Trains.com

Degradation of Meal Service

10642 views
186 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February 2018
  • From: Flyover Country
  • 5,557 posts
Posted by York1 on Tuesday, October 1, 2019 1:21 PM

charlie hebdo
You missed the point.  Some on here want to maintain/improve a totally out of date mode of transportation. I'm  just pointing out just how out of touch they are. 

No, I got your point, and I agree with it.  I just poorly worded another example of how times change.  Sorry.

York1 John       

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Tuesday, October 1, 2019 12:33 PM

zugmann

I don't travel long distance, but who wants a toilet like 6" from their bed?

Always seemed nasty to me.

 

Given the average age of sleeper passengers,  perhaps some are used to a bedside commode? 

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Tuesday, October 1, 2019 12:29 PM

[quote user="York1"]

charlie hebdo

People were fine with that in the Golden Age of Pullman travel with 16 section cars,  two washroom - lounges. 

 

Yes.  And 50 years before that, hotel guests had to share a bed with a stranger if the hotel was full.

 

You missed the point.  Some on here want to maintain/improve a totally out of date mode of transportation. I'm  just pointing out just how out of touch they are. 

 

 
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Tuesday, October 1, 2019 11:18 AM

I don't travel long distance, but who wants a toilet like 6" from their bed?

Always seemed nasty to me.

It's been fun.  But it isn't much fun anymore.   Signing off for now. 


  

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any

  • Member since
    February 2018
  • From: Flyover Country
  • 5,557 posts
Posted by York1 on Tuesday, October 1, 2019 10:57 AM

charlie hebdo

People were fine with that in the Golden Age of Pullman travel with 16 section cars,  two washroom - lounges. 

 

 

Yes.  And 50 years before that, hotel guests had to share a bed with a stranger if the hotel was full.

York1 John       

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Tuesday, October 1, 2019 10:50 AM

People were fine with that in the Golden Age of Pullman travel with 16 section cars,  two washroom - lounges. 

  • Member since
    February 2018
  • From: Flyover Country
  • 5,557 posts
Posted by York1 on Tuesday, October 1, 2019 10:50 AM

Speaking of Union Passenger Terminal in N.O., in September it received a grant to remodel parts of the station.  I don't think showers were ever considered.  Of course, it's got a bunch of major hotels in walking distance.

 

https://neworleanscitybusiness.com/blog/2019/09/04/6-6-million-secured-to-renovate-union-passenger-terminal/

York1 John       

  • Member since
    February 2018
  • From: Flyover Country
  • 5,557 posts
Posted by York1 on Tuesday, October 1, 2019 10:39 AM

Communal Toilets -- There's a difference between using a communal toilet on a three-hour plane flight or train ride, and spending an overnight in a bedroom.  How many of us are comfortable checking into a hotel with 10 hotel rooms sharing one bathroom?

York1 John       

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Tuesday, October 1, 2019 10:22 AM

When the new union station in New Orleans was opeded (about 1954), the re were showers in the restrooms. Back then, you had trains from Jacksonville, New York City, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis, Kansas City, El Paso, and Los Angeles. Now, with one train from New York City, one from Chicago, and 3/7 of a train from Los Angeles, there is very little traffic--and no showers in that section of the station, which has been remodeled. Also, there is no real restaurant there now. 

The only things I can say for the station now is that there is a waiting room  that is set aside for passengers with sleeping accommodations (you need a passcode to enter the room)--and Greyhound uses the station as its New Orleans terminal.

Johnny

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Tuesday, October 1, 2019 10:17 AM

charlie hebdo
I think the evidence of the last 50 years is that, for the most part, neither party wants to fund Amtrak properly, the Democrats just don't want to eliminate Amtrak. So to me, funding expensive sleeping cars and the archaic 2-night journey trains is a waste of limited resources.

I think Andersen is the first CEO to make that arguement to Congress consistently and clearly via laying it out on the line as a matter of choice of the problems he faces managing the company due to lack of funding.  He is forced to follow the money currently which is the states are providing for corridor services.   If the Feds pay for LD service he is willing to improve it and increase the market value as well as ticket prices the public is willing to pay for using it..........lowering the losses.   Until that time he is forced to maintain a status quo which he also finds distasteful as he feels some LD trains should be cut as beyond hope of ever reducing their losses.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Tuesday, October 1, 2019 10:04 AM

NKP guy
1.  My experience is that no one takes any responsibility or ownership of communal toilets on Amtrak.  Car attendants are not the least bit interested in cleaning toilets; that's left for the car-cleaning crews at Sunnyside or Chicago or some such terminal. The word "filth" was invented to describe the communal toilets on any western Amtrak train that I have ever ridden since 1973.

One exception should be the California Zephyr which according to Amtrak has a dedicated crew to clean it's restrooms and the only Western Train with that setup.   At any rate, this is a problem that Amtrak needs to fix.

NKP guy
2.  Did you check with your wife and/or daughter as to their feelings about communal, as opposed to in-room toilet facilities?  Most men may not mind peeing in an aluminum trough as at a county fair while riding a train, but I think women passengers may have a different reaction, as in "never again."  I don't know about you, but even this male recoils at using a communal toilet for purposes that require a seated posture.

I guess it is the difference between growing up in a large family vs small family. 

NKP guy
3.  What the devil do I care about the "extra" costs of in-room toilets since a) no one really knows the costs of those toilets, and b) the costs of sleeping cars are paid by grants or subsidies; no one expects the fare box to pay for sleepers, diners, or anything else.  Let me ask you, Do you expect sleeping car fares will go down for customers using the new sleepers?  By how much?  Based on what evidence?

Rather short-sighted view to take as eventually the states will be supporting the LD trains directly and they do look more carefully at costs then the Feds.   My bet is when the states take over they will drop the sleeper altogether in favor of reclining long distance chairs or find another way to economize the costs and yes some states do expect the corridor passenger service they subsidize to approach break even if not exceed it.    At some point that will also be the rule for LD trains and Amtrak indicated already as much in last testimony before Congress where the CEO Andersen stated in so many words he does not have the money currently to make the LD product what it should be to make it more efficient financially........what does that tell you about his goal there?   It's definitely not maintain the status quo if he gets more funding, he is going to try to raise revenues to such an extent that the large losses start to drop.

NKP guy
4.  Showers at major city railroad stations?  Where?  In what space would such a facility be carved out?  What about those of us boarding or getting off in cities that are not terminals, such as Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, etc.?  What? We're not to have the showers on trains that passengers have enjoyed for over 50 years?  Again, aside from the insult and inconvenience to customers, what cost benefits will be achieved, especially after the costs of building new facilities the a few big city stations?

Chicago Union Station which still has a lot of unused space.   Amtrak recently restored showers there,   they have two attached to the new Metropolitain Lounge and my guess they are in the same location they were before at CUS since that would be the most logical with the installed plumbing.   I think if you check there might already be dormant showers at Pittsburgh.    Probably in a walled off and unused space as they were at CUS before Amtrak restored them.   Your "carved out" comment suggests all the space is utilized at big city terminals like CUS and Pittsburgh, according to Amtrak most of the old big city stations are not fully leased and not all the space is currently used adding to their overhead costs.    As far as Clevelands new station, you don't really connect to other trains there.    Why would you need showers if it is a terminating or originating station.   The same argument could be made for Pittsburgh today though it probably has showers from long ago when it was a transfer point.    You really only need showers at stations where transfers between Amtrak LD trains take place or between LD and Corridor trains.

NKP guy
After all, the political party which for half a century has bedeviled Amtrak for its "extravagant" costs has demonstated in the past 3 years that they really have no such principles.  "We the people" wanted a trillion-dollar tax cut for the richest among us, right?  How come we can afford that without any compunctions, but a nice dining car or a roomette with a toilet is somehow unaffordable pie-in-the-sky?

Though one party rarely ever acts on it.  It is the duty of Congress to support an expanding Economy and to also encourage wages to rise, in fact that is part of their job and why we elect them to Congress.   For an elected official to run around and say 1.5% GDP Growth is the new normal is for that same person to admit they are not fit for elective office.

Congress' function is not just tax, tax, and tax.   The other side of the equation is their legislating programs to boost wages via economic growth (min wage should be indexed and increase automatically) and so a lot in Congress sit on their arse and make excuses when they are in office as to why the Economy is stagnant or in decline instead of acting to improve it.   

This led to massive frustration as folks saw real income decline and taxes continue to increase which led to the current dodo in the Oval Office today.    Frustration over increasing taxes no matter what personal incomes do......incompetent management of the Economy by the Congress led us to where we are today in our politics.   And we still have a majority of candidates on one side urging us to wreck the Economy further in the cause of leading us to Socialism.........exactly the wrong way to go and against the flow of the rest of the Western world.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Tuesday, October 1, 2019 9:39 AM

nyc#25
remember when some major stations did have showers and basins for shaving.  There were also attendants that kept things in order.  Such places as Grand Central Terminal, Boston South Station,etc. These facilities were needed when business men traveled in Pullmans without in room facilities.  There were several basins for shaving, but no showers in the Pullmans.

Amtrak has restored them at Chicago Union Station.   They now have two showers directly in the station for sleeping car passengers can use along with towels via the Metropolitan Lounge.   Additionally, I have been told they have an arrangement with a gym connected to Union Station that gives them additional showers if they ever need them along with one day passes to the gym available if passengers want a workout (not sure if the gym access is an additional charge).   If the Metropolitain lounge concierge in Chicago does not know about these services, ask up higher in the Amtrak chain.

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • 2,515 posts
Posted by Electroliner 1935 on Monday, September 30, 2019 5:36 PM

Deggesty
A note about showers on Amtrak trains. When Amtrak began operation in 1971, there were, of course, no showers fo passengers on board any train (unless some of the NYC or PRR cars with Master Rooms were still in use; I am not sure about the Master Rooms on one Southern train, either).

The California Zepher's observation car's drawing room had a shower and I used it. And I believe you are correct about Southern's Crescent having one.

Also, as far as in room facilities, all rooms in the original Budd Slumber cars had them. Although, I grant you they were not retention toilets.

  • Member since
    May 2007
  • 194 posts
Posted by nyc#25 on Monday, September 30, 2019 4:40 PM

I remember when some major stations did have showers and basins for shaving.  There were also attendants that kept things in order.  Such places as Grand Central Terminal, Boston South Station,etc. These facilities were needed when business men traveled in Pullmans without in room facilities.  There were several basins for shaving, but no showers in the Pullmans.

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Monday, September 30, 2019 4:13 PM

A note about showers on Amtrak trains. When Amtrak began operation in 1971, there were, of course, no showers fo passengers on board any train (unless some of the NYC or PRR cars with Master Rooms were still in use; I am not sure about the Master Rooms on one Southern train, either).

When the Superliners came into service, there were no showers in the bedrooms; these were added later. I first rode in what were at first called "deluxe bedrooms" in 1989, and showers had been installed in the annexes, I do not remember just when I looked in such a room and saw the shower.

Johnny

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,283 posts
Posted by n012944 on Monday, September 30, 2019 3:44 PM

NKP guy

 

 

2.  Did you check with your wife and/or daughter as to their feelings about communal, as opposed to in-room toilet facilities?  

 

I asked my wife.  While she said it is not ideal, it is not any different than using the facilities on an aircraft, or stopping and using the public restroom while on a road trip.  It is just the cost of travel to her.

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Monday, September 30, 2019 3:40 PM

NKP guy

    And to charlie hebdo:

   I totally take your point about an expanded and better Amtrak.  But this doesn't have to be a zero-sum game.  It's not a question of an expanded and better Amtrak VERSUS dining cars.  We can have both.  We can have expanded funding, even greatly expanded funding for Amtrak if only we want it.  

                                           * * * * *

   After all, the political party which for half a century has bedeviled Amtrak for its "extravagant" costs has demonstated in the past 3 years that they really have no such principles.  "We the people" wanted a trillion-dollar tax cut for the richest among us, right?  How come we can afford that without any compunctions, but a nice dining car or a roomette with a toilet is somehow unaffordable pie-in-the-sky? 

I think the evidence of the last 50 years is that, for the most part, neither party wants to fund Amtrak properly, the Democrats just don't want to eliminate Amtrak. So to me, funding expensive sleeping cars and the archaic 2-night journey trains is a waste of limited resources.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 1,530 posts
Posted by NKP guy on Monday, September 30, 2019 3:13 PM

CMStPnP
I am fine with communal as I have seen them when maintained properly are just like private facilities.   In my view the issue is not 2-3 toilets per car it is the attendant or whomever not cleaning them as frequently as they ought to.   Also, sleeping car construction and maintenence is a LOT cheaper without all the extra plumbing and it is not likely your willing to pay substantially more fare for that separate toilet.   

1.  My experience is that no one takes any responsibility or ownership of communal toilets on Amtrak.  Car attendants are not the least bit interested in cleaning toilets; that's left for the car-cleaning crews at Sunnyside or Chicago or some such terminal. The word "filth" was invented to describe the communal toilets on any western Amtrak train that I have ever ridden since 1973.

2.  Did you check with your wife and/or daughter as to their feelings about communal, as opposed to in-room toilet facilities?  Most men may not mind peeing in an aluminum trough as at a county fair while riding a train, but I think women passengers may have a different reaction, as in "never again."  I don't know about you, but even this male recoils at using a communal toilet for purposes that require a seated posture.

3.  What the devil do I care about the "extra" costs of in-room toilets since a) no one really knows the costs of those toilets, and b) the costs of sleeping cars are paid by grants or subsidies; no one expects the fare box to pay for sleepers, diners, or anything else.  Let me ask you, Do you expect sleeping car fares will go down for customers using the new sleepers?  By how much?  Based on what evidence?

4.  Showers at major city railroad stations?  Where?  In what space would such a facility be carved out?  What about those of us boarding or getting off in cities that are not terminals, such as Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, etc.?  What? We're not to have the showers on trains that passengers have enjoyed for over 50 years?  Again, aside from the insult and inconvenience to customers, what cost benefits will be achieved, especially after the costs of building new facilities the a few big city stations?

   And to charlie hebdo:

   I totally take your point about an expanded and better Amtrak.  But this doesn't have to be a zero-sum game.  It's not a question of an expanded and better Amtrak VERSUS dining cars.  We can have both.  We can have expanded funding, even greatly expanded funding for Amtrak if only we want it.  

                                           * * * * *

   After all, the political party which for half a century has bedeviled Amtrak for its "extravagant" costs has demonstated in the past 3 years that they really have no such principles.  "We the people" wanted a trillion-dollar tax cut for the richest among us, right?  How come we can afford that without any compunctions, but a nice dining car or a roomette with a toilet is somehow unaffordable pie-in-the-sky?

 

 

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,283 posts
Posted by n012944 on Monday, September 30, 2019 3:05 PM

NKP guy

   Here's some evidence that contradicts an opinion bandied about here as a fact.  Not all millenials want fast-food & the abolition of dining cars on trains.  Just take a look at the headline:

 

 

Wow, hyperbole much?  Who said that ALL millennials what fast food?  I have yet to see that put said anywhere.  It seems like MANY millennials don't like the 1950s experience that Amtrak puts out in its dinning cars.  It is a fact that Amtrak feels the need to appeal to those that don't like to eat in the socially uncomfortable rolling museum that some baby boomers can't let go of.  My guess is Amtrak knows a tad bit more about that market than you do.

 

 

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Monday, September 30, 2019 2:26 PM

NKP guy
 No, of course not.  I've been ranting about the need for private toilet facilities in every sleeper for as long as it's been discussed here.  I'm surprised you draw that inference.   I have tried to point out here how important that is to women and their sense of decency, but not to much effect.    American trains ought to be getting better and more decent, not the reverse.

I am fine with communal as I have seen them when maintained properly are just like private facilities.   In my view the issue is not 2-3 toilets per car it is the attendant or whomever not cleaning them as frequently as they ought to.   Also, sleeping car construction and maintenence is a LOT cheaper without all the extra plumbing and it is not likely your willing to pay substantially more fare for that seperate toilet.    

Also, in my view if they put clean showers and restrooms in all the major stations like they have done at Chicago Union Station.    They could make all the sleeping cars showerless for overnight LD trains and you can spend a little time in the station lounge freshing up with a shower also have the lounge provide rooms at close in hotels for those that want to stayover a night or two.....Amtrak could get a cut of that money for the hotel referral.

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • 2,515 posts
Posted by Electroliner 1935 on Monday, September 30, 2019 1:29 PM

Orwell's NEWSPEAK is live and well. I say amen to what she wrote.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 1,530 posts
Posted by NKP guy on Monday, September 30, 2019 1:21 PM

   Here's some evidence that contradicts an opinion bandied about here as a fact.  Not all millenials want fast-food & the abolition of dining cars on trains.  Just take a look at the headline:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/28/opinion/sunday/millennial-dining-car-amtrak.html?searchResultPosition=1

 

   Also note as the author does, that Less is being touted as More.   

 

  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 1,836 posts
Posted by 243129 on Friday, September 27, 2019 8:00 PM

charlie hebdo
But many of us say it's high time to eliminate most/all the archaic LD passenger trains and use that money to expand the number and frequency of services that make sense, such as corridor day trains, and speed up existing services.

LD trains should be run in the summer months as tour trains with free stopovers at National Parks and other points of interest. In the winter months the coach equipment can be used in regional service.  

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Thursday, September 26, 2019 8:33 PM

NKP guy

 And 3.  Sharing tables has been traditional train culture.  I never wrote out my order in a restaurant because that's not been (until now, I know) traditional restaurant culture.

 

Traditions die.  If people are just as fine eating in their rooms, or their seats, then that's that.  Or they coudl set up a counter around the walls of the dining car instead.

As far as the "millenial dorms", how is that different from the singles complexes that have been around for decades?   Or is it just worrying people that nobody will want their 10 bedroom McMansion when they are too old to live there anymore?

It's been fun.  But it isn't much fun anymore.   Signing off for now. 


  

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 1,530 posts
Posted by NKP guy on Thursday, September 26, 2019 6:18 PM

Snide?  moi?

 

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Thursday, September 26, 2019 4:20 PM

NKP guy

 

 
charlie hebdo
NKP guy schlepping down the corridor any number of times to use (or waiting to use) a common (translation: filthy) toilet will be perfectly fine So does that mean you are fine with sharing that filthy toilet with some stranger?

 

   No, of course not.  I've been ranting about the need for private toilet facilities in every sleeper for as long as it's been discussed here.  I'm surprised you draw that inference.   I have tried to point out here how important that is to women and their sense of decency, but not to much effect.

   American trains ought to be getting better and more decent, not the reverse.

  

 

It was not-very-subtle sarcasm, directed at your snide comment on millenials. I understand you want improved passenger train service.  So do I. But many of us say it's high time to eliminate most/all the archaic LD passenger trains and use that money to expand the number and frequency of services that make sense, such as corridor day trains, and speed up existing services.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 1,530 posts
Posted by NKP guy on Thursday, September 26, 2019 2:33 PM

charlie hebdo
NKP guy schlepping down the corridor any number of times to use (or waiting to use) a common (translation: filthy) toilet will be perfectly fine So does that mean you are fine with sharing that filthy toilet with some stranger?

   No, of course not.  I've been ranting about the need for private toilet facilities in every sleeper for as long as it's been discussed here.  I'm surprised you draw that inference.   I have tried to point out here how important that is to women and their sense of decency, but not to much effect.

   American trains ought to be getting better and more decent, not the reverse.

  

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, September 26, 2019 2:32 PM

1.   Are the "facilities" neceswsarily filthy?

2.   Don't I have complete privacy when using?  That is not exactly sharing.

3.  The culture is the same in all locations and has not changed since privies were replaced by indoor plumbing.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 1,530 posts
Posted by NKP guy on Thursday, September 26, 2019 2:28 PM

"But this is also a generation that has grown up with luxury, and may be accustomed to college campuses with climbing walls, infinity pools, and of course, their own bathrooms."         from oltmannd's "Dorms for Grownups"

                                                            ******

 

   So in the Amtrak LD train of the future, Millenials will lose the privacy of a private bathroom and the Rest of Us will lose the convenience and pleasure of a traditional dining car.   

   Everybody's happy, right Amtrak?  Great marketing research!

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Thursday, September 26, 2019 2:22 PM

NKP guy
schlepping down the corridor any number of times to use (or waiting to use) a common (translation: filthy) toilet will be perfectly fine

So does that mean you are fine with sharing that filthy toilet with some stranger?

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy