# Are new sleepers better than the old sleepers?



## dlagrua (Jun 17, 2010)

On our CL trip to Chicago last week, we had a chance to drive up to Union IL to the Illinois Railway Museum. Its the largest museum of its kind and their collection is amazing. We were there on post office day where they were running a train (that you could ride in) with a railway post office car (that you could also enter) . All day they ran trains that picked up mail bags "on the fly" in front of the station. It was interesting seeing a train go by with a hook that would snare the mailbag at 30 mph. There days mail no longer travels by train but it was fun hearing all of the stories told by the men who once worked the mail cars. One guy told me that in snowy weather they sometimes worked 29 hours shifts.

Getting back to the subject of this post; we are relatively new to train sleeper travel. The only sleepers that we have ever been on are on Amtrak trains. At the museum we had the opportunity to explore just about every type of sleeper imaginable. The IRM has them all. I won't comment on all of them but a few caught my eye. These were all on streamliners (lightweight cars) but the section was on a heavyweight car

The first one was the pullman sleeper section. These were the coach type cars that converted into sleepers in the evening. Two facing seats that could be folded down to form a lower berth with an upper berth that folded down from above. Partititions separated the sections but a curtain was the only "door" for privacy. There was no place to put your overnight bag or slippers and I just wondered what happened when the person on the top had to take a nightime bathroom break. He had to open the one curtain that covered the upper and lower berths and the guy on the bottom got exposed. No privacy here but the accomodations were inexpensive and the beds had a thick matress.

The second one that caught my interest was the roomette. A chair with a potty on the side and fold down sink during the day and a single bed during the night that actually covered the toilet so there was no access at night. It looked like a Viewliner roomette but was only made for one person. Very similar to todays roomette private and with a locking door but for one

Next up was the bedroom. Very similar to todays Amtrak bedroom but with only with the sofa during the day and no easy chair. At night you had the standard upper and lower berths. It had a bathroom but no shower. Actually we didn't see a shower on any of the cars that we toured so people must have had different sanitary habits in those days. We also saw double bedrooms where a partition could be removed to make up a room for four, similar to the principle of todays bedrooms where they can be opened up for a bigger space.

The most unusual design was the Duplex roomette. Overlapping rooms on two levels on both sides of the car staggered one high and one low. A very small space with a chair during the day, a toilet fold down sink and a bed that pulled out from under the room in front of you. The lower part of your body slept in a "tunnel". It was a tight (but private) space for one and an amazing 28 of these lined both sides of the car. Again the toilets were only accessible during the day. Changing the sheets was probably not easy! I am told that the duplex design was also offered in a single room variety where the room had a sofa and was wider with rooms on only one side of the sleeper car.

There are many more sleepers that we saw at the museum but they are too numerous to mention.

Analysis. While the plush fabrics, fancy curtains, design elegance and long food menus from the golden days are gone; the design of todays Amtrak sleepers seem more practical and a bit more spacious than the designs of the past. Plus if you book a bedroom you have the shower available. I don't believe that todays sleeper passengers are being shortchanged. We would like to see better interior decor being used but at least we still have long distance trains in the 21st century.

Again the pics will be coming later today.


----------



## Rob_C (Jun 17, 2010)

Cool! Thanks for the report!

Rob


----------



## railiner (Jun 17, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> On our CL trip to Chicago last week, we had a chance to drive up to Union IL to the Illinois Railway Museum. Its the largest museum of its kind and their collection is amazing. We were there on post office day where they were running a train (that you could ride in) with a railway post office car (that you could also enter) . All day they ran trains that picked up mail bags "on the fly" in front of the station. It was interesting seeing a train go by with a hook that would snare the mailbag at 30 mph. There days mail no longer travels by train but it was fun hearing all of the stories told by the men who once worked the mail cars. One guy told me that in snowy weather they sometimes worked 29 hours shifts.Getting back to the subject of this post; we are relatively new to train sleeper travel. The only sleepers that we have ever been on are on Amtrak trains. At the museum we had the opportunity to explore just about every type of sleeper imaginable. The IRM has them all. I won't comment on all of them but a few caught my eye. These were all on streamliners (lightweight cars) but the section was on a heavyweight car
> 
> The first one was the pullman sleeper section. These were the coach type cars that converted into sleepers in the evening. Two facing seats that could be folded down to form a lower berth with an upper berth that folded down from above. Partititions separated the sections but a curtain was the only "door" for privacy. There was no place to put your overnight bag or slippers and I just wondered what happened when the person on the top had to take a nightime bathroom break. He had to open the one curtain that covered the upper and lower berths and the guy on the bottom got exposed. No privacy here but the accomodations were inexpensive and the beds had a thick matress.
> 
> ...


I don't know exactly what you saw at the museum, but I recall the old Pullman sections having separate curtains covering the upper and lower berths. The person needing to exit the upper would open their curtain and utilize the small ladder to reach the aisle.


----------



## dlagrua (Jun 17, 2010)

Here are some pictures of the sleepers at the museum as promised.


----------



## railiner (Jun 17, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Here are some pictures of the sleepers at the museum as promised.


The first photo is not a duplex roomette but rather is an 'upper' single slumbercoach room (my personal favorite). The next two are of a 'lower' single slumbercoach room.

Duplex roomettes and duplex single bedrooms have much roomier beds.

The last photo looks like a Double Bedroom with beds 'crosswise'.


----------



## dlagrua (Jun 17, 2010)

> The first photo is not a duplex roomette but rather is an 'upper' single slumbercoach room (my personal favorite). The next two are of a 'lower' single slumbercoach room.Duplex roomettes and duplex single bedrooms have much roomier beds.
> 
> The last photo looks like a Double Bedroom with beds 'crosswise'.


I believe that the old Amtrak Slumbercoach was a Duplex single roomette. If I am not mistaken the description of duplex was used for all roomettes that were staggered one high and one low.

The last photo is in fact a double bedroom that was on the Burlington Zephyr. That whole train is now on a siding at the Illinois Railway Museum.


----------



## Larry H. (Jun 17, 2010)

I traveled on many trains with sleepers. I think the last trip in a pullman type roomette was on the Lakeshore in the 80s. I would take it any day over the View-liners. The difference mainly to me was in the quality of the construction. Being in an old roomette or bedroom had a feeling of solid secure construction. Todays cars are a constant irritation from the walls and doors rattling or worse. I don't think I ever saw a pullman car with duct tape or cardboard wedged in every door. There were some occasional rattles in rough track but much less than we experienced on the new view-liner Lake Shore. I also preferred the roomettes in room toilet and quality fold down sink with heavy mirror.

When we went across canada we had a train with 22 passenger cars by the time we got to Vancouver. There were at least 8 sleepers and many were the combination upper and lower birth type set up with rooms in one half. I was very surprised at the amount of young people who traveled sleeper in the early 70s. I think the reasonable price of the birth made it lucrative for them to do so.

Todays Superliner sleepers are rather nice but I miss the toilet in roomettes. I think I still feel that the major difference was in construction, not to mention that the pullman company porters were usually much more likely to load and an unload your baggage, shine your shoes, get your coffee in the morning and really just about anything else you needed. It wasn't until recently that you sometimes wonder if there even is an attendant in your car. Overall the amtrak sleeper experience is pretty good, other than poorly operating air, heating and toilets on many trips. But then what do you expect?


----------



## jis (Jun 17, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> I believe that the old Amtrak Slumbercoach was a Duplex single roomette. If I am not mistaken the description of duplex was used for all roomettes that were staggered one high and one low. The last photo is in fact a double bedroom that was on the Burlington Zephyr. That whole train is now on a siding at the Illinois Railway Museum.


I am aware of the 24 duplex single and 8 double roomette Slumbercoaches of which a total of 18 were built by Budd. I believe all 18 landed up with Amtrak and saw service before they were retired with the advent of the toilet waste storage requirement coming in force. Were there other configurations too?

Indeed, the term duplex was used for the staggered arrangement of the single rooms.

At least 5 are known to have been preserved, of which "Dreamland" a car built originally for the B&O is in the B&O Railroad Museum in Baltimore. At the Illinois Railway Museum you saw the Loch Sloy which was originally built for the North Coast Limited. Oddly the two Denver Zephyr cars that are preserved are nowhere near where they originally ran. One is in Miami, where it actually did run under Amtrak and the other is in Nashville TN!

Personally I loved the duplex singles, specially the uppers.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 17, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Actually we didn't see a shower on any of the cars that we toured so people must have had different sanitary habits in those days.


What do today's coach pax do that's any different? I'm guessing passengers from previous eras also had more options for showering in and around stations back then. I like Japan's airport model where they have multiple in-terminal shower locations both before and after security with subsidized $5 room rentals. Quick, easy, clean, and cheap. In the US you typically need to plunk down $50 or more to visit a rinky-dink offsite hotel that can't get you back in time for short connections. In the end we _all_ suffer when our fellow pax can't find an inexpensive shower in a timely fashion. All these poor folks coming off flights as long as seventeen hours and trains as long as _multiple days_ with no easy way to clean up. Bleh!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 17, 2010)

A duplex roomette, of which Amtrak operated no cars after 1976, was an accommodation theoretically similar to the standard roomette, but slightly smaller. Amtrak had 8 such cars, and they were struck from the roster by 1976. I know this because I happen to know the details of Amtrak's roster, 1974-present. I am writing a book on the subject.

They were:

2010-2017 Ex. Seaboard Coast Line 6700-6707, 24-8 (Bobolink, Cardinal, Gull, Oriole, Robin, Swan, Thrush, Wren). They were 16-duplex roomette, 4 bedroom cars, sold initially as Slumbercoaches, then as regular cars, and finally struck from the roster. They were too different from anything else on the system to make much sense. They were originally B&O cars.

It was either marketed as a standard roomette (as per VIA Rail), or as a single accomodation in between the Single Slumbercoach and the Roomette. The Duplex Roomette had a standard roomettes level of seat accommodation and bed accommodation. The slumbercoach had smaller seats and smaller beds, just like in your picture. I've slept in one.

Amtrak inherited only a few Slumbercoach cars:

2000-2006 Ex. New York Central 10300 series, 16-10 (Dunkirk Harbor, Fairport Harbor, Monroe Harbor, South Haven Harbor, Toledo Harbor, Tonawanda Harbor, and Vermilion Harbor), which were built by Budd in 1949 for the Ohio State Limited as 22-roomette cars. They were converted to 16-10 Slumbercoach cars in the mid-50s.

2020-2023 Ex. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy 4900-4903 (Silver Siesta, Silver Slumber, Silver Rest, Silver Repose) built as Slumbercoaches, for the Denver Zephyr, 1956.

2024-2034 Ex. Northern Pacific 325-36 (Loch Sloy, Loch Leven, Loch Lommond, Loch Ness, Loch Tarbert, Loch Katrine, Loch Lochy, Loch Tay, Loch Rannoch, Loch Arkaig, Loch Awe). The first four were built for the NP's North Coast Limited, the next three for Baltimore & Ohio and Missouri Pacific's Washington-Dallas service (named Southland, Restland, and Thriftland, respectively), and the last four built for New York Central's Twentieth Century Limited.

Most of the "slumbercoach" fare cars were modified Pullman-built cars. About 70% of Amtrak's non-Budd inherited fleet turned their wheels only once, on a one way trip to a long-overdue scrapping. Most of them followed suit before the commencement of the Heritage conversion.

I personally suspect, based on my book research, that quite a few of Amtrak's inherited cars were actually scrapped some time before May 1st, 1971, their transference a myth.


----------



## GaSteve (Jun 17, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> > The first photo is not a duplex roomette but rather is an 'upper' single slumbercoach room (my personal favorite). The next two are of a 'lower' single slumbercoach room.Duplex roomettes and duplex single bedrooms have much roomier beds.
> >
> > The last photo looks like a Double Bedroom with beds 'crosswise'.
> 
> ...


Slumbercoaches and Duplex Roomettes are similar, but not the same.


----------



## dlagrua (Jun 17, 2010)

One thing seems obvious. Back in the day the railroads were able to provide privacy, give every sleep passenger a toilet, provide low prices and fit 40 people in a duplex sleeper car! That's a higher capacity, higher efficiency sleeper than we have today.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Jun 17, 2010)

GaSteve said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > > The first photo is not a duplex roomette but rather is an 'upper' single slumbercoach room (my personal favorite). The next two are of a 'lower' single slumbercoach room.Duplex roomettes and duplex single bedrooms have much roomier beds.
> ...


GaSteve is completely correct. They were similar but not the same. I cannot remember all the details of what is different except that the duplex roomette is classier looking..But there are plenty of timetables and pullman books to show that.They had completely different rate structures.

No doubt.

And for some perspective please note that there were very few of either one. It is not like the average train had 3 or 4 coaches, 3 or four sleepers and 3 or 4 sumbercoaches. I would be hard pressed to think of hardly a single train which had more than one slumbercoach it. .

They were not that significant as to the number of them. They were a last ditch effort to try to retain traffic. I suspect if they had come out about ten years earlier tha might have made more of an impact. Too little, too late.

Duplex roomettes came out earlier. As I said, there never were too many of them either...


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 17, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> provide low prices


Do you ever actually read my posts?


----------



## railiner (Jun 17, 2010)

As pointed out above, even though staggered, interlocking rooms are all technically of 'duplex' design, the Single Slumbercoach or on New York Central known as Sleepercoach, are different from larger Duplex Roomettes and even larger Duplex Single Bedrooms. In addition, the Slumber/Sleepercoach rooms, as in their name 'coach', did not require the purchase of a 'first class' fare. You only paid the coach fare plus a modest accommodation charge (sometimes only $7.00, NYG to CHI!). Quite a bargain for such a spendid private facility.

I agree that the construction of the heritage sleepers, whether built by Pullman-Standard or Budd, was of a higher quality than the newer equipment. It is especially apparent when you compare simple hardware like door latches that were built to last.

The 16/10 Slumbercoach cars had at some point 4 of the double room's upper bunks removed so the rooms were marketed as singles. They were sold at the same fare as the single, duplex room, so that if you were lucky enough to get one, it was a treat. You had the same size bunk, but a lot more space in your room, plus a much larger window.


----------



## rrdude (Jun 18, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > provide low prices
> ...


What's the title of your book gonna be? "Sleepers, Slumber Coaches, and Sarcasm"?

I love your posts GML, I think I laff harder at what you write, than anyone else. (sometimes with you, sometimes AT you, but a laff is a laff)


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Jun 18, 2010)

The subject of showers has come up a time or two.

That is one of the more solid improvements of Amtrak over the past. It was not until the invention of the viewliner and the superliner sleeper that we have had showers all over.

In the old days very few trains had showers. And they were seldom for the public sleeping car passengers.. Mostly it would be in one room on one sleeper on one train.

The Crescent, whch is being talked about on another thread used to have a shower located in what waa called a master room, but that has been gone for years.

It must have been a if different culture. Keep in mind that in the "good old days" most people smoked and thought nothing about it.


----------



## dlagrua (Jun 18, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > provide low prices
> ...


I do but I also read Classsic Trains magazines and see that even back in the 1950's a sleeper was only a few dollars more than coach fare. It didn''t add four to six times what the cost of the coach fare was.

As for the Duplex roomette debate; there was also a Duplex Single Room which was based on the same principle of partially overlapping rooms. It was slightly more spacious. They were wider and were located on only one side of the corridor. They had a sofa the back of which came down to make up a bed and you slept crosswize. Could this be the slumbercoach that everyone is referencing?

According to a Classic Trains article ( Summer 2008 Pullman Issue) the complete list of sleepers used on trains was: Section, Roomette, Duplex Roomette, Duplex Single Room, Double Bedrooms, (types A B and D), Compartment and Drawing room.


----------



## sunchaser (Jun 18, 2010)

It seems the discussion always goes back to pricing, & how cheap it was. I remember in the late 60s-early 70s, my mom going nuts that mayonnaise went up to 69 cents a quart! The horror! My first job I made less than $3.00 an hour!!!!

Prices have gone up, folks!!! As with anything, the prices will go up as much as the market will bear, but no further.

If the price goes up too high, then a company can price themselves out of business.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Jun 18, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > dlagrua said:
> ...



Be careful about pricing-- there was a coach fare and a pullman fare. Then, on top of the pullman fare, you added the cost for a specific room.

Absolutely no, that duplex single room was NOT the same as a slumbercoach. As several of us have said.

Slumbercoaches were not even included in pullman fares. For them, you added a slight charge above the coach fare.I have ridden in slumbercoaches many times and really, really do know what I am talking about.I was riding such equipment when it and I were the same age.

Slumbecoaches were usually not even included in pamphlets about pullman cars.

There is at least one more type of room from than those mentioned, and that is the master room, a room with shower.

You need to google slumbercoach and perhaps duplex roomette as well.


----------



## Ispolkom (Jun 18, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> I do but I also read Classsic Trains magazines and see that even back in the 1950's a sleeper was only a few dollars more than coach fare. It didn''t add four to six times what the cost of the coach fare was.


That's because coach prices were relatively high back in the day, and there were lots of sleepers. As it is, Amtrak can generally sell out its sleepers, at least at peak season. Sure, we'd all like Amtrak to have more sleepers, but that's not going to happen, at least not for several years. So what do you want, (a) sleepers sold to Amtrak's best advantage, or (b) sleepers sold at lower prices to those in the know, those who have connections, or those who can pay bribes? Because (b) is what happens when you arbitrarily lower the price of something in high demand.

I can well imagine that top-bucket prices are more than Amtrak accommodations are worth, and I've certainly encountered people complaining about what they got for the price they paid. I've heard lots of people saying that they'd never take Amtrak again.

But here's the thing. Even if those passengers feel that they were suckers for buying a pig in a poke, and will never ride a train again, there are lots more where they come from. Amtrak has such a tiny share of the market for long-distance travel that they could probably fill the sleepers on the Empire Builder, the California Zephyr, and the Southwest Chief till the end of time even if all their passengers are so disappointed that they never travel again.

Sure, I'd like cheaper sleepers, and more frequent trains. But the situation is what it is. I'd rather have Amtrak benefit from sleeper scarcity.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Jun 18, 2010)

Burlington timetable 1964

Chicago to Denver one person

coach 31

sleeper base 39

add to sleeper

upper berth 9

lower berth 12

duplex roomette 13

roomette 17

duplex single room 20

bedroom 24

cmpartment 25

drawing room 34

master room (not availalbe on this line)

slumbercoach

add to 31 coach fare, 9 single 16 double


----------



## sunchaser (Jun 18, 2010)

Bill Haithcoat said:


> Burlington timetable 1964
> Chicago to Denver one person
> 
> coach 31
> ...


Thanks, Bill. Now, would anyone care to share their wages they made in 1964???? I was still in elementary school!

According to this website, the average for 1964 was $4,576.32


----------



## Larry H. (Jun 18, 2010)

Bill Haithcoat said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...



Bill,

I think the party was somewhat correct about the price ratio. I have brought that up in some earlier post always to be trounced by many on this site. But the fact was that you could often upgrade to a sleeper for about half more than what the coach seat cost. I have seen the schedules, (one was posted here not long ago) and my memory is not so bad that I don't definitely recall how the pricing of coach and pullman were done in the 50's. I too pointed out that a sleeper is now 8 to 10 time the cost of a coach fair where it was only 1/2 in the heyday of rail. If they could do it I am somewhat at a loss as to why the ratio now is so different. Of course the usual answer is that the government is forcing them to try and break even and if they can collect the fare, then thats fine with many. I tend to agree with those who believe we already are subsidizing rail travel and when the government said they would save it by taking it over and creating Amtrak, I doubt that passengers thought it meant huge increases in sleeper fare or that lounges or diners would be considered as something to be cut till there were no cost involved. To me that was failure of the government to provide the kind of service that was considered standard rail procedures.

Larry


----------



## Ispolkom (Jun 18, 2010)

Bill Haithcoat said:


> Burlington timetable 1964
> Chicago to Denver one person
> 
> coach 31
> ...


Wow! Am I reading this right that a slumbercoach cost $40 ($31 coach fare + $9 single), but an upper berth cost $48 ($39 sleeper base + $9 upper berth)?


----------



## railiner (Jun 18, 2010)

Bill Haithcoat said:


> Burlington timetable 1964
> Chicago to Denver one person
> 
> coach 31
> ...


Good list. In addition, you could buy a complete section (upper and lower berth). And of course you could buy a bedroom suite or a bedroom/compartment suite.

Not mentioned in your price list was the fact that back then, for larger accommodations and/or suites you had to purchase the equivalent of additional rail fares or fractions thereof in addition to the room charge(s).


----------



## railiner (Jun 18, 2010)

Ispolkom said:


> Bill Haithcoat said:
> 
> 
> > Burlington timetable 1964
> ...


The reason for this could be because traveling in a berth was considered 'first class' even though not private, while a single slumbercoach room was considered travelling 'coach class'.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Jun 18, 2010)

Ispolkom said:


> Bill Haithcoat said:
> 
> 
> > Burlington timetable 1964
> ...



yes.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Jun 18, 2010)

railiner said:


> Bill Haithcoat said:
> 
> 
> > Burlington timetable 1964
> ...


That is true. But I am no math expert,I wanted to keep it simple for all concerned, myself included. Also doing my best to explain that a sumberoach really differs from standard sleepers. If a person would look at old consists, they would see slumbercoaches listed as separate item, not mixed in with sleepers


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2010)

1964, the year my daughter was born, I was in the US Navy, my average monthly pay was $150 a month,(we were paid in cash then!!), plus an allotment with quarters/food allowance of $152 a month x 12= $3,624 Annual .  When I was stationed @ the Sub Base in New London,Conn. service men could ride the train on the New Haven RR to NYC for $5 each way, and they had a lounge car with beer that cost the outrageous price of $1 and cigarettes were $1 a pack!  WOW!!And I got to see the Beautiful Old Penn Station before they tore it down, and spent man y a night on the benches in GCT under the watchful eye of New Yorks finest!


----------



## AlanB (Jun 18, 2010)

Larry H. said:


> Bill,
> I think the party was somewhat correct about the price ratio. I have brought that up in some earlier post always to be trounced by many on this site. But the fact was that you could often upgrade to a sleeper for about half more than what the coach seat cost. I have seen the schedules, (one was posted here not long ago) and my memory is not so bad that I don't definitely recall how the pricing of coach and pullman were done in the 50's. I too pointed out that a sleeper is now 8 to 10 time the cost of a coach fair where it was only 1/2 in the heyday of rail. If they could do it I am somewhat at a loss as to why the ratio now is so different. Of course the usual answer is that the government is forcing them to try and break even and if they can collect the fare, then thats fine with many. I tend to agree with those who believe we already are subsidizing rail travel and when the government said they would save it by taking it over and creating Amtrak, I doubt that passengers thought it meant huge increases in sleeper fare or that lounges or diners would be considered as something to be cut till there were no cost involved. To me that was failure of the government to provide the kind of service that was considered standard rail procedures.
> 
> Larry


Larry,

One thing to keep in mind however, in addition to the reasons you've stated above, those old prices did not include meals in the dining car. For better or worse, today's fares do include meals. So that does help to narrow the gap between prices of yore and today.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Jun 18, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > dlagrua said:
> ...



The reason slumbercoaches are not listed, there are two posibilities. One, it is not really considered a sleeping car even though that is what one does in it, and two,possibily it had not been invented yet. I think the slumbercoach was invented about 1956.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 18, 2010)

Ran these through the CPI Inflation Calculator from the BLS.

coach 31 ($218.18)

sleeper base 39 ($274.48)

add to sleeper

upper berth 9 ($63.34)

lower berth 12 ($84.46)

duplex roomette 13 ($91.49)

roomette 17 ($119.65)

duplex single room 20 ($140.76)

bedroom 24 ($168.91)

compartment 25 ($175.95)

drawing room 34 ($239.29)

slumbercoach

add to 31 ($218.18) coach fare, 9 ($63.34) single 16 ($112.61) double


----------



## Larry H. (Jun 18, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> > Bill,
> ...


Wow Alan,

You could buy a lot of food for the difference in price especially since in those days the food was pretty cheap in comparison as well. Somehow the cost structure has changed radically between the two services. Partly due to the crazy idea that traveling sleeper is a luxury instead of a more comfortable accommodation. What really changes it too is what used to be standard, your family members often were charged half price and a round trip fare would be discounted from a regular one way. It used to seem like a reasonable upgrade to sleeper, or pullman as it was. Now if your not rolling in money its nearly a hardship to afford the cost.

Larry


----------



## Larry H. (Jun 18, 2010)

I just thought of something else that is ironic. The government used to regulate and approve the fares always keeping in mind the needs of the traveling public. A good example of what happens when government runs something, the prices increase as the quality is reduced.. Were in for a lot of fun in the near future.

Larry


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 18, 2010)

Larry H. said:


> I just thought of something else that is ironic. The government used to regulate and approve the fares always keeping in mind the needs of the traveling public. A good example of what happens when government runs something, the prices increase as the quality is reduced.. Were in for a lot of fun in the near future. Larry


America has been the biggest privatization experiement ever attempted. We privatized profits while susidizing risk and just watched as the tinkle-down economics dribbled over us waiting for everything to get better and better and better. That was the big rallying call ever since Reagan. What I don't understand is now that privatizing everything has left our country completely broke how are folks supposed to get their middle-class jobs back? Do we even make enough stuff to fully support _three hundred million_ people anymore? Might be some rough times ahead indeed.


----------



## Ispolkom (Jun 18, 2010)

Sure, AlanB is right that now the price includes meals, but that isn't the reason prices are so high. The reason is that demand for them is so high, and Amtrak doesn't have more sleepers. Given that reality, I what is the alternative is to sky-high sleeper prices?

Is it sleepers sold out months ahead of time?

Is it a black market in sleeper tickets, where those with connections buy them cheap and resell them?

What's the alternative?


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Jun 18, 2010)

This is very unscientfic, but it seemed to me that dining car prices were quite expensive. Of course I was very young and did not "get out much". And my poor dear parents, God bless them, had survived the Great Depression. To them, everything was expensive.

I should not admit this but if I recall correctly when mother and I would take our little trips from Chattanooga to Atlanta and back on the Georgian I ate half the kitchen and mother sat there, like a martyr,and just had coffee or something, because it was so expensive.

I never rode sleeper until I was working and thus paid for it myself.


----------



## dlagrua (Jun 18, 2010)

We must also consider that Amtrak has a very high cost in employee salaries and benefits. People are being paid $40-$80,000 for positions that the private sector would consider simple unskilled labor. When Pullman was around they kept the Porters salaries low as they earned tips for providing good service. Today not only do unskilled uneducated people get paid big money, many of them are lazy,disinterested and rude. In Pullmans day he would not have put up with this type of behavior. IMO all of the onboard staff is way overpaid and that keeps the sleeper prices elevated.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jun 18, 2010)

Find me a Train Attendant who is pulling in $80,000 on salary from Amtrak and I will eat my phone.


----------



## Larry H. (Jun 18, 2010)

daxomni said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> > I just thought of something else that is ironic. The government used to regulate and approve the fares always keeping in mind the needs of the traveling public. A good example of what happens when government runs something, the prices increase as the quality is reduced.. Were in for a lot of fun in the near future. Larry
> ...


Trickle down hasn't worked all that well I somewhat agree. However what is the choice? All the now unionized government jobs being paid for by guess who? You and me. It takes about five workers at non government jobs to cover the cost of one government worker according to a study I just heard on the radio. Why do you think Greece is going bankrupt and all the other countries are looking at ways to cut back on their welfare to grave socialistic programs. The bill has come due and as we know there is no money.. this is one reason I personally brought up making an buying things from our selves. The money goes to the worker here and stays here to produce more jobs and security for our country. When we got lots of stimulus money for cars, the money in large part went to foreign workers. We can't just keep sending all our wealth out of the country only to borrow it back in deficit spending.

I think its very complicated. Yes some greed is at play, but its at play from all directions. The companies want more, the citizens want it cheaper, banks want more and then we have the government making some pretty lousy laws which made things even worse, and its not just one side that has done that. I don't know how you get it back, its probably too late, but the day when a CEO made a nice living and took pride in the town he lived in and provided a living wage for his workers has come to a screeching halt for various reasons. One is the ideal that companies should be able to buy up every thing in site and then dispose of the workers and plants leaving towns destitute. That is a government problem and a moral problem, turning it around isn't likely it seems. But the whole concept of every expanding business has ruined too many jobs and cities. For that business I would agree is at fault. But the opposite side of it is what were getting now, unbridled government who thinks they know all and can control all. That end is as bad or worse than the first mess.


----------



## Sue in KY (Jun 18, 2010)

sunchaser said:


> Thanks, Bill. Now, would anyone care to share their wages they made in 1964???? I was still in elementary school!According to this website, the average for 1964 was $4,576.32


My husband and I married in 1965, graduated from college, and both went to work -- he, as a "management trainee" for a large business machines corporation, began at $4500 a year; I, as a lowly woman, started as the entire PR department in a bank at just under $3600 a year.

Our rent was $85 a month for a two-bedroom duplex and we bought our first (brand-new!) car, a '66 Chevy Chevelle Malibu SuperSport, and the payments, spread over a three-year period, were $82.17 monthly.

We wuz RICH! :lol:


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 18, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > dlagrua said:
> ...


First off, coach, as my other topic indicated, was way more expensive than today. But secondarily, the pricing structure is different. For instance, the price in coach in 1971 from NYP to CHI was $51.25 ($268). Comparatively, while the Bedroom had a specific charge of $28.25 ($147.99), it also had a required fare increase of $30.25 ($158.47), thus bringing the actual upcharge between travelling in Coach and traveling in sleeper to $58.50 ($306.46). Or 114% of coach price.

Now, let us take an example of two people travelling together (which is much cheaper on Amtrak, trust me). Let us assume a theoretical price in between low and high buckets, ok? Railfare is $88 per person, ok? $176 for two people. $616 for the room. $792, room accounting for 78% of the price.

1971, the "coach" fare is 102.50 ($536.96) for the two people. The rail-fare upcharge for traveling in sleeper is $60.50 for the two people ($316.94). And the specific fare for the Bedroom is $56.50 ($295.98), or a total sleeper upcharge of $117. That means that of the total cost of $219.50, the sleeper is 53% of the price.

Now, consider that even the highest bucket coach price is half what it was then, and you can see the actual trend. It isn't that sleepers have gotten more expensive... it is just that coach has gotten cheaper!



dlagrua said:


> We must also consider that Amtrak has a very high cost in employee salaries and benefits. People are being paid $40-$80,000 for positions that the private sector would consider simple unskilled labor. When Pullman was around they kept the Porters salaries low as they earned tips for providing good service. Today not only do unskilled uneducated people get paid big money, many of them are lazy,disinterested and rude. In Pullmans day he would not have put up with this type of behavior. IMO all of the onboard staff is way overpaid and that keeps the sleeper prices elevated.


As someone who actually works with their hands for a living, I find people like you to be disgusting. Like you, I too have a pointless piece of paper that proves that I have spent 4 years in college doing things I could have done the day I graduated high school. However, unlike you I don't believe it does, or should, entitle me to being paid well.

Most white-collar workers aren't worth half of what they are paid, and that is a fact. It is those people who are supposedly "unskilled" labor who work their asses off supporting your way of life. And then when they get paid well you complain.

The only place where blue-collar career workers make less than the lazy, arrogant, stuck up, and generally selfish white collar types are in the places that exploit us because they illegally prevent unions from forming. Such as Wal-Mart. Who has been taking our economy for a ride for more years than I care to think about.


----------



## dlagrua (Jun 19, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Yes we both earned college degrees but its doesn't sound like we achieved affluence does it? FYI, I've also had jobs in construction where I in fact worked with my hands and still get them dirty around the home and garden.

Getting back to what I was saying. Point is that government employees with far less education and skills are being paid enomous salaries, benefits and pensions. Far better than anything comparable in the private sector. Compare a waiter in the private sector to one working on an Amtrak train. The waiter in the private sector is paid $4.00 per hour (below min wage by law) plus tips (and w. no benefits) and the Amtrak waiter is paid $17.00 per hour, with termendous benefits, full healthcare, pension and still earns tips. If there is any wonder why Amtrak loses money it is because they spend it like the supply is infinitesimal. The federal government is now broke and everything that they touch loses money, not just Amtrak. It is the same government that you love who gave license to US corporations to close their factories and move millions of middle class jobs to China. It is the same government that caused the demise of the private sector Unions and the same government that will drive us all into a debt that we will never climb out of and its not a one party problem.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 19, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Getting back to what I was saying. Point is that government employees with far less education and skills are being paid enomous salaries, benefits and pensions. Far better than anything comparable in the private sector. Compare a waiter in the private sector to one working on an Amtrak train. The waiter in the private sector is paid $4.00 per hour (below min wage by law) plus tips (and w. no benefits) and the Amtrak waiter is paid $17.00 per hour, with termendous benefits, full healthcare, pension and still earns tips. If there is any wonder why Amtrak loses money it is because they spend it like the supply is infinitesimal. The federal government is now broke and everything that they touch loses money, not just Amtrak. It is the same government that you love who gave license to US corporations to close their factories and move millions of middle class jobs to China. It is the same government that caused the demise of the private sector Unions and the same government that will drive us all into a debt that we will never climb out of and its not a one party problem.


First, in most cases even waiters on the ground still have access to some benefits. Perhaps they aren't as nice as those enjoyed by Amtrak's waiters, but again most still have the ability to join work health plans and get vacation time.

And then we come to the real differences between Amtrak's waiters and those in a regular resturant. Most regular waiters work one, maybe two meals per day. Amtrak's work 3 meals per day in many cases. Most regular's don't have to work on a moving floor in cramped spaces. Most regular's go home and sleep in their own beds at night, not on a moving train and in a hotel. Most regular's go home to their family's each night, Amtrak's don't. Most regular's have bus boys, Amtrak's don't.

Bottom line is that the only thing that they have in common is that they both wait on tables; beyond that any further comparisons are useless.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 19, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Yes we both earned college degrees but its doesn't sound like we achieved affluence does it? FYI, I've also had jobs in construction where I in fact worked with my hands and still get them dirty around the home and garden. Getting back to what I was saying. Point is that government employees with far less education and skills are being paid enomous salaries, benefits and pensions. Far better than anything comparable in the private sector. Compare a waiter in the private sector to one working on an Amtrak train. The waiter in the private sector is paid $4.00 per hour (below min wage by law) plus tips (and w. no benefits) and the Amtrak waiter is paid $17.00 per hour, with termendous benefits, full healthcare, pension and still earns tips. If there is any wonder why Amtrak loses money it is because they spend it like the supply is infinitesimal. The federal government is now broke and everything that they touch loses money, not just Amtrak. It is the same government that you love who gave license to US corporations to close their factories and move millions of middle class jobs to China. It is the same government that caused the demise of the private sector Unions and the same government that will drive us all into a debt that we will never climb out of and its not a one party problem.


First off, many waitresses are underpaid. That Amtrak pays its waiters what they are worth and you complain about it says more about the nasty nature of arrogant middle class americans than it does about Amtrak's salary practices.

Secondarily, if you think waiting on an Amtrak train is "unskilled labor", I know there are many heritage rail operators who offer dining cars. Why don't you get onto one of them and try your hand on waiting tables on a train? Unskilled labor is working at McDonald as a cashier, or pumping gas at a gas station.

Craftsman, electricians, trainmen, engineers, mechanics, and yes, train on-board service staff are NOT unskilled labor. They do jobs that require skill, deft execution, and considerable ability. The definition of skilled labor is not "having gone to an overblown college or university". They work hard for their money, and in my experience, about 8 out of 10 Amtrak employees more than earn it.

My only argument against unions are those 2 out of 10, which should be much easier to hand a pink slip to.


----------

