I have relatively little experience with sleeping cars so far ( five nights, all on Superliners ), but I have noticed that I seem to fall asleep quicker in a roomette bed ( which is laid out lengthwise to the direction of travel ) than in the bedrooms ( where the bed is laid out transversely ). This seems to be borne out by the research cited here: https://gizmodo.com/even-adults-sleep-better-after-being-rocked-to-sleep-1832028592
Are there any opinions from more experienced rail travellers?
In a roomette it always feels to me as if I'm aboard a luge: travelling hell bent for leather feet first into the unknown. In a bedroom I don't feel that way, plus the lower bunk is noticeably wider than those in a roomette, thus making sleeping in any position more comfortable. In addition, I can get up to use the restroom in the middle of the night without having to open my room's door. Thus I sleep better in a bedroom.
Imagine a six axle heavyweight and impeccably groomed passenger track.
I'll never be able to imagine the previous post, but I've never had a problem sleeping in a Superliner bedroom, either bunk. I've managed to sleep through Spokane twice on the westbound "Empire Builder".
MiningmanImagine a six axle heavyweight and impeccably groomed passenger track.
NYC has always promoted its 'Water Level Route' - in a manner to infer that it is level. For water to flow anywhere there is a grade involved as water flows from higher areas to lower areas - there is always a grade involved. What NYC did was get the lowest elevation in crossing the mountains.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I have slept through Spokane in both directions, both going to/from Seattle and to/from Portland. Perhaps the crew there know something about switching cars?
It seems that every time I was riding when cars were added to #5 in Denver it took three or four tries before the added cars were coupled. At least the work was done in the day time.
Johnny
Regarding the five NYC trains, were there any discernable differences between them? I've always thought that the Century was top-of-the-line like the Super Chief, but what did the other trains offer? More stops? Different routes? Different amenities? I assume the Michigan Central trains went to Chicago via Detroit.
A significant factor is where your roomette or bedroom is located within the car. If you are near the center of the car any switching or normal stops are mitigated. If you are over the wheels you both hear and feel any change more. Other than the location within the car I had no preference as to the bed position.
54light15-- NYC Timetable 1932 including Michigan Central Trains
http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/ptt/images/tt-0432.pdf
Thanks, Miningman- amazing, the level of service back then.
I have been on both -bedroom and roomette, find I can sleep better in a bedroom because the bounce is only under my feet not my whole body. But it is cheaper in a roomette, which I have only slept in on City of NOLA and that roadbed is rougher than I have ever been on. My sleeper guy one time told me CN does not keep up the tracks as well as IC did and they moved a section farther west and probably more into the Delta area, which causes the ground to shift. I have slept in the older Pullman bedroom with 2 of us on lower level and one above, and also on CP Canadian in the lower berth with curtains. Seemed to do ok on that trip, not as bumpy as NOLA train. And one thing that has kept me awake on NOLA is the sleeper cars being right behind the engine instead of the rear of train. Not sure why, as when I rode Builder, Starlight and Chief a few years ago they were on the rear. And I have heard Amtrak now has all the sleepers at the front, I will be riding their CZ in May on way to Promontory celebration, so will find out. My friends and I are doing coach but will see where sleeper cars are. This will be my first trip on Amtrak overnight in a coach, rode plenty of them with parents. Never slept much as people were constantly roaming around going for a smoke in lounge or smoker car and noise when conductor came thru yelling stops,no PA system in those days. In the roomette I usually sleep with my head toward the engine as I feel that is less bumpy and I will bring earplugs the next time I go to NOLA.
My recent experiences with Superliner and Viewliner sleepers is that now all of the Superliner sleepers are at the headend because the car that has both public roomettes and on board service crew accomomdations, (though, 3 1/2 years ago, I had a roomette in that car and had to walk through the coaches to get to the diner) along with a lounge from the crew has an entry to the baggage car whch is crarried at the headend of the train. And, the baggage cars on trains with Viewliners is on the very rear, with the sleepers directly in front of them.
However, because the trains with two destinations at one end (Empire Builder, Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle, and Lake Shore Limited) , because they are split/joined along the way have their own arrangements so as to reduce the switching necessary.
Remember the SIlver Meteor and the Silver Star, which had both coaches and Pullmans switched in Wildwood--the Miami Pullmans were at the head end.
(I had wondered where all these silly/stupid quotes came from!) My two cents gained from doing sleepers starting with Springfield-Framingham in 1979 (long story), then "Federal" slumbercoaches, then lower/upper berths on the Atlantic Ltd, Roomettes on the "Federal", some private cars Cimarron River, etc. and a Liegewagen Leipzig-Duesseldorf; finally a Superliner roomette on the Capitol DC-Chicago (2005). Except for the Liegewagen (1991) and a bedroom round trip Boston-DC in 1987 all others parallel rather than transverse to the rails. Sleeping seemed slightly better parallel and no difference whether head- or feet-forward. However, parallel sleeping beside a window DOES put one at risk of derailment danger; my Dad was riding in a sleeper of PRR's Golden Triangle when it derailed at Warsaw IN in 1947; his was the only car that overturned and slid on the RoW with ballast coming up through the shattered windown until the car stopped. His two fears he told me were that a rail might come through and that another train would hit the wreckage. At 101 he is still going strong.
Did anyone else ever think that the NYC took the coward's way out and fled away from the mountains? After 3 hours and 142 miles you were farther from Chicago than when you left Grand Central! The PRR manfully and heroicly hit the Alleghenies head-on and conquered them. The B&O just got lost in them and the Erie took its time and had fun after its difficult 88 miles to Port Jervis.
NYC picked the smart route. Mountain grades are a expensive, dangerous pain to construct and operate on and a low-grade route's extra miles are more than made up for with lower operating costs and higher speeds.
Nothing cowardly about that!
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Samuel JohnstonDid anyone else ever think that the NYC took the coward's way out and fled away from the mountains?
They took the coward's flight away from the mountains by cravenly abandoning the South Pennsylvania after that little meeting on the Corsair...
Not that it would gained them much, if anything, of a speed advantage to Chicago.
Actually it's not hard to "imagine" the previous post as there are a number of six axle heavyweight private cars out there for charter. I've ridden on a friends to a number of the annual AAPRCO conventions although with Amtrak now banning all private trains no AAPRCO convention train anymore. The real problem as another poster mentioned is that track maintenance seems to be at an all time low. Some years ago aboard a regular Amtrak train on the water level route I got chatting with a deadheading Amtrak engineer and he told me that when CSX took over the water level route from Conrail that they told the formerly Conrail maintenance forces that they were maintaining the track to too high a level. Based on the bumpiness of the ride I had to agree with this assessment.
OvermodThey took the coward's flight away from the mountains by cravenly abandoning the South Pennsylvania after that little meeting on the Corsair...
I was astonished just a few years ago to read from a reputable, scholarly source, that this anecdote might be a case of an urban legend, that, in fact, there is no evidence that JP Morgan worked out a deal with the PRR & NYC. I'm sorry, I can't think of the source at this moment; perhaps someone else can search this out. But something which I thought was a fact, and indeed told to many classes of my students, may very well not be true at all.
I haven't read (yet) Ron Chernow's House of Morgan, but I'll wager the answer to this question is in it.
Yes, the Michigan Central trains went through southern Ontario--the shortest route from Buffalo to Detroit. That line is now abandoned.
Samuel Johnston Did anyone else ever think that the NYC took the coward's way out and fled away from the mountains? After 3 hours and 142 miles you were farther from Chicago than when you left Grand Central! The PRR manfully and heroicly hit the Alleghenies head-on and conquered them. The B&O just got lost in them and the Erie took its time and had fun after its difficult 88 miles to Port Jervis.
The NYC and PRR were built more for local traffic. After they expanded west, the NYC simply capitalized on their water level grade advantage.
Midland Mike is right. The line from New York City to Buffalo was composed of several different roads that were built to connect two or more places that were close together; there was no plan to build one road from New York City to Buffalo.
MidlandMike Samuel Johnston Did anyone else ever think that the NYC took the coward's way out and fled away from the mountains? After 3 hours and 142 miles you were farther from Chicago than when you left Grand Central! The PRR manfully and heroicly hit the Alleghenies head-on and conquered them. The B&O just got lost in them and the Erie took its time and had fun after its difficult 88 miles to Port Jervis. The NYC and PRR were built more for local traffic. After they expanded west, the NYC simply capitalized on their water level grade advantage.
All of the existing Class1's and the 'Classic Era Class 1's' are made up of myirid smaller railroads - both paper and real - that were chartered and built during the 19th Century and early 20th Century to enhance local communities business positions.
Was able to view a document that gave the 'family tree' of the carriers that comprised the Chessie System Railroads at the time Chessie merged with Seaboard Coast Line to form CSX. There were 300+ companies listed in the Chessie family tree. Virtually ALL existing carriers have similar family trees.
The closest thing to a trans-continental vision was the UP + CP that actually built the first transcon. However, the UP of today is made up of a multitude of pre-existing companies that have been bought/merged into UP to capture the business UP felt were in its own best interests.
ORNHOOAre there any opinions from more experienced rail travellers?
zardozI could do my best sleeping slouched in the chair of a SD40-2, feet up on the heater, with the baseboard heater keeping my shoulder, side window, and foil-wrapped sandwich warm.
The new heaters we have with the PTC screens aren't as good. Have to be careful you don't kick the screen. But on the plus side, you can adjust the direction of the vents for optimum glove drying power.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.