus manufacturers. If there was a spare parts issue, that was in addition. I was President of the NYC-based Electric Railroaders Association, in the 1970's for two years, and it ws during that time that one of the members reported on his research.
Concerning ethics, recently I did receive a report on a Beth Din (Jewish Court of Three Rabbis) on a case where a local candy shop protested the opening, by another Orthodox Jew) of a bake shop directly across the street, complaining about loss of business. The Beth Din concluded that while there was loss of businness, this was because now customers had a choice of both low-scale and high-scale sweet products and that the offering of the two shops were enough different that Jewish economic law was not violated.
I should also point out that no Rabbis (nor Priests or Ministers in my knowlege) have wishes to replace any civil law with religious law, but simply wish to apply religious law when both parties agree. An exception of course, is the recent government attempt to force religious charity health services to violate their religious principles by dispensing products and/or performing specific services.
I also worked for GM, at Electro-Motive, summer 1952. Admittadly the "car-culture" was a bit lower there, but GM's involvement and motivation in NCL's formation was discusssed among us railfan employees and never denied. Note the GM executive's use of the word "largely." Only the idea that it was a conspiracy was denied.
When I was working at GM the GM Executives also said the NCL story was largely a myth and if GM was that on top of things as far as spotting a market or opportunity they would still be a very large company, dominating the market.
I personally think NCL was a conspiracy theory of trail lawyers as a money making venture for their firms in the court system. Railfans buy into it in part because it gives them part of an out in saying the systems might still be around today......if.....so and so.
Fact is most newspapers were openly hostile to Interurbans around the period of their demise and it had an impact on ridership and public support........saying many were unsafe and lobbying the government to shut them down or force costly upgrades on them. Milwaukee's Speedrail (remnants of the TMER & L) after the NRHS or NMRA crash near Hawley road in Milwaukee is a case in point.
I can explain it better in todays politically charged language. The Liberals played a major role in tearing out the streetcar with their screams of safety hazzard and old way of travel that is not modern back in the day and they are still searching for an absolution for their heavy participation in the running of street car companies out of business back then.
daveklepperCertain things that are possible in USA Capitalism that are not approved under religious laws of any of the three monotheistic religions. There, one is not allowed to enter one's competitor's shop or turf (even across an alley) to take away one's competitor's clients.
You'd better look up "interfering with a business relationship" in the Commercial Code before you put too much credence in "USA Capitalism" condoning that.
... In particular, GM, manufacturing buses and cars, would have been prohibited from buying New York Railways (streetcars) in 1926, and on the basis of that success and conversion to buses in 1935-1936, forming National City Lines with Firestone and Texaco. This was not a conspiracy, just sharp business practice. But unethical according to religious law.
Nothing 'sharp' or 'unethical' about it. A 'streetcar' franchise has the responsibility of moving people from one place to another. Should a better, or more efficient, or more flexible, or less irritating form of transportation become available ... or, in the case of strapped-for-cash streetcar lines with perennially little capital-improvement money, become provided by a partner with deeper pockets ... where is the perceived harm in adopting it?
The 'evil' for which GM was tried was, if I remember correctly, sweetheart deals that required more-expensive 'dealer' rates on spare parts and equipment with the official GM brand. That's a very different thing than observing that monocoque, V-drive diesel buses had remarkably many advantages over most streetcars as they existed in the late '30s and afterward, especially where deferred maintenance of the stranded cost of all the infrastructure was a factor, or where any substantial expansion or rerouting of service patterns was contemplated. If I remember correctly, EMD had a somewhat similar approach for parts for quite some time, and didn't there have to be some legal action to open the field up to aftermarket providers?
In my opinion, the real thing that killed so many of the streetcar companies was not exactly automobile improvements, or the increase in 'good roads' to accommodate them, let alone an "Ignition"-style conspiracy of the oil, rubber, steel, and so forth interests with the automobile manufacturer/dealer combines. What did it was the combination of establishing 'new car every year' social preferences, combined with decreasing cost for the newer and better models (as I believe was typical even into the 1930s) and better and better reliability ... this being substantially before the Vance Packard 'planned product obsolescence' business hit full swing in the postwar period (a good, if blood-pressure-raising, reference there being 'The Insolent Chariots').
The problem was what happened to all those reliable cars entering the 'used' market, at essentially fire-sale pricing, and how that in turn enabled many working or 'lower-middle-class' families to own or share automobiles. THOSE people were much more likely to be streetcar customers by the end of the 1920s.
I do concur that forcing power companies to divest themselves of electric railroads was shortsighted and precisely wrong when factoring in the unintended consequences. Very few entities who were NOT regulated electrical-generating utilities would find electric railroads of any particular sort an attractive long-term investment; your basic street railway company with heavy stranded costs in DC power generation would have increasingly little competitive advantage either in selling that power to alternative users or to compete with diesel bus economies ... once the capital costs of the diesel buses had been accommodated. And it is precisely the making of the capital costing more 'affordable' that Sloan's GM could offer a combine like NCL...
schlimm daveklepper If power companies were not forced to sell, possibly more streetcar lines and even possibly some interurbans might have survived longer. Doubtful. In the period 40s-60s, people turned away from most interurbans, even the good ones. The companies, faced with increasing labor costs and decreased revenue, could not make a profit.
daveklepper If power companies were not forced to sell, possibly more streetcar lines and even possibly some interurbans might have survived longer.
Doubtful. In the period 40s-60s, people turned away from most interurbans, even the good ones. The companies, faced with increasing labor costs and decreased revenue, could not make a profit.
Folks ask about the rural interurbans being built parallel to steam roads. The fact is that the interurbans were a direct attack on the steam road's business. The problem was that the business they attracted, very successfully for a short period, was the short haul business. This was the least profitable and most susseptable to diversion traffic the steam roads had. It's not surprising in that context that the interurban peak was so short lived, the highway did divert it.
daveklepper You are in no position to prove that it was not Alfred Sloan's idea initially, with the Fitsgerads contacted by him.
You are in no position to prove that it was not Alfred Sloan's idea initially, with the Fitsgerads contacted by him.
And I guess you are? You're asking me to prove the negative, that something didn't happen?
There as been considerable research on the topic, none of which supports the GM control theory. The fact that the Fitzgeralds formed NCL several years before GM's finanical involvement sort of flies against the Sloan idea initially. I know of no objective researcher that supports that contention. And I can tell you that John F Due co-author of the landmark book on interurbans has described the GM theory as a bunch of BS. (I know him personally as I took several of his courses on Transport Economics and he was a member of my PhD committee). I'll hook you up with a retired UP regulatory lawyer who's pet peve is folks who believe the conspiracy and he'll give you a 2 hour lecture on all the things that are wrong with it. (Had to endure the lecture one evening even though I kept telling him "Bob I'm on your side here").
I have reviewed all of NCL's annual reports up to '68, even down to their evolution into a transit management company and Denver Chicago truck lines. So yes I think I know a bit about it! Your references?
daveklepperIf power companies were not forced to sell, possibly more streetcar lines and even possibly some interurbans might have survived longer.
I also used to believe that myth, but someone/several on here gave convincing evidence to the contrary a few years ago.
You are in no position to prove that it was not Alfred Sloan's idea initially, with the Fitsgerads contacted by him. The 1926 takeover of New York Railwys indicates that it probably was. But again, it was not a conspiracy, and the fine that was levied after WWII was for excluding other bus manufacturers, not for converting from rail to rubber.
I have read at least one account, that a meeting was held at GM before the NY Railways purchase where the discussion was on various meanns to increse business.
But note the political climate. GM lobbied legislation passed that means highway taxes, even state highway taxes, could only be used for highway purposes, and the ICC's protection of trucking. Why would the Justice Department see monopolistic practice in power companies owning street railways and not in a bus manufacturer owning a street railway? Does that seem fair?
If power companies were not forced to sell, possibly more streetcar lines and even possibly some interurbans might have survived longer.
daveklepper In particular, GM, manufacturing buses and cars, would have been prohibited from buying New York Railways (streetcars) in 1926, and on the basis of that success and conversion to buses in 1935-1936, forming National City Lines with Firestone and Texaco.
In particular, GM, manufacturing buses and cars, would have been prohibited from buying New York Railways (streetcars) in 1926, and on the basis of that success and conversion to buses in 1935-1936, forming National City Lines with Firestone and Texaco.
It has been pointed out to you before that GM forming NCL is a myth. It was formed by the Fitzgerald brothers to take over failing street railway companies and operate them as profitable bus based privately owned city transit systems. The brothers did seek capital from some of their suppliers in the form of prefered stock, but of course that has no voting power. This fact has been proven over and over yet some insist on perpetuating the myth.
Now back to the topic.
If equality is the main goal, then a Socialist economy is the ticket. But North America in general has had a capitalist economy, based on individual initialtive and expectation of reward. Such a system is possible with the addition of a floor netting that prevents the poor from starving and going naked and unhoused. But too much welfair with the taxes that it imposess drives initiative away. So the question is the right balance. A welfair state? In general, the capitalist sysem has proven to provide a higher standard of living for the general population than the Socialist system. (Bernie Sanders, are you listening?)
Certain things that are possible in USA Capitalism that are not approved under religious laws of any of the three monotheistic religions. There, one is not allowed to enter one's competitor's shop or turf (even across an alley) to take away one's competitor's clients. In particular, GM, manufacturing buses and cars, would have been prohibited from buying New York Railways (streetcars) in 1926, and on the basis of that success and conversion to buses in 1935-1936, forming National City Lines with Firestone and Texaco. This was not a conspiracy, just sharp business practice. But unethical according to religious law. (Yes, I know, GM had scads of Jews on their payrole in this specific business.)
CMStPnPI have no problem making $20-30,000 a year extra on the NYSE each year......sometimes more.
It takes money to make money. One doesn't make $20-30K on investments each year unless you have a decent sum available to play with. A lot of folks live paycheck to paycheck. The top 10% hold 75% of the wealth while the bottom 90% hold 73% of all debt. [The top 1% hold 33-42% of all wealth in the US]
schlimm1. I don't know about NKPGuy, but I never supported Sanders. I am also a believer in the form of capitalism that works best - the type in which wealth and income inequalities are much less than now.
My personal belief is that income and wealth are self imposed limitations to a degree. A lot of folks can easily increase either with a little education but most won't lift a finger because it is easier to remain status quo and blame someone else.
I have no problem making $20-30,000 a year extra on the NYSE each year......sometimes more. I try to coach others on how I do it but they always walk away when they see the risk before I get to the managing risk part of the story. Leading me to conclusion #3456 People want to make more money but in addition to it being effortless on their part also want it to be risk free and like a lottery drawing. Which leads me to conclusion #3457, some folks accept the reality they are in of the existing capitalist system, while others dream of a reality that will never be on this earth of a capitalist system that rains money for no effort and no risk.
I have no problem with that, but still favor luxury for those that can afford it while making life for the worst-off financially better continually.
Hotels used to have day rates near the Train Stations so that passengers and rr crewman could take snoozes between trains.
What is the nearest place to Union Station to Buy your own beer to go?
dakotafredNKPGuy and Schlimm have been drinking too much out of the Bernie Sanders bottle (Scotch or otherwise). This country has never been about "making everybody equal."
1. I don't know about NKPGuy, but I never supported Sanders. I am also a believer in the form of capitalism that works best - the type in which wealth and income inequalities are much less than now.
2. The history of the United States has been one of attempts towards reducing inequality, starting with this famous phrase:"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Since then, we have seen the end of slavery, enfranchisement of women, elimination of property ownership to vote, legalization of collective bargaining (under assault in some places), etc. Of course these gains are constantly being attacked by elitist forces pretending to be the friends of the middle class, which only grew because of gains in equality in the 20th century. Without enhanced equality, "equal opportunity" is an empty phrase.
The division between coach and Pullman can hardly be called un-American!
When it comes to railroading, possibly America invented this division.
Or did England institute 1st, 2nd, and 3rd class right away?
(2nd was dropped, with 1st and 3rd remaining.)
In a perfect world, yes, everyone would travel Pullman, but possibly instead of denying Pullman, let us all try to work for a more perfect world, and Pullman may help those of us who can afford it to work more efficiently and productively to that end.
They did have at least one Chicago Bears Fan in the Legacy Club when I was there. Easily identifiable.........4XL sized Gym shorts, T-Shirt, Baseball Cap and a Beer Gut that appeared it might be in competition in carrying volume with the Exxon Valdez.
Remember that these extra amenities are moving Amtrak to self sufficiency along with the additional room rental revenue and opening up more of CUS.
There are also a couple of good bars. Who was it who called the bar "the poor man's club"?
If you do not want to spend $20.00 but still want to relax or go shopping while waiting for your first class or business class train, there is still the Metropolitan Lounge. https://www.amtrak.com/station-lounges (highlight it and press "Enter" to reach the site.
However, if you are of the plebian class and want the amenities, you may pay your $20.00 and use the Club.
Johnny
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.