Flintlock761880's is a good starting date, the cars were certainly big enough by that time to allow a kitchen, pantry, and dining space.
Everyone actually interested in this topic needs to read the relevant section in White's The American Passenger Car. The history, particularly associated with Pullman, is more complex and richer than you probably imagine.
In particular, the discussion of the evolution of 'hotel cars' (which evolved into the Pullman buffet cars) are interesting, as they are a road that continues to be taken but is clearly secondary to what developed as the 'dining car experience', specifically with regard to the ordering 'rituals'.
Flintlock76As far as I know the cars were operated by the railroads themselves.
Yes, but... I think you will find that the manuals on how to run their customer service were produced by the Pullman people, and almost incidentally printed up for individual railroads with their names on the cover. I'm sure that at least some roads had 'individual touches' of their own.
That of course stops well short of the individual cooking documentation, where individual roads had occasionally fiercely individual menus and preparation techniques. Occasionally these can be surprisingly undetailed (as is the case for PRR, which seemingly used bargain-price materials out of the commissary to work its gastronomic magic) although others had more specific detail (those of you preparing the Lobster Newburg at home know some of what I mean). To the extent cuisine was a competitive weapon -- it certainly was to the B&O -- it isn't surprising to see railroads keeping this part of the dining-car operations 'proprietary'.
Flintlock76Ummm, gentlemen, has anyone thought that possibly menu cards were given to the passengers to fill out because it was more efficient that way? ... "Get 'em in, get 'em out." That's probably all there was to it.
Personally, I hope so. (The only flaw in the magic-20 argument is that the head waiter becomes the block in the critical path, as he must go to every table and read the orders back in full before any actual food preparation has occurred; that's much, much more realtime per seating than almost any practical alternative. "Calling" works in a Waffle House because all the 'seating' is fully rotating; when one table is turned another set of customers comes promptly to it, and the voice calling is hence distributed rather than dependent on a whole seated group of people coming in together (ask any Waffle House manager why they so fear buses...) In one of these seatings, everyone has to be seated in, and at least one table has to have filled out all its little checks, before the head waiter can 'do his thing' and any actual cooking to order or food deliveries can commence... as opposed in particular to just filling out the checks and handing them to a passing waiter to be put in the pipeline, easily up to a couple of minutes quicker for no perceivable loss in accuracy OR fraud prevention...)
Incidentally, unlike the misrepresentation, "my" actual personal 'theory' on this is more or less the null hypothesis that the reading-back of the ticket is part of the anti-fraud procedure, not some tacit or paternalistic accommodation for the illiterate. My concern was that it wasn't science to dismiss at least the possibility of some operative accommodation without actually researching it -- which is what was being autocratically propounded.
Since we are now actually researching it, with a fair amount of proper scientific disregard for the social red herrings, I have no hesitation in affirming that I hope charlie hebdo is completely justified in thinking the convention had, at any point in history, NO purpose of accommodating illiterate waiters.
Mike weighs in:
1940 Erie RR Working Manual Dining Car Service
charlie hebdoAs I learned long ago, always be cautious about the words of someone who cites a source to support his theory and then, when it turns out that same source actually says the opposite, he attempts to dismiss that same source.
And as I learned -- probably not quite as long ago, but probably in the ballpark -- be even more cautious about the words of someone who mistakes scientific procedure for advocacy, attributes 'theories' to people who merely advocate open discussion of others' theories (and then attempt to demonize them for so doing, a frequent academic tactic but never a particularly justifiable or moral one), or who considers invocation of an invented binomial opposite as a red herring for recognition of insufficient statistics and then attempts to cut off debate as if this proved two-faced argumentation (or whatever).
Best to stick to discussion of the facts based on better sources -- as you've already started to do. You won't regain any moral high ground trying to continue the other tactics as you have.
Overmod charlie hebdo As I learned long ago, always be cautious about the words of someone who cites a source to support his theory and then, when it turns out that same source actually says the opposite, he attempts to dismiss that same source. And as I learned -- probably not quite as long ago, but probably in the ballpark -- be even more cautious about the words of someone who mistakes scientific procedure for advocacy, attributes 'theories' to people who merely advocate open discussion of others' theories (and then attempt to demonize them for so doing, a frequent academic tactic but never a particularly justifiable or moral one), or who considers invocation of an invented binomial opposite as a red herring for recognition of insufficient statistics and then attempts to cut off debate as if this proved two-faced argumentation (or whatever). Best to stick to discussion of the facts based on better sources -- as you've already started to do. You won't regain any moral high ground trying to continue the other tactics as you have.
charlie hebdo As I learned long ago, always be cautious about the words of someone who cites a source to support his theory and then, when it turns out that same source actually says the opposite, he attempts to dismiss that same source.
Well, it's pleasant to see you are attempting to revise your views to be congruent with factual presentations which are in accord with NKP's original post. I guess a simple admission of error on your part is too much to expect, however.
charlie hebdoI guess a simple admission of error on your part is too much to expect, however.
When I'm in error, I assure you you'll be among the first to know. (As has happened at least a number of times in the past, I should add...)
That time isn't yet, though, here. And I am assuredly not wrong about needing to research this controversy in fair and open terms ... which was and continues to be my original and unrevised view, and is decidedly not yours.
Overmod charlie hebdo I guess a simple admission of error on your part is too much to expect, however. When I'm in error, I assure you you'll be among the first to know. (As has happened at least a number of times in the past, I should add...) That time isn't yet, though, here. And I am assuredly not wrong about needing to research this controversy in fair and open terms ... which was and continues to be my original and unrevised view, and is decidedly not yours.
charlie hebdo I guess a simple admission of error on your part is too much to expect, however.
You can continue with your contrafactual narrative, but at this point it is I who provided some factual research, while all you've done is...
MiningmanMike weighs in: 1940 Erie RR Working Manual Dining Car Service
Isn't it interesting that this perfectly follows good restaurant practice ... on trains where specific multiple seatings due to high passenger load aren't required? None of that Pullman rigmarole about writing your own meal and bar tab here! (And they make the point elsewhere in the manual about serving Pullman attendants their meals, so no question some of these were Pullman-equipped trains subject to Pullman operating procedure ...)
And here, in 1940, it is assumed that a waiter will not only be literate, but know how to write. What might be interesting would be to see if the Dining Car Society has earlier versions of the Erie (or Lackawanna) dining-car manuals, to see how the checks were handled around the turn of the century, particularly if some other procedure was followed in issuing and taking up the checks.
I would ask anyone who has access to one of the Southern railroad dining-car manuals to post or transcribe the relevant section(s) here for comparison. There might be interesting differences with sociological import.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.