I wanted to start a thread regarding design likes, suggestions, and complaints regarding the present Viewliner design as Amtrak prepares to build new models. My personal experiences on the Viewliners has generally been positive, but to discuss with other passengers their ideas and observations may prove to be interesting. So here goes:
The basic car design is great. The dual sliding end doors work well. The flared car side offers a little additional elbow room in the bedrooms and creates a more open walkway in the aisles. With the additional windows up above, the cars are not claustrophobic at all but very bright and airy.
The surface materials are clean, modern, and bright. The headroom is exceptional, and the high storage areas are satisfactory but make it difficult to get heavy baggage stored.
The many windows in the bedrooms are most welcome. Both the upper/lower combo on the outer wall and the additional aisle-side ones create a very pleasant environment.
The folding table is sturdy and works well, but the cup holders need to be deeper. The heating/cooling system could work better in a few cars I was in. The sliding vents along the window were stuck open in one car I rode.
The newer swiveling folding chair attached to the wall is much better than the old folding chair that stores under the sofa.
The music system never worked as far as I know. A working music system would be cool and a flat screen TV for news and movies would be awesome.
The three angle mirror is good. The soap indents on the sink are too small for the bars of soap provided. There is also a liquid soap dispenser that seems to function well, so they could eliminate the soap indents for a cleaner smoother countertop look.
The tissue dispenser is never used. There was always a box of tissues on the windowsill, and the trash receptacle needs improvement. It often has a garbage bag hanging out of the slot and looks messy.
There is no convenient place to put change, keys, or other small loose items when the room is setup for daytime use. The upper cabinet to the right of the mirror has flat shelves and the bottom shelve actually has a bottom edge that angles DOWN so that items placed there fall out when you open the door. I don’t understand that design at all! There should be raised lips on the shelves that hold small items better.
The “Iced Water” feature is probably unnecessary since the advent of bottled water which is amply provided. A small ice bucket and a holder would be very nice. This would eliminate the “Iced Water” feature and its service and maintenance.
In-car self-serve coffee, bottled water, and ice is a great convenience.
The lighting is generally well done, ample, and offers various levels of illumination including personal reading lights.
The door lock mechanism is simple, easy to use, and works well.
The ladder takes up valuable space and rattles all night long. Can a more clever design eliminate the need for a ladder?
The sofa should recline and have a leg rest. At least the half next to the window if there is not enough clearance for the side that faces the bathroom wall.
The bathroom/shower design is okay. However, the showerhead often leaks onto the floor, not fun when you have to use the restroom and don’t want to get your socks wet. Dispensers for liquid shampoo, conditioner, and body wash would be more “First Class”. The small roll of toilet paper behind the sliding plastic door could be improved somehow. Maybe the sink should be inside instead of outside? How about if the sink was integrated into the door? You could swing the door out and use it outside, or close the door and use it inside. This would free up the outer wall for the addition of a flat screen TV that would face the sofa. If possible, satellite TV and on-demand movies would be great.
The “Suite” sliding door violently rattled all night long and kept us awake on one trip. I wonder how often Amtrak actually sell “Suites”? Also there is a little loss of privacy with other passengers on the other side of a very thin door. Should that feature be eliminated?
And finally a comment on Amtrak sleeper procedures. In the daytime setup of the bedrooms, clean white pillows are placed on the sofa and they can be arranged to offer a very comfortable sitting position. However, it has always bothered me that we are expected to sleep on and place our faces on the same pillows that have been rubbing on the sofa that every passenger before us has rubbed their butts (and probably their shoes) on. This isn’t sanitary and Amtrak should have a pillow cover on these for daytime use which can be removed when the beds are made up at night.
So anyone interested, please add your Viewliner comments below.
The first time that we rode in a Viewliner, I was astounded that there was no place to stow baggage that could not be fitted into a bedroom. As I recall, most of the lightweight sleepers had such a place.
How do you quiet a rattling ladder? I cushioned it with a towel. How do you stop the partition from rattling (a Superliner fault, also)? with anything that you can stuff between the partition itself and the wall.
Johnny
The Mattresses on the old 10-6 sleepers were thicker and the sheets were crisper. Amtrak had the Viewliners designed by committee something I've always found leads to failure. The 10-6s had a better ride and from what I understand the trucks in the old cars were easier to maintain and less costly. My personal view is I really wish they would look for a new design. I see no reason the new double deck NJT cars cannot be built as sleepers and Diner-Lounges giving more bang for the buck in the same car length and able to negotiate all eastern routes.
Al - in - Stockton
passengerfanThe Mattresses on the old 10-6 sleepers were thicker and the sheets were crisper. Amtrak had the Viewliners designed by committee something I've always found leads to failure.
And, Al, those Pullman mattresses were real mattresses with springs in them. Granted, except for my last year in graduate school, I did not sleep on an innerspring mattress regularly until after I married, and we bought a new bed. They are more comfortable than the pads Amtrak uses (at least, Amtrak does not use corn-shuck mattresses). As to the sheets, I really prefer the feel of the old cotton sheets to that of the synthetic fiber sheets.
A question: how many who have read this thread have slept in a Viewliner at least once (we have slept in a bedroom twice and "roomettes" twice; the first time we had one "roomette" and the second time we each had a one)?
Deggesty passengerfanThe Mattresses on the old 10-6 sleepers were thicker and the sheets were crisper. Amtrak had the Viewliners designed by committee something I've always found leads to failure. And, Al, those Pullman mattresses were real mattresses with springs in them. Granted, except for my last year in graduate school, I did not sleep on an innerspring mattress regularly until after I married, and we bought a new bed. They are more comfortable than the pads Amtrak uses (at least, Amtrak does not use corn-shuck mattresses). As to the sheets, I really prefer the feel of the old cotton sheets to that of the synthetic fiber sheets. A question: how many who have read this thread have slept in a Viewliner at least once (we have slept in a bedroom twice and "roomettes" twice; the first time we had one "roomette" and the second time we each had a one)? Johnny
And when tax season finally gets over October 15, 2009 and I finally have a little more free time I plan on going east to purposely ride the NJT ACES trains and get a first hand opinion of them.
One thing I've noticed with both the Viewliners and Superliner Sleepers is the ratio of Bedrooms to Roomettes. The times I've tried to book a train, I noticed the Bedrooms sell out far in advance of the Roomettes. When I rode, I noticed there were several empty Roomettes, but rarely an empty Bedroom. I'm not sure if the design allows for easy change out from Roomettes to Bedrooms. The Bedroom takes up about twice as much car floor space as a Roomette, but the additional fare is about twice as much, so the net income will be about the same if all spaces are filled. If my few observations are indicative of the average fill of the cars, they'd come out ahead with more Bedrooms available.
I agree with a lot of what you say here. My original question stems from the fact that Amtrak is building new Viewliners and I wanted to get other riders' opinions about the present design.
As far as using NJT type cars as low-profile Superliners, I feel that would be the most efficient design possible. Even more so if Amtrak designed a car with one end with a mid-level entrance (as the current NJT design which is necessary due to platform variations around the system) and the other end with a second level diaphragm (as in the current Superliners). This would create a car with a mid-level entrance leading to a dead-end lower level and a pass through upper level. Cars could be arranged in pairs: coach/bag-coach, coach-coach, lounge-diner, sleeper-sleeper, etc.
Certainly low-profile Superliner coaches and coach/baggages would work fine even if an entrance-level luggage rack was necessary to hold larger pieces if the overhead racks are too shallow. Low-profile Superliner diners would work well with the kitchen below and the table sitting above, and double-deck lounges should be no problem.
Sleepers would probably be the most challenging perhaps, but doable with some creative design work. I would think that there would be no overhead bunks in most rooms, but a couple on the middle-level at the entrance (such as an ADA room) could have overhead bunks. The rest would probably have just lower beds, but there would be the possibility of a big "Family Room" at the dead-end of the lower level (something missing in the Viewliner configuration). I would think such a design would have more rooms than a Viewliner, but might have less actual beds (since overhead bunks might not be possible). However assuming that Amtrak doesn't sell out every bed on every Viewliner, the bottom line might still be better. Lower beds in Amtrak bedrooms can hold two people.
The bottom line is a low-profile double-deck car shell is about as efficient and cost-effective a design as Amtrak can utilize and certainly should be explored.
TomDiehl One thing I've noticed with both the Viewliners and Superliner Sleepers is the ratio of Bedrooms to Roomettes. The times I've tried to book a train, I noticed the Bedrooms sell out far in advance of the Roomettes. When I rode, I noticed there were several empty Roomettes, but rarely an empty Bedroom. I'm not sure if the design allows for easy change out from Roomettes to Bedrooms. The Bedroom takes up about twice as much car floor space as a Roomette, but the additional fare is about twice as much, so the net income will be about the same if all spaces are filled. If my few observations are indicative of the average fill of the cars, they'd come out ahead with more Bedrooms available.
I wonder why it was decided that two, plus the "accessible" bedrooms was deemed sufficient. A least one more bedroom, at the expense of two roomettes, would probably be sold. I did not check the occupancy of the roomettes when we went from Washington to Chicago this year, but all three bedrooms were occupied.
BostonTrainGuy As far as using NJT type cars as low-profile Superliners, I feel that would be the most efficient design possible. Even more so if Amtrak designed a car with one end with a mid-level entrance (as the current NJT design which is necessary due to platform variations around the system) and the other end with a second level diaphragm (as in the current Superliners). This would create a car with a mid-level entrance leading to a dead-end lower level and a pass through upper level. Cars could be arranged in pairs: coach/bag-coach, coach-coach, lounge-diner, sleeper-sleeper, etc.
As much as I like your suggestion it worries me that we will get the " it hasn't been invented here at AMTRAK". I hope not but the cutback of capital funds by Congress does not bode well. Anyone know how long its been since the California cars were first proposed and now finally they seem to be the choice of AMTRAK for the midwest corridors.??
blue streak 1 BostonTrainGuy As far as using NJT type cars as low-profile Superliners, I feel that would be the most efficient design possible. Even more so if Amtrak designed a car with one end with a mid-level entrance (as the current NJT design which is necessary due to platform variations around the system) and the other end with a second level diaphragm (as in the current Superliners). This would create a car with a mid-level entrance leading to a dead-end lower level and a pass through upper level. Cars could be arranged in pairs: coach/bag-coach, coach-coach, lounge-diner, sleeper-sleeper, etc. As much as I like your suggestion it worries me that we will get the " it hasn't been invented here at AMTRAK". I hope not but the cutback of capital funds by Congress does not bode well. Anyone know how long its been since the California cars were first proposed and now finally they seem to be the choice of AMTRAK for the midwest corridors.??
As to your comment about it hasn't been invented here at Amtrak, that is precisely what is wrong with the Viewliners they were invented by Amtrak employees trying to justify there jobs to there bosses and as the old saying goes you get what you pay for. I still will stick by my earlier comment that Amtrak needs to be looking at the NJT cars for all eastern long distance services. I still think they would be a better investment of taxpayer money then additional Viewliners. Probably the biggest advantage to these cars is if ridership improves Amtrak will not have to double station stops or increase train lengths by that much for a given amount of passengers. They certainly make more sense than additional Viewliners for that reason alone.
Let me begin by saying that I'd like to compare the Viewliners with their predecessors, the "Heritage" sleepers Amtrak inherited from the railroads, built by Pullman-Standard, or whomever, largely in the 1950's. Let me state it here, from untold hours of personal experience in both types of cars: In every way, the Viewliners are inferior to the Heritage fleet.
If we start with the door on the Heritage fleet cars, we'll notice it's solid and has a full length mirror on the inside. Some V's have a shade that lifts up and down, not too bad of an idea. Most, however, have a curtain which seldom stays in place, is not opaque, and is very off-putting for those desiring privacy, especially women. Those males in Viewliner roomettes who wish to urinate have non-working curtains which allow them to smile at those passing in the aisle while they attend to nature's call.
Especially in the bedrooms, the sinks are intolerable compared with the Heritage sinks. Pullman-Standard used stainless steel fold-down sinks that lowered over the toilet, provided generous, unimpeded space above the sink to really wash and shave, and emptied in a flash when lifted up. The sinks on the V's are the worst imaginable; one cannot wash even one's hands without dripping water, often lots of water, onto the carpeted floor, the most walked-on surface in the room. The sink would be inadequate in size for a small child, let alone an adult; some take hours to empty. When standing upright one always bangs one's head on the mirrored arrangement over the sink.
The suggestion of a flat screen TV made me smile. These V's had them when new! They lasted about two weeks. This failed system must have cost a lot to install. Passengers today bring their own media entertainment; no need for Amtrak to provide expensive, instantly out-dated, non-working equipment.
The Talgo train I rode overnight in France and Spain this spring provided 3 broad plates which folded down from the wall for passengers to easily hoist themselves into the upper bunks. Amtrak's ladders not only rattle all night no matter where they are put, they are downright dangerous for people to use. It's easy to fall, or pull a muscle, or simply get hurt, in the V bedrooms. Also, when the lower bunk is down one's head hits the armrest; pillows over it help only a bit.
The Heritage car had great lights and togle switiches, easy to find and use in the dark. The V's, when new, had illuminated light switches that lit up the room, there were so many of them. Today, the illuminated light switches are burned out, not replaced, and trying to put the correct light on in the dark is a real adventure. The print on the switches themselves is way too small for an aging population.
The V's are wearing out fast, perhaps twice as fast as the Heritage fleet did. Everything rattles, no two bathroom door locks are the same, and the baggage areas require enormous effort to put suitcases in to.
The dead space where the coffee makers used to be reminds me of how silly an idea that was. The shower for the roomette folks is a good idea, though seldom used from my observation, and in the bedrooms the lower bunk is wider, but that's about it. And don't get me started about how much I miss the open Dutch doors when riding. The little windows that open in the V's take a lot of the fun out of riding for a hardy railfan!
I recently visited a World War II submarine on Cleveland's lakefront. It was immediately recognizable to me: it's interiors were largely fitted out by Pullman-Standard, or, in other words, the subs that helped our sailors win WW2 were built by the same people who built our passenger cars later. Both worked beautifully. What I'm saying is this:
Want the best idea for new passenger sleepers? Copy the Heritage fleet exactly!
NKP guy Let me begin by saying that I'd like to compare the Viewliners with their predecessors, the "Heritage" sleepers Amtrak inherited from the railroads, built by Pullman-Standard, or whomever, largely in the 1950's. Let me state it here, from untold hours of personal experience in both types of cars: In every way, the Viewliners are inferior to the Heritage fleet. If we start with the door on the Heritage fleet cars, we'll notice it's solid and has a full length mirror on the inside. Some V's have a shade that lifts up and down, not too bad of an idea. Most, however, have a curtain which seldom stays in place, is not opaque, and is very off-putting for those desiring privacy, especially women. Those males in Viewliner roomettes who wish to urinate have non-working curtains which allow them to smile at those passing in the aisle while they attend to nature's call. Especially in the bedrooms, the sinks are intolerable compared with the Heritage sinks. Pullman-Standard used stainless steel fold-down sinks that lowered over the toilet, provided generous, unimpeded space above the sink to really wash and shave, and emptied in a flash when lifted up. The sinks on the V's are the worst imaginable; one cannot wash even one's hands without dripping water, often lots of water, onto the carpeted floor, the most walked-on surface in the room. The sink would be inadequate in size for a small child, let alone an adult; some take hours to empty. When standing upright one always bangs one's head on the mirrored arrangement over the sink. The suggestion of a flat screen TV made me smile. These V's had them when new! They lasted about two weeks. This failed system must have cost a lot to install. Passengers today bring their own media entertainment; no need for Amtrak to provide expensive, instantly out-dated, non-working equipment. The Talgo train I rode overnight in France and Spain this spring provided 3 broad plates which folded down from the wall for passengers to easily hoist themselves into the upper bunks. Amtrak's ladders not only rattle all night no matter where they are put, they are downright dangerous for people to use. It's easy to fall, or pull a muscle, or simply get hurt, in the V bedrooms. Also, when the lower bunk is down one's head hits the armrest; pillows over it help only a bit. The Heritage car had great lights and togle switiches, easy to find and use in the dark. The V's, when new, had illuminated light switches that lit up the room, there were so many of them. Today, the illuminated light switches are burned out, not replaced, and trying to put the correct light on in the dark is a real adventure. The print on the switches themselves is way too small for an aging population. The V's are wearing out fast, perhaps twice as fast as the Heritage fleet did. Everything rattles, no two bathroom door locks are the same, and the baggage areas require enormous effort to put suitcases in to. The dead space where the coffee makers used to be reminds me of how silly an idea that was. The shower for the roomette folks is a good idea, though seldom used from my observation, and in the bedrooms the lower bunk is wider, but that's about it. And don't get me started about how much I miss the open Dutch doors when riding. The little windows that open in the V's take a lot of the fun out of riding for a hardy railfan! I recently visited a World War II submarine on Cleveland's lakefront. It was immediately recognizable to me: it's interiors were largely fitted out by Pullman-Standard, or, in other words, the subs that helped our sailors win WW2 were built by the same people who built our passenger cars later. Both worked beautifully. What I'm saying is this: Want the best idea for new passenger sleepers? Copy the Heritage fleet exactly!
Amtrak chose to take on a very costly project instead (Viewliners) and cost overruns in production forced the original numbers to be cut drastically. On one of my recent trips east I had the pleasure of eating in one of the former North Coast Limited Dining cars and inspite of its age the old girl still beats anything Amtrak has built.
I don't know why Amtrak has always tried to reinvent the wheel instead of going with the tried and true. Its absolutely rediculous that Amtraks Duplex Roomettes do not have toilet facilities in them. There are modern plumbing systems available that could handle Amtraks needs and mot have the troubles they have on the Superliners. I can't remember the last time I took a trip on a Superliner that there was not toilets shut down in one or more cars. And the only train that had a knowledgeble enough crew to fix the problem was on the Empire Builder.
The Heritage fleet was scrapped twenty five years at least two soon. It would have been far cheaper to rebuild the heritage fleet by spending a little then the sums that were spent on the Viewliners. Amtrak needs to give up on these rolling pieces of junk and look to the past (Heritage) for there next round of new car purchases or look to the NJT cars. I personally believe that the future of eastern trains shold be along the lines of the NJT cars not additional Viewliners. What the heck they are spending taxpayer money (yours and mine) without regard to what is really needed. I have yet to travel on a Viewliner without passengers grumbling about something regarding those cars. In fact if Amtrak insist's on purchasing additional Viewliners then my eastern travels east of Chicago and New Orleans will be by air. I do enjoy the Superliners but feel there is even room for improvement there. For coach travel I ride the California cars frequently and have never had anything but an enjoyable trip. These are some of the best cars around in my opinion.
And finally if we can't have NJT type cars in the east then lets dust off the plans of the former Budd 10-6 sleepers and 48 seat dining cars and build them. But no more Viewliner junk.
I forgot to mention one of my biggest complaints about the Viewliner bedroom. When the bed is set up, you can't stand in front of and use the sink. Another reason to put the sink inside of the bathroom.
passengerfan If Canadian HEP equipped Budd cars can be enviromentally friendly no right of way dumping of waste
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
BostonTrainGuyI forgot to mention one of my biggest complaints about the Viewliner bedroom. When the bed is set up, you can't stand in front of and use the sink. Another reason to put the sink inside of the bathroom
The same fault exists in the Superliner bedroom. I hadn't thought of this, but the Renaissance bedrooms have one redeeming feature; you can use the basin when the berths are down.
At a meeting for the new "Viewliner 2" order of 130 cars on July 23-24, interested parties included Alstom, Kawasaki, Nippon Sharyo, Sumitomo, CAF, and Bombardier.
Okay, so both Kawasaki and Bombardier are interested in this bid. How about if they both submit bids for the "Viewliner 2" cars as requested by Amtrak but also submit alternative bids for their double-deck car shells to be used for satisfying Amtrak's equipment needs. It might not take much for these suppliers to present a convincing bid that shows a strong economic advantage for using their "off-the-shelf" car shells to provide a much more efficient and cost-effective solution. Would be interesting at least to see their design concepts.
oltmanndpassengerfan If Canadian HEP equipped Budd cars can be enviromentally friendly no right of way dumping of wasteAre you sure of this? I'll bet they're still "bombs away"!
Don All Via Rail cars including the old Budd cars used on the Canadian and even the two RDC schedules that still operate are equipped with holding tanks. If the Canadians could do it to there Budd cars and the ones they purchased from Amtrak then I see know reason that we could not have done the same with ours. It was the boy geniuses at Amtrak that could see nothing but Viewliners that pushed for the far to early retirement of the Budd cars. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you but I was waiting for the confirmation from Via rail Canada just to be on the safe side. That means that the Manor series and Chateau series sleepers that offer everything from Sections with upper and Lower Berths, Duplex Roomettes, Roomettes, Bedrooms, Compartments, and Drawing Rooms all with toilet facilities are fully equipped with holding tanks. These cars were also retrofitted with showers at the time the holding tanks were installed of course some space was lost accommodating the showers equipping there cars with the Canadian equivelent of ADA compliance. That means that Canada found it was cheaper to go with rebuilding the Budd passenger cars than reinventing the wheel like we did here and I'll bet they saved alot of money doing it there way over the costly error that Viewliners have proved to be. The Via Budd cars will be receiving a second rebuild soon that will add another 25 year life extension. So why did we not do the same with our Budd cars, instead we retired ours and sold many to Canada where they were rebuilt and still operate today and will fof many years to come.
passengerfanDon All Via Rail cars including the old Budd cars used on the Canadian and even the two RDC schedules that still operate are equipped with holding tanks
Don, Full retention tanks and they are emptied in the Canadians case in Toronto, Capreol, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Jasper, and Vancouver. This includes all shower water and dish water as well. Canada is much more enviromentally friendly then we are. Possibly this might have something to do with the trains liesurely pace as it crosses the country. The longer stops for the pump out when it is a thirty car Canadian. Although having just talked to someone about five minutes ago who just traveled from Toronto to Vancouver there train was only 21 cars in length. He enjoys travelling by train with his wife and they have made numerous trips across the US and this was there first trip on a Canadian train.
First impressions his very words spotlessly clean, best crews he has ever experienced and dining was superb. They can't wait to book a repeat trip next year and go east this time. The one thing he would have liked to see more of was dome seating. Train was all stainless steel except for the power a pair of diesels he doesn't know one from another so I would guess F40s. He guesses they changed diesels in Winnipeg where they had the option to get off the train for a really long stretch before reboarding and continuing to Vancouver. I asked him if there were any rattles in the bedroom at night and he said it was dead quiet. That sure sounds better to me than more Viewliners.
passengerfan First impressions his very words spotlessly clean, best crews he has ever experienced and dining was superb. They can't wait to book a repeat trip next year and go east this time. The one thing he would have liked to see more of was dome seating. Train was all stainless steel except for the power a pair of diesels he doesn't know one from another so I would guess F40s. He guesses they changed diesels in Winnipeg where they had the option to get off the train for a really long stretch before reboarding and continuing to Vancouver. I asked him if there were any rattles in the bedroom at night and he said it was dead quiet. That sure sounds better to me than more Viewliners. Al - in - Stockton
As to domes, there is a standard procedure in place. The coach (Economy) passengers have one dome to go with the two coaches. The standard lineup for first class on the Canadian is three Manor sleepers, a dome lounge, a diner, and three Manor sleepers. This is repeated as traffic dictates, and the last car is, of course, a Park car which also has a dome. When we went on to Moncton from Montreal this spring, there was one dome lounge car, which was open to both classes. We were assigned a drawingroom in car 1439 (Park car) when we planned the trip, but when we were in Montreal our ticket was changed to give us a drawing room in a Chalet car, and the Chalets were the only sleepers on the train. We had another change of car coming back to Montreal, which we did not discover until we boarded the train in Moncton and found the room our tickets called for already occupied--the attendants discovered what our new car was, and we were transferred to it.
When we left Vancouver on 3/31, there were four Manor cars; when we left Jasper on 4/6, there were three Manor cars on the train.
Meals on the Canadian diners (open to first class passengers only, and you eat in the diner associated with your car) are excellent, and you have a different menu every day--and the westbound menus are not the same as the eastbound menus.
Yesterday, I asked my wife if she remembered hearing track noise when flushing the toilets; she did not nor did I.
I was booked on the Canadian twice in recent years and both times had to cancel at the last minute due to family emergencies.
My first trip on Canadian was February 1968 eastbound on the original train as built and operated via Calgary Regina Thunder Bay and on to Vancouver. Two years later traveled west on Canadian to Vancouver from Toronto. Returned east to Toronto on CN Super Continental. The Canadian was half empty at that time and Super was full. Also the Canadian was looking kind of threadbare but still an enjoyable trip on both trains. Repeated the trip in opposite direction two years later using both the Super Continental westbound and Canadian eastbound. Last time I was able to ride the Canadian was under Via Rail and there were a mixture of former CN and CP cars in the consist, There was two former CN Day-Niter coaches a step up from ordinary coach and they really did look quite comfortable. and the Super Continental was carrying a Park car Budd Dining car and a couple of CP Sleepers the rest were former CN cars. The next round trip on the Canadian was over the all CN route and was also a mixture of equipment. Have not rode the train since but will try for next year.
My problem this year is the number of tax clients on extension. In twekve years I have never had as many clients go on extension as I have this year. So my tax season this year is running from January to October 15 instead of the usual January to April 15. So it looks like any vacation time is going to be after April 15. Thats to late for a fall trip across Canada so instead wiill take a cruise this year from San Francisco to Miami on one of the ships that traveled to Alaska all summer where I really wanted to go this year. Never been through the Panama canal on a ship and may not transit the canal on the ship this time as there is an optional train trip across the Canal that uses former SP 3/4 length domes and you rejoin the ship on the Atlantic side.
Excuse the error I meant to say any vacation time I get this year will have to be after October 15 not April 15, thats what I get when up at 3:00 in morning. I was originally planning an Alaska cruise this summer with the ARR trip all of the way to Fairbanks as well but was able to cancel by booking the transition trip through the Panama Canal instead in October. Have not decided yet if I will stay on ship as it transits canal or take the optional train trip. Have to go next week and get some shots for the October trip for malaria etc.
I have previously expressed my disdain for these cars... My main complaint is that too much space and clutter (and certainly expense) is dedicated to the roomette toilet and sink. The beds are uncomfortable because they are so narrow at one end. Plumbing fixtures, instructions, and warning lights are very distracting, and give a cramped "lunar module" feel to the room.
Honestly, I think it is rude to have to poop right there in the room with your travelling partner. I would much rather use a spacious, common toilet.
I have previously suggested that open sections might be an alternative. Advances in materials for curtains and sound-proofing might alleviate some of the objections to primitive open sections.
(NB--I have been re-hired by the hotel here, so cannot follow threads as I did for the past several months--I'm sure that will make some of you happy. I am still hoping to take a "Sustainable Transportation" course on-line from University of Washington this Fall.)
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
Maglev: Your comments about the toilets in the Viewliner roomettes are interesting, to say the least!
I disagree about the common toilets, though I see your point. One must remember that often, maybe most often, roomettes are occupied by just one person. To have to go way down the hall every time I want to, well, you know, would be highly inconvenient, to say the least. It makes utter sense to offer single travelers the convenience of in-room toilet facilities. Besides, ever notice how common toilet facilities (think lower-level Superliners) get nasty right away because no one has any ownership of the space? Frankly, I despise them. Amtrak might as well offer an outhouse.
May I offer a suggestion about using the toilet when sharing the room? It's rather obvious: One person goes and sits in an unoccupied roomette for a while, or goes to the diner, or to the lounge, in order to give the other person some privacy and the room a decent airing (well, you brought the subject up! lol). From personal experience this works very well...and then single travelers won't have to go down the hall all those times.
Best luck in your studies and in your career. Make sure to leave time to continue writing good comments like you just did.
Maglev Honestly, I think it is rude to have to poop right there in the room with your travelling partner. I would much rather use a spacious, common toilet.
I agree. Two years ago, when we were going from Jacksonville to NYC on the Silver Star, we had the use of the roomette across from mine after its occupant(s) detrained in Raleigh (I had a roomette in one car and she had a roomette in the other car out of Jax), and we used one as our sitting room and the other as our retiring room. Going down from Washington to Jax on the Silver Meteor, we had one roomette, and we decided that we are too old for such cramped quarters for the two of us.
It's good to know that you are employed again.
NKP guy Besides, ever notice how common toilet facilities (think lower-level Superliners) get nasty right away because no one has any ownership of the space? Frankly, I despise them. Amtrak might as well offer an outhouse.
It's twenty years since I have used the lower-level toilets on a Superliner, but we have had several occasions in the last two years or so to use the upper level toilets. My wife has difficulty with stairs, and when we travel by day on Superliner-equipped trains, we reserve a roomette (it, so far, has always been on the upper level), and we have not noticed any particular disarray or mess. Perhaps the animals know nothing of the facility on the upper level?
passengerfanI was booked on the Canadian twice in recent years and both times had to cancel at the last minute due to family emergencies.
Al, I hope that you will soon be able to make the trip all the way across Canada and back riding in good cars (you are aware, I am sure, that two out of three trips on the Ocean are made with Renaissance equipment; I do have the impression that in the summer season Budd-built cars are operated for the use of people with money to spend).
In these times with the concern for privacy and security, I would think that open sections would be impossible to sell, even with the improvements suggested by maglev. An enclosed section (rare, but they did exist) might work as an economy accomodation.
CSSHEGEWISCH In these times with the concern for privacy and security, I would think that open sections would be impossible to sell, even with the improvements suggested by maglev. An enclosed section (rare, but they did exist) might work as an economy accomodation.
Eighteen cars were rebuilt to Plan 2412-H, which had ten open sections and four private sections. A private section looked just like an open section, but each one (all at the same end of the car) had its own half-bath--but you had to go into the aisle to get to your section's facility. (same citation)
My wife and I have spent a night on two of our trips across Canada in an open section. She fell in love with rail travel when she, as a little girl, was taken from Miami to NYC on one of the overnight trains (she hasn't the slightest idea as to whether it was an ACL or SAL train), and, "when night came, the seats turned into beds." We both agree that, just as overnight in a "roomette" is not for us, overnight in a section is not for us any more.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.