# Viewliner Sleeper Bathroom Question



## tommylicious (Jul 8, 2020)

Sorry for the noob question but am I correct in remembering that Viewliner sleeper cars do not have bathrooms outside the rooms and roomettes?


----------



## PVD (Jul 8, 2020)

Correct as to Viewliner 1 (the current batch) The new ones eliminate one roomette and have 2 public toilets. They don't have to be large, since the H room has its own.


----------



## Exvalley (Jul 9, 2020)

And just to be clear, the new Viewliners haven’t entered service yet.


----------



## tommylicious (Jul 9, 2020)

Thank you very much. The roomette bathroom creeps me out!


----------



## Exvalley (Jul 9, 2020)

tommylicious said:


> The roomette bathroom creeps me out!



Understandable. I found that the idea of it was worse than the actual implementation, but this was for two reasons:
1) I have always been traveling alone in a Viewliner roomette; and
2) I have always had the non-toilet adjacent seat facing forward.


----------



## the_traveler (Jul 9, 2020)

Also, note that your head when sleeping is never “against the toilet”. Due to the reduced width, your feet are always at that end - that’s the way the mattress is shaped and how the SCA always makes the berth.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Jul 9, 2020)

tommylicious said:


> The roomette bathroom creeps me out!



The shared/common use bathrooms (toilets) in coach are what totally creep me out. By the end of LD trip, they are far worse than any gas station, ever.

For the Viewliner roomettes, when one of us needs to use the toilet, the other stretches their legs and goes for a walk. Not a big deal.


----------



## Qapla (Jul 10, 2020)

I, obviously, have ridden in far too few trains or been in far too many gas station restrooms. I have seen many gas station restrooms far worse than any I have used an aboard Amtrak.

Don't get me wrong - I am not saying they can't do a better job keeping the facilities clean and usable - just not the worse I have ever seen (or had to use)


----------



## Dakota 400 (Jul 10, 2020)

Qapla said:


> , obviously, have ridden in far too few trains or been in far too many gas station restrooms. I have seen many gas station restrooms far worse than any I have used an aboard Amtrak.



I agree. I'll add to your "gas station restrooms of shame" port-a-potties at many tourist sites world wide with my worst experience needing to use one at the Leaning Tower of Pisa. The Asian type restroom facilities, while unusual (and difficult at times) for Westerners to use, have been universally clean and well cared for.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Jul 10, 2020)

the_traveler said:


> Also, note that your head when sleeping is never “against the toilet”. Due to the reduced width, your feet are always at that end - that’s the way the mattress is shaped and how the SCA always makes the berth.



That set-up of a roomette has not always been my experience. Maybe it has to do with the direction the train is traveling? On the Auto Train traveling North, my feet were at the wide end of the bed and my head was at the commode end. My body was pointed in the direction the train was traveling.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Jul 10, 2020)

Dakota 400 said:


> On the Auto Train traveling North, my feet were at the wide end of the bed and my head was at the commode end. My body was pointed in the direction the train was traveling.



You had a commode (toilet) by your head, in a roomette, on the Auto Train (a Superliner)?


----------



## the_traveler (Jul 10, 2020)

Agreed! Only Viewliners have an in room commode in a roomette.


----------



## PVD (Jul 10, 2020)

Unless someone had a bedroom, not a roomette, and is referring to the enclosed bathroom end. But the bed is made from the couch, and if I recall doesn't have a narrow end.


----------



## Rasputin (Jul 10, 2020)

Dakota 400 said:


> I agree. I'll add to your "gas station restrooms of shame" port-a-potties at many tourist sites world wide with my worst experience needing to use one at the Leaning Tower of Pisa. The Asian type restroom facilities, while unusual (and difficult at times) for Westerners to use, have been universally clean and well cared for.


I have seen many, many gas station restrooms that would put Amtrak to shame. I am also not paying the gas station a fare of $500-$1500 to use their restroom.


----------



## RichieRich (Jul 10, 2020)

the_traveler said:


> Agreed! Only Viewliners have an in room commode in a roomette.


Grrrrr-ose! Luv spending the nite at home IN THE BATHROOM! DOH


----------



## RichieRich (Jul 10, 2020)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> You had a commode (toilet) by your head, in a roomette, on the Auto Train (a Superliner)?


No....not possible on the AutoTrain. NO TOILETS in the Roomettes. Bedroom = a separate room with-in your room WITH A DOOR!


----------



## the_traveler (Jul 10, 2020)

Sometimes it feels like you do pay the gas station that much!

I remember when you paid $10 to fill your tank - and got money back. Now, it barely moves the needle!


----------



## Dakota 400 (Jul 10, 2020)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> You had a commode (toilet) by your head, in a roomette, on the Auto Train (a Superliner)?



Then, what am I remembering? I was in a Deluxe Sleeper on the Auto Train in one of the 4 Roomettes on the lower level. I remember getting out of bed during the night and using the commode in the Roomette without having to change the direction of travel the train was going.


----------



## me_little_me (Jul 10, 2020)

the_traveler said:


> Sometimes it feels like you do pay the gas station that much!
> 
> I remember when you paid $10 to fill your tank - and got money back. Now, it barely moves the needle!


For some of us with hybrids, a short while ago, that $10 mostly filled the tank. $1.40/gallon in a Prius gives 350+ miles.
And remember, when gas filled your tank in the old days of low prices, it left just as quickly as some of those cars (like my '68 GTO) seemed to have gas gauges that you could actually see move down in real time!


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Jul 11, 2020)

Dakota 400 said:


> Then, what am I remembering? I was in a Deluxe Sleeper on the Auto Train in one of the 4 Roomettes on the lower level. I remember getting out of bed during the night and using the commode in the Roomette without having to change the direction of travel the train was going.



The only room with a toilet, on the lower level, would be the H or Handicap room, and your head would never be next to its toilet in night-time mode.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 11, 2020)

If you are traveling alone, the sleeping with the head by the toilet thing can be completely eliminated by asking the attendant to make up the upper bunk for you. This allows you to sleep in the upper bunk, far away from the toilet. In fact, the bed has usually been made for me with the head on the opposite side from the toilet.

For those more familiar with the upper bunk "coffin" on the Superliner, the upper bunk of a Viewliner roomette is surprisingly roomy, plus it was windows, so you can still see the countryside go by in the night, if that's your thing. the other nice thing about this arrangement is that you still have use of your seats, even after the bed is set up. The headroom's reduced, but the upper bunk slides up and down on a vertical axis, so it's pretty easy to push it up temporarily if you want to sit while the bed is made up. And it's great in the morning when you want to get dressed. I need to be a contortionist to get dressed in a Superliner roomette with the lower bunk made up.


----------



## Exvalley (Jul 11, 2020)

Good point! I actually prefer the Viewliner upper bunk when traveling solo.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Jul 11, 2020)

Dakota 400 said:


> Then, what am I remembering? I was in a Deluxe Sleeper on the Auto Train in one of the 4 Roomettes on the lower level. I remember getting out of bed during the night and using the commode in the Roomette without having to change the direction of travel the train was going.



I am getting my memories of my Amtrak trips confused. It was on the Silver Meteor that I recall the commode being within the Roomette, not on the Auto Train.


----------



## PVD (Jul 11, 2020)

That makes sense, the Meteor uses the VL-1 sleepers, the roomettes have the sink and toilet in the room. The bed is normally set up with your feet at the toilet end. Occasionally some one will reverse it because of their preference for head or feet in the direction of travel if the car is facing the other way.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Jul 12, 2020)

PVD said:


> That makes sense, the Meteor uses the VL-1 sleepers, the roomettes have the sink and toilet in the room. The bed is normally set up with your feet at the toilet end. Occasionally some one will reverse it because of their preference for head or feet in the direction of travel if the car is facing the other way.



Until reading the comments on this thread, I didn't realize that I could have asked my SCA to have set the bed up so my feet were at the commode end.


----------



## PVD (Jul 12, 2020)

That is the defacto standard. The bed tapers at the end by the toilet, people who sleep on their backs, or turn while sleeping generally don't like the narrowing by the head. A side sleeper might not care as much, depending on which side. Some folks feel that orientation by direction of travel is more important than the toilet.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 12, 2020)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> The shared/common use bathrooms (toilets) in coach are what totally creep me out. By the end of LD trip, they are far worse than any gas station, ever.


I don't doubt that the restrooms were disgusting. I just find it odd that the solution is to build a toilet inside every compartment instead of training and equipping the staff to clean shared toilets regularly.


----------



## the_traveler (Jul 12, 2020)

I never minded the in-room toilet. (It is sealed, even though it’s not enclosed.)

I find it much easier to just close the hall door and curtain “and go” Especially if traveling solo. And much easier to do so at 3 am, instead of finding your pants and shoes, putting them on and either going down the hall or to the lower level. And if you are traveling with someone, they can just step out in the hallway for a minute!

I much prefer it. When the VL-2 gets built (and the VL-1 gets updated), you’ll need to do that also to go to the end of the car.


----------



## Palmland (Jul 13, 2020)

I do wonder about the number of bathrooms on the VL-2. I believe it has12 roomettes and 2 bathrooms. The Superliner has 14 roomettes plus family room and 4 bathrooms.


----------



## the_traveler (Jul 13, 2020)

The VL-2 has 12 roomettes and 2 restrooms, while the VL-1 has more roomettes. They took the space of a roomette and converted it to 2 restrooms. They also moved the SCAfrom room #14 to room #12.


----------



## Exvalley (Jul 13, 2020)

Palmland said:


> I do wonder about the number of bathrooms on the VL-2. I believe it has 12 roomettes and 2 bathrooms. The Superliner has 14 roomettes plus family room and 4 bathrooms.


Usage patterns come into play as well. I would hazard to guess that the upstairs bathroom in a Superliner sees much more usage than a downstairs bathroom.


----------



## Rasputin (Jul 13, 2020)

Exvalley said:


> Usage patterns come into play as well. I would hazard to guess that the upstairs bathroom in a Superliner sees much more usage than a downstairs bathroom.


Which is why I often walk by the upstairs bathroom in a Superliner and use a downstairs bathroom. Usually downstairs there is no waiting in line and no one is knocking on the door wanting to come in. Those downstairs restrooms are the ones with least resistance.


----------



## PVD (Jul 13, 2020)

Especially overnight, since lots of folks who get up in the middle of the night don't want to go down the stairs. Downstairs usually stays cleaner in my experience.


----------



## tommylicious (Jul 13, 2020)

Yeah sorry to say we passed on the Amtrak for several reasons, including the lousy new food service, the weird toilet situation, bizarre schedule, and ended up booking a flight instead.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Jul 13, 2020)

PVD said:


> Especially overnight, since lots of folks who get up in the middle of the night don't want to go down the stairs. Downstairs usually stays cleaner in my experience.



On Superliner sleepers, these are a major reasons why I choose a Roomette on the lower level. Plus, it is simpler to access the shower and one does not have to keep going "up/down" the stairs to see if the shower is available for me when the shower is in use by many.


----------



## me_little_me (Jul 13, 2020)

In the VLs, the H room has a real door to it's bathroom. In the SL, it just has a curtain meaning noise, shower water and smells can permeate the room and the toilet and bathroom floor can become soaked from the shower. So in the Southwest Chief and CONO last December, we used the downstairs toilets and showers in lieu of the in-room ones. Not once were they unavailable nor was anyone waiting outside after we used them.


----------



## Mailliw (Jul 13, 2020)

I believe the reason for having a curtain in the H room instead of an enclosed door is to make wheelchair transfers easier. I think the VIIs will have the same set up.


----------



## PVD (Jul 13, 2020)

That's my understanding, also. Many people have said that the VL H room is the best room of all. There are a couple of pictures on Railplan's website. They are the supplier of the room modules.


----------



## the_traveler (Jul 13, 2020)

Dakota 400 said:


> On Superliner sleepers, these are a major reasons why I choose a Roomette on the lower level. Plus, it is simpler to access the shower and one does not have to keep going "up/down" the stairs to see if the shower is available for me when the shower is in use by many.


If I go to take a shower and it’s being used, I normally just wait in the vestibule/doorway. The longest “Wait” I’ve had was maybe 2 minutes. I think I once saw a “line” (of 1 person), but most always it’s always open!


----------



## Dakota 400 (Jul 13, 2020)

the_traveler said:


> If I go to take a shower and it’s being used, I normally just wait in the vestibule/doorway. The longest “Wait” I’ve had was maybe 2 minutes. I think I once saw a “line” (of 1 person), but most always it’s always open!



On one trip, that was not my experience. I went at must have been "prime time" for people starting their day. Since then, I usually arise at an hour that is not my "normal time to arise for the day" in order to get to the shower when it's not been used yet.


----------



## Rasputin (Jul 13, 2020)

Dakota 400 said:


> On one trip, that was not my experience. I went at must have been "prime time" for people starting their day. Since then, I usually arise at an hour that is not my "normal time to arise for the day" in order to get to the shower when it's not been used yet.


I usually take a shower mid-afternoon when it is much, much quieter and by that time hopefully the attendant has cleaned up the shower space from the morning rush. Of course it also depends on the scenery. I don't want to be in the shower when we are going through prime scenery.


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jul 14, 2020)

With Covid-19 the use of public bathrooms worries me a lot.


----------



## cocojacoby (Jul 15, 2020)

PVD said:


> That's my understanding, also. Many people have said that the VL H room is the best room of all.



It was especially with the bathroom behind a door. Now with the toilet pretty much in the middle of the room, it isn't as appealing to non-ADA passengers who could be accommodated if the room was available.


----------



## the_traveler (Jul 15, 2020)

My own opinion is that the VL H room is the best room on Amtrak, and the Superliner H room is the worst room on Amtrak.


----------



## joelkfla (Jul 15, 2020)

the_traveler said:


> My own opinion is that the VL H room is the best room on Amtrak, and the Superliner H room is the worst room on Amtrak.


Aside from the toilet being exposed, when I rode the CZ last year the room would, from time to time, smell like sewage. I don't know whether it was related to the macerator, or periods of heavy restroom usage, or whatever, but the smell would last for a while, then subside, then reoccur a few hours later. The SCA basically shrugged it off.

And the Superliner H room for some reason has a window that is much smaller than the other rooms.


----------



## me_little_me (Jul 17, 2020)

the_traveler said:


> My own opinion is that the VL H room is the best room on Amtrak, and the Superliner H room is the worst room on Amtrak.


Other than being dowstairs with its limited view of the world, the fact that the bathroom was behind a curtain not a door and that there was no way to keep the door closed when out of the room as it always rocked open, I'd say it is better than the romettes or the regular bedrooms in the superliners and a LOT cheaper than the bedrooms.


----------



## PVD (Jul 17, 2020)

Correct me if my memory is off, but there is a shower in a VL H room, not in a SL H room.


----------



## the_traveler (Jul 17, 2020)

me_little_me said:


> Other than being dowstairs with its limited view of the world, the fact that the bathroom was behind a curtain not a door and that there was no way to keep the door closed when out of the room as it always rocked open, I'd say it is better than the romettes or the regular bedrooms in the superliners and a LOT cheaper than the bedrooms.


Only if you qualify for the handicapped fare. If not, and you get it because it’s not sold just before departure, it’s sold at the bedroom rate!


----------



## me_little_me (Jul 17, 2020)

the_traveler said:


> Only if you qualify for the handicapped fare. If not, and you get it because it’s not sold just before departure, it’s sold at the bedroom rate!


You are correct. It is indeed only cheaper if you qualify. Unfortunately, I do. I'd rather not have the disability than to save a few bucks.


----------



## the_traveler (Jul 17, 2020)

As do I. And I agree.


----------



## glensfallsse (Jul 20, 2020)

In the new Viewliners, without the in-room bathrooms, does anybody know how they'll use the extra space? Will they still have the sink and mirror in the room or will they instead put a larger seat in place of the narrower one, like the Superliner? And does this mean the upper bunk will now be usable for a 6-4 guy?


----------



## PVD (Jul 20, 2020)

I believe the sink stays, but last time I looked, the RailPlan (company that makes the modules) has pictures of the mockup on their site.


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jul 21, 2020)

Incredible that at a time when public toilets are a MAJOR health risk Amtrak is downgrading service so that toilets are eliminated from private rooms. Even before Covid-19 this was a foolish move.


----------



## IndyLions (Jul 21, 2020)

In my opinion, listening to your customers and potential customers is rarely a foolish move. A lot of people are grossed out by having an unenclosed toilet in the Viewliner Roomette. If you are trying to appeal to a wider audience it is probably the right move.

And let’s face it, we’re averaging about one significant pandemic every 50-100 years (1915 flu and this one) - I don’t think EVERY decision should be made based on the potential for a pandemic. Public restrooms aren’t suddenly going to go the way of the pay phone...


----------



## PVD (Jul 21, 2020)

The cars were designed and the roomette modules were ordered years ago. The roomette modules are probably all built and sitting crated on pallets. That ship has already sailed. More people wanted them gone, than wanted them to stay....


----------



## Exvalley (Jul 21, 2020)

Let's be honest. If the sink stays in the roomette it will be a combination sink and urinal for many travelers.


----------



## Rasputin (Jul 21, 2020)

Exvalley said:


> Let's be honest. If the sink stays in the roomette it will be a combination sink and urinal for many travelers.


Unfortunately I think you may be correct. Keeping the sinks but getting rid of the toilets is a questionable move. Should have been all or nothing.


----------



## me_little_me (Jul 21, 2020)

Rasputin said:


> Unfortunately I think you may be correct. Keeping the sinks but getting rid of the toilets is a questionable move. Should have been all or nothing.


Disagree. Having a sink means shaving, washing hands before and after eating in-room or out, brushing teeth, etc. Think of the line of people with everyone every night waiting to brush their teeth and every morning waiting to shave (well, half the people).
As to other uses, well, there are always the very tall or the stupid everywhere.


----------



## Exvalley (Jul 21, 2020)

me_little_me said:


> Think of the line of people with everyone every night waiting to brush their teeth and every morning waiting to shave (well, half the people).


Is that a problem in the Superliners?


----------



## me_little_me (Jul 21, 2020)

Exvalley said:


> Is that a problem in the Superliners?


11 roomettes - 2 bathrooms
14 roomettes, one family room - 4 bathrooms (one upstairs/3 downstairs)

Am I right?


----------



## Rasputin (Jul 21, 2020)

me_little_me said:


> Having a sink means shaving, washing hands before and after eating in-room or out, brushing teeth, etc.


Well, that is what it means to me also but to uncouth people I am afraid it will suggest other opportunities and unfortunately there are plenty of uncouth people around.


----------



## Exvalley (Jul 21, 2020)

me_little_me said:


> 11 roomettes - 2 bathrooms
> 14 roomettes, one family room - 4 bathrooms (one upstairs/3 downstairs)
> 
> *Am I right?*


Yes and no. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the utilization of Superliner bedrooms is far from uniform. The upstairs bathroom sees much more use than the downstairs bathrooms.

Regardless, the argument that there Viewliners would have queues for brushing teeth seems to be a bit overstated. At most you might need to wait a couple of minutes. Some people see that as a fair tradeoff compared to having a combination sink/urinal in the roomette.

I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer here. Just as with the toilet located in the roomette there will always be a split opinion.


----------



## joelkfla (Jul 21, 2020)

Exvalley said:


> Let's be honest. If the sink stays in the roomette it will be a combination sink and urinal for many travelers.


Ooh! Yet another use for the steps to the upper berth. (Picture, if you will ...)


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Jul 21, 2020)

PVD said:


> More people wanted them gone, than wanted them to stay....



Prove it.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Jul 21, 2020)

IndyLions said:


> In my opinion, listening to your customers and potential customers is rarely a foolish move. A lot of people are grossed out by having an unenclosed toilet in the Viewliner Roomette. If you are trying to appeal to a wider audience it is probably the right move.



I assume you always stay in a hotel, where there is a common shared bathroom down the hall. For me, I think my grandparents did.

Yea, I suspect that Hilton or Marriott would save a lot of money, if they could get away with building hotels without private bathrooms in their rooms.


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jul 21, 2020)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Prove it.



Exactly. There is no such proof! A compromise would be to have a couple of bathrooms at the end of the hall for those whose sensibilities are offended by a toilet in the room. For older people, trips to the bathroom in the middle of the night are common and having to trudge down the hall is a real pain. Also the Roomettes are far too small for two people and should not even be permitted. Amtrak is in reality a nationalized railway and should be looking after the interests of the public. Public bathrooms - especially the tiny ones on Amtrak - are breeding grounds for germs. I've had the flu three times in my life. One was on Amtrak and I am certain that it was a result of using the public 'bathroom' in a Superliner -and that was back in the 1980s. Amtrak hasn't progressed. The same Superliners are still running - aging and in sad shape. New Viewliners have been downgraded to rooms with no toilets. Maybe some people here haven't noticed, but in the rest of the USA there has been a major upgrading of bathroom standards -- just look at hotels from the most simple motel to a five star hotel. Amtrak seems NOT to have noticed. You'd think the management back in Washington think we go to outhouses. It's a disgrace. And the same can be said of then unhealthy junk food they are serving.


----------



## PVD (Jul 21, 2020)

I personally like the bathroom in the roomette. I'm one of those get up a couple of times a night folks myself. But I don't have to prove anything. This was beaten to death years ago, when the cars were designed and the contracts were signed. And just like today, it was clearly a divided issue. Do I think they might have made a different call if it was today, yes. Surveys were sent out and focus groups conducted, as well as input from marketing and engineering/maintenance and OBS. I think many people feel differently today than 4-5 years ago, but lots of people really disliked the idea of sleeping in a room with a toilet, and privacy was brought up by many people who were sharing the room. If you want proof of something that happened 5 years ago, good luck with the FOIA and obtaining internal documents and records. A decision was made that many of us are not thrilled with, but having our own opinions does not entitle us to our own facts.


----------



## Qapla (Jul 21, 2020)

Why not have some roomettes with toilets and some without and let them be requested/assigned on a fcfs basis


----------



## me_little_me (Jul 21, 2020)

Exvalley said:


> Yes and no. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the utilization of Superliner bedrooms is far from uniform. The upstairs bathroom sees much more use than the downstairs bathrooms.
> 
> Regardless, the argument that there Viewliners would have queues for brushing teeth seems to be a bit overstated. At most you might need to wait a couple of minutes. Some people see that as a fair tradeoff compared to having a combination sink/urinal in the roomette.
> 
> I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer here. Just as with the toilet located in the roomette there will always be a split opinion.


I don't disagree about the toilet. I never said or even implied I did. My posting quoted what I was commenting on from this quote:


Rasputin said:


> Unfortunately I think you may be correct. Keeping the sinks but getting rid of the toilets is a questionable move. Should have been all or nothing.




And that I was trying to point out, the sink is a separate issue and not overstated. The Superliners have more than twice the proportion of bathrooms for the roomettes. Now, I don't like not having a sink and wouldn't mind having the toilet in the room if there were one outside other than walking to coach but with two people in a roomette, it's as much of a problem having the in-room toilet as having the availability of a couple down the hall - but each has its advantages.

Not "all or nothing". The toilet issue stands on its own. - Well, okay, it stands on the floor!


----------



## Mailliw (Jul 21, 2020)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> I assume you always stay in a hotel, where there is a common shared bathroom down the hall. For me, I think my grandparents did.
> 
> Yea, I suspect that Hilton or Marriott would save a lot of money, if they could get away with building hotels without private bathrooms in their rooms.



I actually have stayed in a hotel (Pod 51 in NYC) as recently as this January that had shared bathrooms in the hall. Everything was clean, the room was small (even by Manhattan standards), but I paid less than $80 a night. I've stayed in any kind of accommodation that came with a private unenclosed toilet in the room. Other than Viewliners the only other modern accommodations set up like that are prison cells. I've stayed in other micro hotels that bathrooms, but the toilet & shower were still in an enclosed cubical. 

Sleeping cars are an extremely tight squeeze and shared facilities make more sense when trying to fit as many revenue spaces in as you can and still give everyone a bed. And the Viewliner II's still have options for passengers who want en-suite facilities. Even on airlines with First Class "suites" passengers still share bathrooms.


----------



## PVD (Jul 21, 2020)

In this particular case, the removal of the toilet results in loss of revenue space.


----------



## railiner (Jul 21, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Why not have some roomettes with toilets and some without and let them be requested/assigned on a fcfs basis


That's the way it was prior to Amtrak...section sleepers had no private facilities, but a large restroom/dressing room for men and for women. The only accommodation that had a toilet in a room for two, but not in a separate annex, was a double slumbercoach. But IIRC, even that had a public restroom down the hall.


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jul 22, 2020)

Mailliw said:


> I actually have stayed in a hotel (Pod 51 in NYC) as recently as this January that had shared bathrooms in the hall. Everything was clean, the room was small (even by Manhattan standards), but I paid less than $80 a night. I've stayed in any kind of accommodation that came with a private unenclosed toilet in the room. Other than Viewliners the only other modern accommodations set up like that are prison cells. I've stayed in other micro hotels that bathrooms, but the toilet & shower were still in an enclosed cubical.
> 
> Sleeping cars are an extremely tight squeeze and shared facilities make more sense when trying to fit as many revenue spaces in as you can and still give everyone a bed. And the Viewliner II's still have options for passengers who want en-suite facilities. Even on airlines with First Class "suites" passengers still share bathrooms.



As I said, those passengers who do not want to use the toilet in their rooms could use public bathrooms. Amtrak is providing a public service and should be properly funded, not obsessed with making as much money as they can at public expense. The whole concept of long distance travel has gravitated toward the cruise concept. That means reasonable standards and service. The Pod hotels are for the most budget minded travellers. Amtrak is charging very high fares. You cannot equate the two.


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jul 22, 2020)

railiner said:


> That's the way it was prior to Amtrak...section sleepers had no private facilities, but a large restroom/dressing room for men and for women. The only accommodation that had a toilet in a room for two, but not in a separate annex, was a double slumbercoach. But IIRC, even that had a public restroom down the hall.



Section sleepers have not been around for many decades in the US. I think a few have managed to survive in Canada. The public were only too happy to abandon them when railways introduced private room sleepers. At that time the country was PROGRESSING, not REGRESSING. Slumbercoaches or sleepercoaches (they went by both names) had a toilet and sink. By charging low fares, they were an attempt to attract passengers at a time that revenues were declining.


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jul 22, 2020)

PVD said:


> In this particular case, the removal of the toilet results in loss of revenue space.



True and that should not be Amtrak's main concern. I know that Amtrak is under great pressure from Congress and that long distance trains may not even survive but I very much doubt that the money earned from one or two more sleeping car rooms compared to having more bathrooms is worth the passenger discomfort involved and the poor image it gives Amtrak. Are sleepers even sold out most of the time? The Superliners are in poor shape and have to be replaced before too long IF Amtrak is going to continue long distance service. The design of sleeping-car accommodations needs to be reconsidered in light of present day standards/expectations and health concerns.


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jul 22, 2020)

Mailliw said:


> I actually have stayed in a hotel (Pod 51 in NYC) as recently as this January that had shared bathrooms in the hall. Everything was clean, the room was small (even by Manhattan standards), but I paid less than $80 a night. I've stayed in any kind of accommodation that came with a private unenclosed toilet in the room. Other than Viewliners the only other modern accommodations set up like that are prison cells. I've stayed in other micro hotels that bathrooms, but the toilet & shower were still in an enclosed cubical.
> 
> Sleeping cars are an extremely tight squeeze and shared facilities make more sense when trying to fit as many revenue spaces in as you can and still give everyone a bed. And the Viewliner II's still have options for passengers who want en-suite facilities. Even on airlines with First Class "suites" passengers still share bathrooms.



No airplane trip lasts three days. Can you imagine a cruise ship with cabins without private bathrooms? The whole concept of the long distance train needs rethinking. Australia and Canada have transcontinental trains that function as cruises on rails. Canada seems to do the best they can with very old equipment. Australia has better rolling stock. I think all accommodations on the Indian-Pacific have private bathrooms. Under the former Amtrak administration the goal seemed to be to get out of long distance service. That may not have changed. Unfortunately the only major directive Congress has given Amtrak is to cut costs. No-one seems to have any philosophy regarding the purpose of long distance trains which could be a national asset. even an international tourist attraction, if they were competently developed if allocated enough funding. With the current health crisis and the economic fallout, Amtrak will be a very low priority.


----------



## Mailliw (Jul 22, 2020)

No Viewliners are used on routes lasting a single night and a train is not a cruise ship. It's primarily a means of transportation. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be reasonably comfortable and for overnight travel that includes sleeping accommodations. But trying to cram too many amenities that most travelers can do without into too small a space leads to bad design choices. There just isn't enough space in a roomette for a toilet be practicalordesirableformost people. . If a luxury tourist experience is the goal than contract it out to a private company and let them charge accordingly.


----------



## IndyLions (Jul 22, 2020)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> I assume you always stay in a hotel, where there is a common shared bathroom down the hall. For me, I think my grandparents did.
> 
> Yea, I suspect that Hilton or Marriott would save a lot of money, if they could get away with building hotels without private bathrooms in their rooms.



So all Superliners should be taken out of service because of the lack of private restrooms in the roomettes and family bedroom?

And while we’re at it, the the National Park Service should start ripping up Public Rest Rooms and installing private ones?

Amtrak long distance (which I love) is just as close to being a National Park as it is to being a hotel.


----------



## me_little_me (Jul 22, 2020)

Mailliw said:


> No Viewliners are used on routes lasting a single night and a train is not a cruise ship.


Reread your post. Should there be a period after the "No"? Because : "Yes, Viewliners are used on routes lasting a single night".


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jul 22, 2020)

Mailliw said:


> No Viewliners are used on routes lasting a single night and a train is not a cruise ship. It's primarily a means of transportation. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be reasonably comfortable and for overnight travel that includes sleeping accommodations. But trying to cram too many amenities that most travelers can do without into too small a space leads to bad design choices. There just isn't enough space in a roomette for a toilet be practicalordesirableformost people. . If a luxury tourist experience is the goal than contract it out to a private company and let them charge accordingly.



I think they are like cruise ships. Three nights on a train is not a practical way to travel in the 21st century. It costs several times more than an air ticket. The train provides an experience like the cruise ship.


----------



## Mailliw (Jul 22, 2020)

me_little_me said:


> Reread your post. Should there be a period after the "No"? Because : "Yes, Viewliners are used on routes lasting a single night".



Yeah, that should read "lasting _more_ than a singe night".


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 22, 2020)

Ferroequinologist said:


> Incredible that at a time when public toilets are a MAJOR health risk Amtrak is downgrading service so that toilets are eliminated from private rooms. Even before Covid-19 this was a foolish move.


To the best of my understanding the primary risk with restrooms involves enclosed aerosolized transmission rather than shared surface contact. Since trains are not pressurized this risk _could_ be addressed with proper venting. Improved fresh air intake could also help dissipate the unique mixture of retention tank odors, industrial detergents, and commercial soap fragrance I call _Amfunk_. 



Cho Cho Charlie said:


> I assume you always stay in a hotel, where there is a common shared bathroom down the hall. For me, I think my grandparents did. Yea, I suspect that Hilton or Marriott would save a lot of money, if they could get away with building hotels without private bathrooms in their rooms.


Which Marriott or Hilton features a toilet installed next to your bed?


----------



## me_little_me (Jul 23, 2020)

Ferroequinologist said:


> The train provides an experience like the cruise ship.


Yeah! Food at all hours of the day. Big buffets plus sit-down meals where they serve you excellently on table cloths with real china and cutlery and have customizable meals. Stops every day or couple of days where you can get off and pay them or someone else for a tour or just wander about for the day while they wait patiently for a set number of hours. Room attendants who fall over backwards to please you.
So you haven't taken an LD train since the '30s?


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jul 25, 2020)

Devil's Advocate said:


> To the best of my understanding the primary risk with restrooms involves enclosed aerosolized transmission rather than shared surface contact. Since trains are not pressurized this risk _could_ be addressed with proper venting. Improved fresh air intake could also help dissipate the unique mixture of retention tank odors, industrial detergents, and commercial soap fragrance I call _Amfunk_.
> 
> 
> Which Marriott or Hilton features a toilet installed next to your bed?



As I said earlier, the best solution would have been to have toilets in the rooms with a couple of toilets down the hall. Those who don't care to use in room toilets would have a public toilet option. The two berth Roomette is far too small for two people and should be designed for one person. I believe the transcontinental Indian-Pacific in Australia has private bathrooms attached to each compartment. When I rode it I definitely did have my own bathroom. In response to another post here, I remember that the train did give us a bus tour when we stopped in the town of Kalgoorlie, similar to a cruise ship.


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jul 25, 2020)

me_little_me said:


> Yeah! Food at all hours of the day. Big buffets plus sit-down meals where they serve you excellently on table cloths with real china and cutlery and have customizable meals. Stops every day or couple of days where you can get off and pay them or someone else for a tour or just wander about for the day while they wait patiently for a set number of hours. Room attendants who fall over backwards to please you.
> So you haven't taken an LD train since the '30s?



Many travel writers have likened a transcontinental train trip to a cruise ship. You don't have to go back to the 1930s to recall long distance rail travel when it was a luxurious way to travel. Even in the 1960s there were still trains with lots of amenities - the Super Chief with its private dining room and elegant dining-car was one. I remember the Florida trains in the late 1950s with their observation cars and stewardesses. A few years ago Amtrak had tour guides (I believe National Park Service) on board trains giving historic and geographical descriptions of the areas the train was traveling through. There were wine and cheese parties - and there were cloth table cloths and real china in the dining-car. That wasn't very long ago. There was (and still is) room service. Room attendants who "fall over backwards to please you"? Some Amtrak employees make an effort to please; many are indifferent. Obviously times have changed and rail travel is going to adapt to changing tastes. The formality of previous eras is probably not suitable today but the general public does have expectations regarding hygiene, especially bathrooms, that Amtrak does not fulfill. And to attract more passengers to its sleeping cars there needs to be much better food service. We all know about Amtrak's funding issues but Amtrak management must have the WILL to improve as well as the money.


----------



## joelkfla (Jul 25, 2020)

Ferroequinologist said:


> I believe the transcontinental Indian-Pacific in Australia has private bathrooms attached to each compartment. When I rode it I definitely did have my own bathroom.


But from what I've seen on YouTube, the Indian Pacific truly is a cruise on rails, taking into account the gourmet food, activities and excursions, and onboard service.

Amtrak simply is not viewed that way, either by management or by Congress. Sure, a lot, if not a majority, of sleeper passengers take it for the experience, but it's really intended as point-to-point transportation, and that's how and why it's funded.

I certainly agree that at least decent and hopefully memorable food is in order, and I also happen to agree on having in-room facilities, but comparing Amtrak to the Indian Pacific is like comparing a Prius to a Rolls Royce.


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jul 25, 2020)

joelkfla said:


> But from what I've seen on YouTube, the Indian Pacific truly is a cruise on rails, taking into account the gourmet food, activities and excursions, and onboard service.
> 
> Amtrak simply is not viewed that way, either by management or by Congress. Sure, a lot, if not a majority, of sleeper passengers take it for the experience, but it's really intended as point-to-point transportation, and that's how and why it's funded.
> 
> I certainly agree that at least decent and hopefully memorable food is in order, and I also happen to agree on having in-room facilities, but comparing Amtrak to the Indian Pacific is like comparing a Prius to a Rolls Royce.



Even the Canadian does much better than Amtrak with far older equipment. Just what is Amtrak's congressional mandate? It's not clear to me that the law required a downgrading of the service that existed before Amtrak (a downgrade that forced Amtrak to drop the name Super Chief because the lowered standard of the train under Amtrak was damaging the AT&SF image). I think this idea that Amtrak is supposed to be a kind of Greyhound bus on rails is the result of decades of conditioning by hostile members of Congress. If Amtrak is going to continue long haul service west of Chicago new trains are going to be a necessity before too long. Instead of dropping standards as they are doing with the new Viewliners, a better design needs to be considered. Making Amtrak a desirable way to cross the country would attract more passengers and contribute to the economy of the regions the trains serve. Unfortunately Amtrak management has had limited vision in this respect. Maybe Congress needs to see the tourist potential of long distance trains. Given the current political and economic climate, however, the future of long distance trains looks bleak.


----------



## me_little_me (Jul 25, 2020)

joelkfla said:


> But from what I've seen on YouTube, the Indian Pacific truly is a cruise on rails, taking into account the gourmet food, activities and excursions, and onboard service.
> 
> Amtrak simply is not viewed that way, either by management or by Congress. Sure, a lot, if not a majority, of sleeper passengers take it for the experience, but it's really intended as point-to-point transportation, and that's how and why it's funded.
> 
> I certainly agree that at least decent and hopefully memorable food is in order, and I also happen to agree on having in-room facilities, but comparing Amtrak to the Indian Pacific is like comparing a Prius to a Rolls Royce.


Since more amenities mean higher costs, Amtrak could do a lot to provide both. Having a luxury high-priced car on board (ala the Canadian with its premium service), encouraging private cars which they have DISCOURAGED to provide premium service, dining and amenities would help as would allowing those private cars to be dropped off at intermediate locations (where it would be supplied with electricity/food/water/servicing) and then picked up on the following (or later) day to allow its customers to have optionally included tours would separate those willing to pay the price for luxury (with Amtrak making more $$$) from the standard service. That service would have to be separated to show it made a profit but encouraged by Amtrak working with vendors for a positive outcome for both Amtrak and the vendors and to satisfy Amtrak's critics that it is not a "subsidy to the rich".

Just think if you could, say, take a special luxury car from Chicago just to Denver with optional tours ala cruises or to Reno or Sacramento with stops in Denver, near Dinosaur Monument, and Reno with overnight onboard the train or in hotels with optional tours in each city. One price would get you a room in an Amtrak sleeper w/o Amtrak meals but with sitting and dining rights in the private diner/lounge or a higher price to get more luxury accommodations (double/queen room with private facilities) in a private car with same dining/sitting facilities. You could do your own thing or pay for tours or own overnight hotel in Denver then have reservations to the next city or return to Chicago.

Amtrak Tours (an unsubsidized division of Amtrak) could run it, Amtrak could provide requirements and ask private car owners to bid for rights or pay a percentage of gross to Amtrak to offer that service or simply contract with one vendor ala National Parks contractors where specifications for service and profit are given with Amtrak owning (or leasing) the equipment.


----------



## railiner (Jul 25, 2020)

American European Express, Pullman Rail Journey's,....tried and failed...just not enough interest in this type of service to sustain it....


----------



## me_little_me (Jul 26, 2020)

railiner said:


> American European Express, Pullman Rail Journey's,....tried and failed...just not enough interest in this type of service to sustain it....


But didn't they do it independently of Amtrak i.e. they were not "supported" by Amtrak but just paid Amtrak what it demanded to pull their cars? No Amtrak selling those tickets or promoting them on its site. No special "in" with Amtrak with Amtrak promoting their success. No Amtrak "branding". Not part of "Arrow". To be successful, it has to be "part" of Amtrak or appear that way to the public.


----------



## basketmaker (Jul 26, 2020)

Exvalley said:


> Yes and no. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the utilization of Superliner bedrooms is far from uniform. The upstairs bathroom sees much more use than the downstairs bathrooms.
> 
> Regardless, the argument that there Viewliners would have queues for brushing teeth seems to be a bit overstated. At most you might need to wait a couple of minutes. Some people see that as a fair tradeoff compared to having a combination sink/urinal in the roomette.
> 
> I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer here. Just as with the toilet located in the roomette there will always be a split opinion.


Only time I ever saw a queue for the restroom was my first SL trip in '81-'82 on the Desert Wind (CZ/Pioneer). That was before there was even an upstairs restroom installed in the sleepers. That was after my FTN-CHI roomette (Heritage) on the CONO. As a solo traveler the in-room facility was not too much of an issue. I connected to a lower-level roomette up to SEA on the CS which I actually enjoyed the view from. Then a bedroom from SEA east to CHI. Now again, being solo that was uptown! Since it was just an 8-hour leg on the CONO back to Fulton, KY (closest to Nashville) I decided on coach. Something I haven't done since. If overnight it is at least a roomette.


----------



## basketmaker (Jul 26, 2020)

Ferroequinologist said:


> As I said earlier, the best solution would have been to have toilets in the rooms with a couple of toilets down the hall. Those who don't care to use in room toilets would have a public toilet option. The two berth Roomette is far too small for two people and should be designed for one person. I believe the transcontinental Indian-Pacific in Australia has private bathrooms attached to each compartment. When I rode it I definitely did have my own bathroom. In response to another post here, I remember that the train did give us a bus tour when we stopped in the town of Kalgoorlie, similar to a cruise ship.


The Ghan is a spectacular train. Even with late night catered BBQ in the middle of the desert for the whole train is great. But the fare of $5999/person is right up there with the "Captain's Suite" on a luxury cruise ship. Not a family cabin on a Disney ship. Way beyond my budget.


----------



## RichieRich (Jul 26, 2020)

me_little_me said:


> But didn't they do it independently of Amtrak...


Wow...that brings back memories! Yes, I believe they just paid Amtrak to pull them, much like private cars. I used to take the American European Express on trips back & forth from DC-to-Chicago. Very nice, mahogany, brass, even a baby grand in the lounge. And you had to "dress" (suit & tie) for dinner.


----------



## PVD (Jul 26, 2020)

My first plane trip as a child, an Eastern Airlines DC-8 from Idlewild to Miami. My parents dressed me in a shirt and tie. Times have changed. More recently, cruises have become much less formal, dress codes for most meals very relaxed. Formal night is now jacket and tie, not formal attire. The number of people who like it the old way is not considered large enough to support that as the standard, it still exists, but is more of a niche market now.


----------



## railiner (Jul 26, 2020)

me_little_me said:


> But didn't they do it independently of Amtrak i.e. they were not "supported" by Amtrak but just paid Amtrak what it demanded to pull their cars? No Amtrak selling those tickets or promoting them on its site. No special "in" with Amtrak with Amtrak promoting their success. No Amtrak "branding". Not part of "Arrow". To be successful, it has to be "part" of Amtrak or appear that way to the public.





RichieRich said:


> Wow...that brings back memories! Yes, I believe they just paid Amtrak to pull them, much like private cars. I used to take the American European Express on trips back & forth from DC-to-Chicago. Very nice, mahogany, brass, even a baby grand in the lounge. And you had to "dress" (suit & tie) for dinner.


I wouldn't quite say they ran "independently of Amtrak"....in the years they ran Washington/Chicago, and New York/Chicago, they were run pretty much like any other private cars...on the back of a scheduled Amtrak train...not as a separate movement. And of course, their passenger's used Amtrak's station facilities. While they did rent a small office in New York's Penn Station, that was mainly for sales and for their train crew's use. Their passenger's were seated in the special needs area of the Station Services office, until they were ushered down to the train. IIRC, Amtrak also provided red cap services to them, and maybe even commissary services at Sunnyside....not sure of that, though. I would imagine they also received mechanical services from Amtrak.


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jul 26, 2020)

basketmaker said:


> The Ghan is a spectacular train. Even with late night catered BBQ in the middle of the desert for the whole train is great. But the fare of $5999/person is right up there with the "Captain's Suite" on a luxury cruise ship. Not a family cabin on a Disney ship. Way beyond my budget.


I rode it in the 1980s. They had a barber on board. Had my hair cut. It was not at all expensive then. Like so many things, they've apparently jacked the price up. I assume the price you quote is in Australian dollars.


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jul 26, 2020)

me_little_me said:


> Since more amenities mean higher costs, Amtrak could do a lot to provide both. Having a luxury high-priced car on board (ala the Canadian with its premium service), encouraging private cars which they have DISCOURAGED to provide premium service, dining and amenities would help as would allowing those private cars to be dropped off at intermediate locations (where it would be supplied with electricity/food/water/servicing) and then picked up on the following (or later) day to allow its customers to have optionally included tours would separate those willing to pay the price for luxury (with Amtrak making more $$$) from the standard service. That service would have to be separated to show it made a profit but encouraged by Amtrak working with vendors for a positive outcome for both Amtrak and the vendors and to satisfy Amtrak's critics that it is not a "subsidy to the rich".
> 
> Just think if you could, say, take a special luxury car from Chicago just to Denver with optional tours ala cruises or to Reno or Sacramento with stops in Denver, near Dinosaur Monument, and Reno with overnight onboard the train or in hotels with optional tours in each city. One price would get you a room in an Amtrak sleeper w/o Amtrak meals but with sitting and dining rights in the private diner/lounge or a higher price to get more luxury accommodations (double/queen room with private facilities) in a private car with same dining/sitting facilities. You could do your own thing or pay for tours or own overnight hotel in Denver then have reservations to the next city or return to Chicago.
> 
> Amtrak Tours (an unsubsidized division of Amtrak) could run it, Amtrak could provide requirements and ask private car owners to bid for rights or pay a percentage of gross to Amtrak to offer that service or simply contract with one vendor ala National Parks contractors where specifications for service and profit are given with Amtrak owning (or leasing) the equipment.



Yes, there is a lot of potential for creativity but Amtrak doesn't have the vision to do it. It would take someone with imagination and DETERMINATION to develop long haul trains for an upscale tourist market.


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jul 26, 2020)

me_little_me said:


> But didn't they do it independently of Amtrak i.e. they were not "supported" by Amtrak but just paid Amtrak what it demanded to pull their cars? No Amtrak selling those tickets or promoting them on its site. No special "in" with Amtrak with Amtrak promoting their success. No Amtrak "branding". Not part of "Arrow". To be successful, it has to be "part" of Amtrak or appear that way to the public.



It has to be developed and promoted by Amtrak, not an outside company running an occasional service behind Amtrak, trying to get Amtrak to cooperate. It must be a stable, regularly scheduled service with full support by Amtrak management.


----------



## Palmland (Jul 26, 2020)

me_little_me said:


> ...One price would get you a room in an Amtrak sleeper w/o Amtrak meals but with sitting and dining rights in the private diner/lounge...



Amtrak should try this. Have budget sleeper fare where you buy your food in the cafe or premium sleeper fare that includes meal in the VII diner—lounge serving quality food prepared by a chef with half the seating area In the car with swivel lounge chairs (like the PPC) for ‘refreshments‘.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 27, 2020)

Ferroequinologist said:


> As I said earlier, the best solution would have been to have toilets in the rooms with a couple of toilets down the hall. Those who don't care to use in room toilets would have a public toilet option. The two berth Roomette is far too small for two people and should be designed for one person. I believe the transcontinental Indian-Pacific in Australia has private bathrooms attached to each compartment. When I rode it I definitely did have my own bathroom. In response to another post here, I remember that the train did give us a bus tour when we stopped in the town of Kalgoorlie, similar to a cruise ship.


I don't want a toilet installed next to my bed and find that design just as disgusting as you find using a public restroom. Having roomettes without toilets and bedrooms with toilets gives both sides an option for their specific situation. Shoving toilets into the tiniest of compartments while ignoring Amtrak's inexplicable difficulty with cleaning public restrooms provides no meaningful compromise IMO.


----------



## Qapla (Jul 27, 2020)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Having roomettes without toilets and bedrooms with toilets gives both sides an option for their specific situation



Only if both these options are charged at the same rate. I would not want to have to pay for the larger room if I really didn't need it just to have the toilet in the room when the current roomettes on Viewliners have in room toilets. Often the price difference between a roomette and a bedroom far exceeds a reasonable cost for the convenience of having a private toilet.

It would be better to find some way of providing an in room toilet in a roomette without having it so close to the bed.


----------



## PVD (Jul 27, 2020)

Considering the size of a roomette, anywhere would be close to the bed...


----------



## pennyk (Jul 27, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Only if both these options are charged at the same rate. I would not want to have to pay for the larger room if I really didn't need it just to have the toilet in the room when the current roomettes on Viewliners have in room toilets. Often the price difference between a roomette and a bedroom far exceeds a reasonable cost for the convenience of having a private toilet.
> 
> It would be better to find some way of providing an in room toilet in a roomette without having it so close to the bed.


I feel very strongly about having a private restroom and realize that on superliners, I will have to pay signficantly more for a bedroom. I am not sure what the reasonable cost is to others, but either it is reasonable to me or I do not travel.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 27, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Only if both these options are charged at the same rate. I would not want to have to pay for the larger room if I really didn't need it just to have the toilet in the room when the current roomettes on Viewliners have in room toilets. Often the price difference between a roomette and a bedroom far exceeds a reasonable cost for the convenience of having a private toilet.


Maybe I want a larger room for a given trip but because of my needs I get stuck with the smaller room instead. I did not say this was a perfect solution that works miracles or can defy the laws of physics. I simply said it was a reasonable compromise that gives both groups an option to satisfy their needs.



Qapla said:


> It would be better to find some way of providing an in room toilet in a roomette without having it so close to the bed.


Where do you think the toilet should go instead?


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jul 28, 2020)

Palmland said:


> Amtrak should try this. Have budget sleeper fare where you buy your food in the cafe or premium sleeper fare that includes meal in the VII diner—lounge serving quality food prepared by a chef with half the seating area In the car with swivel lounge chairs (like the PPC) for ‘refreshments‘.



As things stand I'd prefer lower fares without meals. That would allow me to bring my own food, purchase whatever least offensive airline food is available for sleeping-car passengers or purchase from the cafe car which may have one or two items preferable to the current sleeping-car fare.


----------



## Qapla (Jul 28, 2020)

I agree. It is not the cuisine that is or isn't served that has me riding coach instead of sleeper - it is pure economics ... the price difference in the fares puts the cost of a sleeper out of my reach/budget/desire.

Unlike some have expressed, I can sleep just fine in an Amtrak coach seat - would I like to try a sleeper, you bet I would! However, I only have so much I can budget for any trip I take and if taking a sleeper in both directions takes a large share of that budget I will ride coach and use the rest of the money for expenses I encounter at my chosen destination.

A good example - the trip we have had to cancel for the past two years (last year due to a hurricane and this year do to COVID-19) I considered taking a sleeper (thought the wife would like it) but, the added cost of the sleeper would take the money we needed to rent a car to do the things we planned to do once at the destination. So, weighing renting the car against traveling in the sleeper - well ...... we were going to that particular destination to view the places we needed the car to get to once we arrived.


----------



## Skyline (Jul 28, 2020)

Ferroequinologist said:


> As things stand I'd prefer lower fares without meals. That would allow me to bring my own food, purchase whatever least offensive airline food is available for sleeping-car passengers or purchase from the cafe car which may have one or two items preferable to the current sleeping-car fare.



Yes, THIS. And I would add, let coach pax dine in the diner if they want to pay for the occasional meal.


----------



## Exvalley (Jul 28, 2020)

Skyline said:


> I would add, let coach pax dine in the diner if they want to pay for the occasional meal.


Assuming you are talking about Flexible Dining, I have no problem with offering Flexible Dining meals to coach passengers as long as sleeping car passengers can order ahead and be guaranteed their meal of choice. But I think that the dining car should remain a lounge exclusively for sleeper passengers. This is for a couple of reasons:
1) Flexible Dining results in an inferior experience. Anything Amtrak can do to make the experience is a little better goes a long way. Offering a private lounge on the train is one such step.
2) Coach passengers can still eat in the cafe car if they want to sit at a table.
3) The meals are designed to be portable and do not require the assistance of waitstaff. There is no logistical need to eat the meal in the dining car.
4) There is nobody to control the flow of passengers eating in the dining car. It's bad enough that the Flexible dining is being offered to sleeper passengers - but I would be royally upset if I couldn't find space at a table to eat because coach passengers have taken the available seats.


----------



## pennyk (Jul 28, 2020)

Moderator Note: Please limit the comments in this thread to a discussion of Sleeper Bathrooms. Thank you.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jul 28, 2020)

Exvalley said:


> Assuming you are talking about Flexible Dining, I have no problem with offering Flexible Dining meals to coach passengers as long as sleeping car passengers can order ahead and be guaranteed their meal of choice. But I think that the dining car should remain a lounge exclusively for _*coach*_ passengers.


Whoops. I think you meant that you believe the dining car should remain a lounge exclusively for_* sleeper *_passengers.


----------



## Qapla (Jul 28, 2020)

I realize that the rooms in the sleeper cars have been designed to get the most money per square inch/foot - however, as I have commented on before, since Amtrak "should" be fully funded (since they are owned by the Gov't) there should not be a need to squeeze such revenue out of each sleeper car. There could/should be less rooms with more space in each room, allowing for an enclosed toilet for each room priced affordably.

Think about it ... how would you react if, when you pulled into a rest top on the Interstate you found pay toilets in the restrooms - the same holds true of the Gov't owned passenger rail system - it should not be viewed as a revenue generating business but a service.

I do not disagree with charging for tickets, even a reasonable upcharge for a sleeper - but doing away with bathrooms in sleeper compartments so you can squeeze extra revenue from already over priced roomettes would be akin to installing pay toilets in National Parks and Interstate Rest Stops


----------



## PVD (Jul 28, 2020)

Doing away with the toilets did not change the size of the roomette in any measurable way. It doesn't generate extra revenue, very much the opposite, the same size car now has one less revenue roomette.


----------



## Qapla (Jul 28, 2020)

O know the size of the room was not changed - I think my point was ... make the roomettes larger and add enclosed bathrooms. The entire roomette only takes the same floor space as a living room sofa. Quit trying to squeeze so much into such a small area. Just because you can do something does not mean you should do it. With more floor space per roomette/room there would be room for the toilet. Yes, yes - that would mean less rooms per car than currently exists - but they would be much more comfortable and desirable.

It would mean less revenue per square foot/inch - but if Amtrak were FULLY FUNDED that wouldn't make a difference.


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jul 29, 2020)

Qapla said:


> I realize that the rooms in the sleeper cars have been designed to get the most money per square inch/foot - however, as I have commented on before, since Amtrak "should" be fully funded (since they are owned by the Gov't) there should not be a need to squeeze such revenue out of each sleeper car. There could/should be less rooms with more space in each room, allowing for an enclosed toilet for each room priced affordably.
> 
> Think about it ... how would you react if, when you pulled into a rest top on the Interstate you found pay toilets in the restrooms - the same holds true of the Gov't owned passenger rail system - it should not be viewed as a revenue generating business but a service.
> 
> I do not disagree with charging for tickets, even a reasonable upcharge for a sleeper - but doing away with bathrooms in sleeper compartments so you can squeeze extra revenue from already over priced roomettes would be akin to installing pay toilets in National Parks and Interstate Rest Stops



I think they didn't want to bother with the plumbing. Easier maintenance - who cares about passengers.


----------



## pennyk (Jul 29, 2020)

pennyk said:


> Moderator Note: Please limit the comments in this thread to a discussion of Sleeper Bathrooms. Thank you.


Staff attempted to move comments in this thread that are unrelated to train restrooms to new threads in the Non-Rail Transportation forum pertaining to Cruises and Road Trips. Thank you for trying to keep your comments on topic.


----------



## RichieRich (Jul 29, 2020)

Qapla said:


> It would be better to find some way of providing an in room toilet in a roomette without having it so close to the bed.


It's called a bedroom.


----------



## me_little_me (Jul 29, 2020)

PVD said:


> Doing away with the toilets did not change the size of the roomette in any measurable way. It doesn't generate extra revenue, very much the opposite, the same size car now has one less revenue roomette.


I thought the new cars had 11 roomettes vs 10 on the old ones? Am I mistaken?


----------



## PVD (Jul 29, 2020)

yes, VL1 has 12 + attendant VL2 is 11+ attendant since one roomette becomes the 2 toilets.


----------



## me_little_me (Jul 30, 2020)

PVD said:


> yes, VL1 has 12 + attendant VL2 is 11+ attendant since one roomette becomes the 2 toilets.


So what happened to the space they saved by not having toilets? Are they reserving it for a larger management boardroom?


----------



## tricia (Jul 30, 2020)

me_little_me said:


> So what happened to the space they saved by not having toilets? Are they reserving it for a larger management boardroom?



The Viewliner I roomette toilet fits in the space between the bed and the hallway. Each roomette still requires enough of the train's length to accommodate a bed--six feet or so. In the Viewliner IIs, one of the spaces formerly occupied by a roomette is used for shared bathroom space.


----------



## PVD (Jul 30, 2020)

I believe the sink and mirror are still there, and what was the top of the toilet will still be the step up to put baggage in the over hall space, or climb into the upper berth, so not having a toilet in a roomette doesn't yield any appreciable added useable space


----------



## Qapla (Jul 30, 2020)

Notice the dimensions of the roomettes:






The entire roomette is about the same floor space as a living room sofa




*Sofa Length:* Though sofas can be anywhere between 70" and 96" long, standard three-person sofas tend to be between 70" and 87" long, and the most common length is 84". 
*Sofa Depth:* Standard sofa depth (from the very front to the very back) is 35", but most sofas are 32" – 40" in depth.


----------



## JRR (Jul 30, 2020)

IndyLions said:


> In my opinion, listening to your customers and potential customers is rarely a foolish move. A lot of people are grossed out by having an unenclosed toilet in the Viewliner Roomette. If you are trying to appeal to a wider audience it is probably the right move.
> 
> And let’s face it, we’re averaging about one significant pandemic every 50-100 years (1915 flu and this one) - I don’t think EVERY decision should be made based on the potential for a pandemic. Public restrooms aren’t suddenly going to go the way of the pay phone...


Somehow, having your own private bathroom that you can keep clean, not to mention being able to go in the middle of the night in your room, is a big plus to me not gross!


----------



## Palmland (Jul 30, 2020)

I think the first sleepers with roomettes that included the toilet were the pre war streamliners in the late 30’s. They remained popular until the heritage cars were retired in the early 2000’s. I thought they were great. Unlike Viewliners the toilet was across from the seat nicely disguised with a padded cover that was handy for your feet and it was not next to your head at night. Of course the big difference was they were designed for one passenger not two.

But Amtrak was after the additional revenue from cramming two into the same space. I wonder if they would have been better to copy the slumbercoach model with staggered level rooms enabling 24 single rooms and 8 double rooms.


----------



## districtRich (Jul 30, 2020)

Well I certainly vote for removing them and having two shared ones down at the end of the car.

1. Traveling with someone makes it an annoying dance when someone has to use the toilet. Even worse in the middle of the night. Do you wake the person up to leave the room or do you just do it next to their feet?

2. Keeping it clean? Unless you drop your friends off at the pool directly over the hole the vacuum suction doesn't clear all the excess off the plastic bowl and then you're stuck with that the rest of the trip since there is no toilet brush

3. Maintenance must be ridiculous. All of these vacuum toilets that people probably clog a lot must be a nightmare to service and take care of.

4. It's a very narrow seat. I imagine much of America doesn't exactly fit overtop like they used to when these were introduced.

Bring on the shared toilets for the roomettes, please!


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jul 31, 2020)

districtRich said:


> Well I certainly vote for removing them and having two shared ones down at the end of the car.
> 
> 1. Traveling with someone makes it an annoying dance when someone has to use the toilet. Even worse in the middle of the night. Do you wake the person up to leave the room or do you just do it next to their feet?
> 
> ...



Why not have toilets in the Roomettes and a couple of public bathrooms down the hall? Also I'd remove the upper berth in the Roomette. The Roomette was designed nearly a century ago for ONE person, not two. As you point out, Americans are a lot bigger today, so what was considered too small for two in the 1930s is FAR FAR too small today.


----------



## tricia (Jul 31, 2020)

Ferroequinologist said:


> Why not have toilets in the Roomettes and a couple of public bathrooms down the hall? Also I'd remove the upper berth in the Roomette. The Roomette was designed nearly a century ago for ONE person, not two. As you point out, Americans are a lot bigger today, so what was considered too small for two in the 1930s is FAR FAR too small today.



Some of us love to sleep in the upper berth in a Viewliner, even when traveling alone. The window and extra headroom make it much more comfortable than the Superliners' upper berth.


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Jul 31, 2020)

If the Roomette returns to its original one passenger only status, how would the upper berth be more roomy than the lower berth without an upper berth?


----------



## tricia (Jul 31, 2020)

Ferroequinologist said:


> If the Roomette returns to its original one passenger only status, how would the upper berth be more roomy than the lower berth without an upper berth?


You can have the bed made up above and still use the chairs as a sitting and dressing area. When the lower bed's made up, there's very standing room, and of course both seats are turned into a bed.


----------



## joelkfla (Jul 31, 2020)

Ferroequinologist said:


> Why not have toilets in the Roomettes and a couple of public bathrooms down the hall? Also I'd remove the upper berth in the Roomette. The Roomette was designed nearly a century ago for ONE person, not two. As you point out, Americans are a lot bigger today, so what was considered too small for two in the 1930s is FAR FAR too small today.


I don't see how the upper berth reduces the amount of floor space available. It's like it's not there when it's folded.


----------



## RichieRich (Jul 31, 2020)

Ferroequinologist said:


> If the Roomette returns to its original one passenger only status, how would the upper berth be more roomy than the lower berth without an upper berth?


It's not, The upper is smaller and your nose hits the ceiling!


----------



## Qapla (Jul 31, 2020)

Having an upper berth is not the problem - the size of the roomette is. Why not just do away with roomettes, have only bedrooms with enclosed shower/toilet. Just have less rooms per car and FULLY FUND Amtrak and quit trying to squeeze every possible dollar per square foot/inch out of the car.

Oh, and charge a more affordable rate.


----------



## railiner (Jul 31, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Having an upper berth is not the problem - the size of the roomette is. Why not just do away with roomettes, have only bedrooms with enclosed shower/toilet. Just have less rooms per car and FULLY FUND Amtrak and quit trying to squeeze every possible dollar per square foot/inch out of the car.
> 
> Oh, and charge a more affordable rate.


Because Congress wants to reduce or eliminate an operating subsidy to Amtrak...funding infrastructure and equipment is one thing, but paying part of a passenger's ticket is another...much more likely to encounter fierce opposition.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 31, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Having an upper berth is not the problem - the size of the roomette is. Why not just do away with roomettes, have only bedrooms with enclosed shower/toilet. Just have less rooms per car and FULLY FUND Amtrak and quit trying to squeeze every possible dollar per square foot/inch out of the car. Oh, and charge a more affordable rate.


"Why not just do away with roomettes?" says the man who already informed us he never travels in sleepers. Maybe because they're still useful and appealing to other people? We all have preferences but I'd rather keep imperfect roomettes rather than lose them entirely. It's telling that you're so willing to sacrifice something which will have zero impact on your own trips but affect others substantially.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jul 31, 2020)

RichieRich said:


> It's not, The upper is smaller and your nose hits the ceiling!


Only in the superliners. The viewliners have more "head room".


----------



## gwolfdog (Jul 31, 2020)

The upper bunk I slept on in the Army in a Barracks with at least 50 snoring guys making strange noises ranks above the upper bunk on the Auto Train.


----------



## Rasputin (Jul 31, 2020)

AmtrakBlue said:


> Only in the superliners. The viewliners have more "head room".


I once broke an "unbreakable" plastic comb that I had inadvertently left in my back pocket while trying to turn over in the upper berth of a superliner roomette.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Jul 31, 2020)

Palmland said:


> I think the first sleepers with roomettes that included the toilet were the pre war streamliners in the late 30’s. They remained popular until the heritage cars were retired in the early 2000’s. I thought they were great. Unlike Viewliners the toilet was across from the seat nicely disguised with a padded cover that was handy for your feet and it was not next to your head at night. Of course the big difference was they were designed for one passenger not two.



I have experienced a couple of these roomettes. They seemed more roomy than the current versions. The major disadvantage was when the bed was lowered, it rested on the top of the toilet. To use the toilet, the bed had to be raised and then lowered back into position in order to return to the bed.


----------



## Qapla (Jul 31, 2020)

Devil's Advocate said:


> "Why not just do away with roomettes?" says the man who already informed us he never travels in sleepers.



I guess that I'm not that much different than the ones who said the consist could/should be "all sleepers" or the ones who indicate that no one can sleep in coach.

Yes, we all have different preferences. It is not that I "prefer" coach - I would gladly use a sleeper if I could afford one - but that also does not preclude that I could wish for them to be a little larger than they are .... just sayin'

The problem comes from those who have the attitude that "you can prefer whatever you want as long as it agrees with what I prefer" - which seems to be what the Amtrak Leadership thinks - thus the degradation of service billed as "upgrades" and "temporary cut-backs"


----------



## railiner (Jul 31, 2020)

Dakota 400 said:


> I have experienced a couple of these roomettes. They seemed more roomy than the current versions. The major disadvantage was when the bed was lowered, it rested on the top of the toilet. To use the toilet, the bed had to be raised and then lowered back into position in order to return to the bed.


That was to allow a much larger and more comfortable bed...more akin to that found in a section sleeper. That's why they still had the heavy zippered curtain outside the door...to allow you to back out a little into the aisle during the night, to raise or lower the bed to use the toilet. Postwar streamliner's compromised a bit, by cutting away a small part of the foot end of the bed, so a slim person could stand in that space to accomplish the same without needing to back into the aisle. 
Those single roomette beds besides being wider than the modern ones, also were much thicker, since they operated like a murphy bed, and the mattress didn't have to be thin enough to fold...


----------



## finleyd (Jul 31, 2020)

Devil's Advocate said:


> "Why not just do away with roomettes?" says the man who already informed us he never travels in sleepers. Maybe because they're still useful and appealing to other people? We all have preferences but I'd rather keep imperfect roomettes rather than lose them entirely. It's telling that you're so willing to sacrifice something which will have zero impact on your own trips but affect others substantially.


I love traveling in the Roomette.


----------



## Night Ranger (Jul 31, 2020)

gwolfdog said:


> The upper bunk I slept on in the Army in a Barracks with at least 50 snoring guys making strange noises ranks above the upper bunk on the Auto Train.


You got that right! The upper bunk I had at Fort Sam Houston had a semi-bright electric bulb directly above it that burned all night due to some sort of fire regulation. I finally was able to ignore it and get some sleep but it took awhile. Take away that light and I would prefer that bunk to the upper bunk on any Amtrak accommodation we have traveled in.


----------



## ehbowen (Aug 1, 2020)

Dakota 400 said:


> I have experienced a couple of these roomettes. They seemed more roomy than the current versions. The major disadvantage was when the bed was lowered, it rested on the top of the toilet. To use the toilet, the bed had to be raised and then lowered back into position in order to return to the bed.


That was deliberate...and to ensure that a passenger didn't use the lavatory as a urinal, a concealed rod locked the sink closed whenever the bed was down!


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Aug 2, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Having an upper berth is not the problem - the size of the roomette is. Why not just do away with roomettes, have only bedrooms with enclosed shower/toilet. Just have less rooms per car and FULLY FUND Amtrak and quit trying to squeeze every possible dollar per square foot/inch out of the car.
> 
> Oh, and charge a more affordable rate.



Yes exactly. Why shouldn't Amtrak function like a FIRST WORLD railway? Why do we permit the downgrading of standards?


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Aug 2, 2020)

finleyd said:


> I love traveling in the Roomette.



Wouldn't you love riding in a compartment with a private bath/shower even more?


----------



## tricia (Aug 2, 2020)

Ferroequinologist said:


> Wouldn't you love riding in a compartment with a private bath/shower even more?



Not speaking for finleyd, but for myself: When traveling alone, I find Amtrak's roomettes more comfortable than the bedrooms, especially the Viewliners. I don't really care much about whether there's a toilet in the room, but do like having the head-to-foot of the bed oriented in the direction of travel. I find the roomettes snug, cozy, and ideally arranged for sitting and looking out the window.

Bedrooms, with fully enclosed toilet/shower, take up more space than roomettes and should cost more accordingly. Roomettes should be priced as a mid-range option, between coach and full bedroom.


----------



## RichieRich (Aug 2, 2020)

tricia said:


> Bedrooms, with fully enclosed toilet/shower, take up more space than roomettes and should cost more accordingly. Roomettes should be priced as a mid-range option, between coach and full bedroom.


Aren't they? While the AT had $99 Coach seats, I remember paying $3,600 for 2 adjoining bedrooms at Xmas r/t.


----------



## tricia (Aug 2, 2020)

RichieRich said:


> Aren't they? While the AT had $99 Coach seats, I remember paying $3,600 for 2 adjoining bedrooms at Xmas r/t.



Yes.


----------



## PVD (Aug 2, 2020)

Occasionally, due to an anomaly in demand, odd things can happen. Once, out of many trips, I got a very cheap B/R on the CL and it was below the roomettes on the LSL. (CHI-NYP)


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 2, 2020)

Ferroequinologist said:


> Yes exactly. Why shouldn't Amtrak function like a FIRST WORLD railway? Why do we permit the downgrading of standards?


Actually, first world railways have couchettes as an option. They're even more basic than a roomette, and you have to share it with strangers, but at least you can lie down and get some sleep. And the bathroom is down the hall.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 2, 2020)

I'm fine with the bathroom down the hall, although it's nice _when sleeping in a Viewliner roomette alone _to be able to climb down off the upper bunk and not have to go out in the hall. But a large fraction of sleeper passengers don't sleep in a Viewliner roomette alone. If you're sharing the compartment, the en-suite bathroom is essentially useless. A bedroom is nice, but it really is an extravagance for only one passenger unless there's some kind of demand anomaly that results in a low fare being offered. 

I've stayed in hotels that don't offer in-room bathrooms. If the rest of the hotel is nice, it can be a real bargain in expensive cities. And the line waiting to use the shower can be quite a fun social experience. Of course, you have to remember to pack a bathrobe, and I guess the experience will have to wait until after the Covid epidemic subsides.


----------



## me_little_me (Aug 2, 2020)

Ferroequinologist said:


> Wouldn't you love riding in a compartment with a private bath/shower even more?


I would. But not at their usual prices. We can usually get two roomettes for a good deal less than a bedroom. We lose the in-room shower (and the shared toilet on the Superliners) but each get a bottom bunk and can look out the windows on either side while sitting together.


----------



## Maglev (Aug 2, 2020)

RichieRich said:


> Aren't they? While the AT had $99 Coach seats, I remember paying $3,600 for 2 adjoining bedrooms at Xmas r/t.


 
That seems reasonable. You can fit about eight coach seats into the space of a Bedroom, so nine times the price isn't too far off.


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Aug 2, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Actually, first world railways have couchettes as an option. They're even more basic than a roomette, and you have to share it with strangers, but at least you can lie down and get some sleep. And the bathroom is down the hall.



Australia has private room sleepers. I have travelled in private room sleepers in the UK and in Europe. You may not consider South Africa first world but the Blue Train certainly is. I was in my own room on that train. Couchettes are like basic coach on the airlines, no frills. There are better accommodations on many of the surviving overnight trains in Europe.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 2, 2020)

Ferroequinologist said:


> Australia has private room sleepers. I have travelled in private room sleepers in the UK and in Europe. You may not consider South Africa first world but the Blue Train certainly is. I was in my own room on that train. Couchettes are like basic coach on the airlines, no frills. There are better accommodations on many of the surviving overnight trains in Europe.


I didn't say that there weren't private room sleepers, rather that the first world countries also have more basic accommodations available, just like Amtrak does.


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Aug 3, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> I didn't say that there weren't private room sleepers, rather that the first world countries also have more basic accommodations available, just like Amtrak does.



That's true in some places but the US used to LEAD the world in passenger train comfort. This was 1938: 



Have we progressed?


----------



## jiml (Aug 3, 2020)

me_little_me said:


> I would. But not at their usual prices. We can usually get two roomettes for a good deal less than a bedroom. We lose the in-room shower (and the shared toilet on the Superliners) but each get a bottom bunk and can look out the windows on either side while sitting together.


You've listed all the reasons why this is perfect for those of us not wanting to climb ladders anymore. If only you could book this online without a follow-up phone call to get across-hall rooms.


----------



## Mailliw (Aug 3, 2020)

And if Amtrak converted the roomettes to open sections they could sell those unoccupied upper berths to other passengers (as well as having larger berths to begin with). Viola, you have sn American version of couchettes.


----------



## jiml (Aug 3, 2020)

Mailliw said:


> And if Amtrak converted the roomettes to open sections they could sell those unoccupied upper berths to other passengers (as well as having larger berths to begin with). Viola, you have sn American version of couchettes.


Interesting idea. Not sure how well they'd sell, considering uppers and lowers were discontinued in the interest of privacy.

BTW, without trying to sound pedantic, a viola is a stringed musical instrument resembling a large violin whereas the French word "voila" might be a better fit if you're trying to say "there you go".


----------



## tricia (Aug 3, 2020)

They'd have to be a LOT less expensive than a roomette to interest me. I value roomettes for their privacy as much as for the lie-flat bed. 

FWIW, Via Rail's sleeping cars on the Canadian offer BOTH roomettes and upper-and-lower sections as well as bedrooms.


----------



## jiml (Aug 3, 2020)

tricia said:


> They'd have to be a LOT less expensive than a roomette to interest me. I value roomettes for their privacy as much as for the lie-flat bed.
> 
> FWIW, Via Rail's sleeping cars on the Canadian offer BOTH roomettes and upper-and-lower sections as well as bedrooms.


Overnight is almost less of an issue than daytime travel. Strangers are separated while sleeping, but must share a very confined space during the day. If you think an Amtrak roomette is cramped with two people who know each other, you really won't like a section with a stranger.


----------



## nferr (Aug 3, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Having an upper berth is not the problem - the size of the roomette is. Why not just do away with roomettes, have only bedrooms with enclosed shower/toilet. Just have less rooms per car and FULLY FUND Amtrak and quit trying to squeeze every possible dollar per square foot/inch out of the car.
> 
> Oh, and charge a more affordable rate.




Yeah, that's really going to work. Let's ask Congress to up Amtrak funding so that everyone gets to travel in a full Amtrak bedroom cheaply. I honestly think posters don't think anything through.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Aug 3, 2020)

Ferroequinologist said:


> That's true in some places but the US used to LEAD the world in passenger train comfort. This was 1938:
> 
> 
> 
> Have we progressed?




No! Just look at the views of the dining car!


----------



## Qapla (Aug 3, 2020)

Since the rooms on a superliner have upper and lower berth on both levels  too bad there isn't a way to have three levels with single births 



Then again, if there were just some way to connect more cars together to make a single train longer so it could carry more people at the same time - maybe a train would be a viable mass transit option


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Aug 3, 2020)

Mailliw said:


> And if Amtrak converted the roomettes to open sections they could sell those unoccupied upper berths to other passengers (as well as having larger berths to begin with). Viola, you have sn American version of couchettes.



Young Americans might think it's cool to sleep with strangers in Europe's budget couchettes but how many of Amtrak's patrons, mostly older people, will be willing to do that?


----------



## PVD (Aug 3, 2020)

Would folks be interested in sharing sleeping space with strangers under the current conditions? I doubt it. More likely, if things remain like they are for any length of time, the ability to have private space will be that much more desirable.


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Aug 4, 2020)

PVD said:


> Would folks be interested in sharing sleeping space with strangers under the current conditions? I doubt it. More likely, if things remain like they are for any length of time, the ability to have private space will be that much more desirable.



It seems all hopes are pinned on developing a vaccine but from what I have read, this Corona virus has different strains so multiple vaccines will be needed. These vaccines may only work for a few months. There is also risk in rushing vaccines (anyone remember the disastrous flu vaccine of 1976?) without extensive testing over a long period of time. The point I am making is that there is not likely to be a panacea. We're probably going to have to live with varying degrees of this and other viruses for years to come. There may not be much that can be done about the new Viewliners but if Amtrak's Superliner routes survive, the equipment will have to be replaced. Wouldn't it make sense to include a bathroom in every compartment, i.e. eliminate the Roomette and redesign the Bedroom to maximum efficiency? This is going to mean reducing the number of compartments per car, thus less revenue -- unless Amtrak can take steps to make train travel truly desirable, safe and efficient so that sleepers are sold out most of the time. Covid-19 is causing many businesses ( airlines and cruise lines among them) to increase costs as they adapt to enhanced hygiene and safety measures. Amtrak will have to do the same. A lot will depend on the willingness of Congress to appropriate enough funds. At this point we have no idea what the future will bring. Few people even know that there are trains with private room accommodation. Has Amtrak even promoted the relative safety of travel in its sleeping-cars? Has there been an advertising campaign highlighting the safety aspects of train travel, especially in sleeping-cars?


----------



## Rasputin (Aug 4, 2020)

tricia said:


> They'd have to be a LOT less expensive than a roomette to interest me. I value roomettes for their privacy as much as for the lie-flat bed.
> 
> FWIW, Via Rail's sleeping cars on the Canadian offer BOTH roomettes and upper-and-lower sections as well as bedrooms.


My understanding is that VIA has much more trouble selling upper and lower section berths on the Canadian (particularly uppers since they have no window) than they do for other more private accommodations. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## RichieRich (Aug 4, 2020)

Ferroequinologist said:


> this Corona virus has different strains so multiple vaccines will be needed. ... redesign the Bedroom to maximum efficiency?


May never be a totally effective vaccine.....how's that AIDS one comin'? The regular flu changes every year too...and we have to live with it. And, the bedrooms are small enough already.


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Aug 4, 2020)

RichieRich said:


> May never be a totally effective vaccine.....how's that AIDS one comin'? The regular flu changes every year too...and we have to live with it. And, the bedrooms are small enough already.



There has never been an HIV vaccine - after decades. 
Bedrooms can't be reduced in size but some improvements might be made.


----------



## Ferroequinologist (Aug 4, 2020)

Rasputin said:


> My understanding is that VIA has much more trouble selling upper and lower section berths on the Canadian (particularly uppers since they have no window) than they do for other more private accommodations. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.



I travelled in a lower berth on the Canadian for a one night segment once for nostalgia but I have no desire to do it again. Incidentally, the etiquette is for the lower berth passenger to sit facing forward during the day and the upper berth passenger to sit facing the other way.


----------



## Maglev (Aug 4, 2020)

I loved sleeping in a lower berth on the train across Canada! My older brother had the upper, and my parents had a bedroom in the same car. It's the widest bed on the rails (except for Prestige class). My father was trying to share the lower in the bedroom with my little brother, and had asked me to trade but I didn't (I have always felt a little guilty for this). We didn't have any disagreements over who sat where in the daytime--we spent most of the day hanging out in the vestibule with an open window or in the dome car after it was added in Edmonton.

I can see how it would be possible to put an enclosed toilet (taking up half the space of a Roomette) between each Roomette, but this would significantly reduce capacity of the cars and mess up the consistency of window arrangement among all cars in the fleet.


----------



## jruff001 (Aug 4, 2020)

I am definitely in the "Viewliner in-room toilets are gross" camp. Would much prefer shared restrooms down the hallway.

Maybe make what is now the toilet space a little mini-fridge / -bar?


----------



## tricia (Aug 4, 2020)

jruff001 said:


> I am definitely in the "Viewliner in-room toilets are gross" camp. Would much prefer shared restrooms down the hallway.
> 
> Maybe make what is now the toilet space a little mini-fridge / -bar?



Would certainly come in handy for stashing food passengers might bring on board to make up for the current substandard diner offerings.


----------



## jruff001 (Aug 4, 2020)

tricia said:


> Would certainly come in handy for stashing food passengers might bring on board to make up for the current substandard diner offerings.


Exactly!


----------



## Mailliw (Aug 4, 2020)

Ferroequinologist said:


> Young Americans might think it's cool to sleep with strangers in Europe's budget couchettes but how many of Amtrak's patrons, mostly older people, will be willing to do that?


Amtrak needs to attract younger passengers and people already sleep with strangers in the coaches. A Slumbercoach like setup would be ideal, but baring that I think sections would better than couchettes since there would be privacy curtains and strangers wouldn't be in as confined a soace together.


----------



## Qapla (Aug 4, 2020)

Reconfigure the sleeper cars to only have rooms with enclosed toilet/shower (similar to the bedrooms) with a mini-fridge and a small microwave. Call them roomettes, bedrooms, suites, lounges, private space - whatever ... the name is not all that important.

Just admit that, post C-19 maximum dollar per square foot/inch is just not feasible and live with the larger rooms/less people per car and FULLY FUND the trains.

Let people bring their own food if they like or buy food from some sort of redesigned food car (café, diner, lounge, again, the name is not important) - but do not include food in the price of the room. Provide some sort of car for the people in sleeper to use to spend time in if they want to eat, sit or just be with other people someplace other than their room.

It's not rocket science - if it were, they would cram even more things into a space smaller than the current roomettes.


----------



## joelkfla (Aug 4, 2020)

RichieRich said:


> May never be a totally effective vaccine.....how's that AIDS one comin'?


That was explained by an expert on a recent news report. Vaccines work by boosting the human immune system to build defenses in advance of infection. HIV attacks the immune system, so there's no defense available to boost. Coronaviruses do prompt an immune response, so vaccines can be developed to create antibodies before infection.


----------



## ehbowen (Aug 4, 2020)

joelkfla said:


> That was explained by an expert on a recent news report. Vaccines work by boosting the human immune system to build defenses in advance of infection. HIV attacks the immune system, so there's no defense available to boost. Coronaviruses do prompt an immune response, so vaccines can be developed to create antibodies before infection.


Careful, though...an experimental coronavirus vaccine for cats boosted the immune response TOO MUCH...all of the kittens who later were exposed to the actual virus died because their immune systems freaked out and over-responded.

I'm not going to take any vaccine for this virus until it's been in actual human use, successfully, for well over a year.

Vaccines for SARS-CoV-2: Lessons from Other Coronavirus Strains


----------



## PVD (Aug 4, 2020)

While we don't have an AIDS vaccine, we have a very wide range of HIV medications that have made an enormous difference, allowing people to live relatively normal lives. If there was no effective vaccine, but treatments advanced to the level they have for HIV things would be very different. With today's treatments, HIV infections don't advance to full blown AIDS cases like they used to.


----------



## RichieRich (Aug 4, 2020)

ehbowen said:


> I'm not going to take any vaccine for this virus until it's been in actual human use, successfully, for well over a year.


At 72....never had a flu vaccine in my life...don't plan to start. Funny...everyone I know that dd - GOT SICK!


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 4, 2020)

PVD said:


> While we don't have an AIDS vaccine, we have a very wide range of HIV medications that have made an enormous difference, allowing people to live relatively normal lives. If there was no effective vaccine, but treatments advanced to the level they have for HIV things would be very different. With today's treatments, HIV infections don't advance to full blown AIDS cases like they used to.


Millions of people alive with HIV thanks to Science!


----------



## PVD (Aug 4, 2020)

I was the resident field engineering and tech services person at a group of hospitals in NYC in the mid 80's . When AIDs cases first started appearing nobody was sure of transmissibility, it was a death sentence, doctors and nurses were really worried about dealing with those patients. We didn't engage in idiotic partisan debates over mortality rates, it was 100%. How long was the only question mark. At the same time, TB was coming back, and Hepatitis B was becoming an issue. The first effective HB vaccines were made out of blood products, how was that for a choice? Now of course, they are not....


----------



## jiml (Aug 5, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Reconfigure the sleeper cars to only have rooms with enclosed toilet/shower (similar to the bedrooms) with a mini-fridge and a small microwave.


You're suggesting passengers should be allowed to cook in their rooms? That won't end well, as anyone who has smelled burnt popcorn in an office or workplace lunchroom can attest.


----------



## Qapla (Aug 5, 2020)

jiml said:


> You're suggesting passengers should be allowed to cook in their rooms? That won't end well, as anyone who has smelled burnt popcorn in an office or workplace lunchroom can attest.



That is a valid concern! However, the mini-fridge might be nice. Just throwing ideas out there.

The thing is - there is no "perfect solution" since some would rather full food service and others would rather bring their own - cooking in the room may not be ideal -but, almost anything would be better than the current option of being charged excessive rates for less than desirable meals.


----------



## RichieRich (Aug 5, 2020)

Qapla said:


> "...cooking in the room ..." "...almost anything would be better ..."


That's not one of them. Sorta like flying with a seatmate having a tuna-fish sandwich. Or, my favorite: liverwurst & onion on rye.


----------



## Qapla (Aug 5, 2020)

RichieRich said:


> Or, my favorite: liverwurst & onion on rye.



!! with mustard on it !!


----------



## Winecliff Station (Aug 16, 2020)

RichieRich said:


> That's not one of them. Sorta like flying with a seatmate having a tuna-fish sandwich. Or, my favorite: liverwurst & onion on rye.


At least enclosed in a roomette you wouldn’t smell the refrigerated items... I see the argument against the microwave but I doubt a fridge would be problematic


----------



## Sidney (Aug 16, 2020)

The prices of berths and bedrooms on the Canadian are outrageously high,even accounting for the devaluation of the dollar. Before the pedemic we checked on an upper and lower berth from Toronto to Vancouver in June. $2300 US. Our canceled Alaskan cruise from Vancouver was less than that and that was seven days,not three and a half. Outrageous!


----------



## Skyline (Aug 18, 2020)

PVD said:


> While we don't have an AIDS vaccine, we have a very wide range of HIV medications that have made an enormous difference, allowing people to live relatively normal lives. If there was no effective vaccine, but treatments advanced to the level they have for HIV things would be very different. With today's treatments, HIV infections don't advance to full blown AIDS cases like they used to.



I have been much too close to the AIDS epidemic since we first learned of it in 1981. Lost count of the losses. The newer meds, from the mid-'90s forward, have been literally lifesaving and have allowed people who would have likely died to actually thrive. There are still way too many who cannot obtain those meds, and they are way too expensive, in this nation and worldwide.

It is conceivable that the initial improvement in the Covid-19 pandemic may mirror that of AIDS. That is, effective treatments and not an effective vaccine. I hope we have learned something important from the AIDS era -- that to truly stem the infection rate of Covid-19 it will take rapid testing and treatment that is available to all, regardless of ability to pay.


----------



## PVD (Aug 18, 2020)

We also need people to recognize their personal responsibility and role in stopping the spread. To many A-H worried about their own situations without considering the impact on others. Just the other day, a student lied about symptoms and went into school. Not a good result. Nice job of parenting.


----------



## tommylicious (Aug 18, 2020)

I think this thread has gone WAY off the rails.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 18, 2020)

If you want cheap. private sleeping accommodations for single passengers on a train, reviving the slumbercoach is the only way to go that I can think of. (Open sections take up the same amount of space as an Amtrak roomette, though it's true they would be able to sell the berths individually, and thus more cheaply.) Amtrak sleepers are expensive for single travelers because you're paying for space for two. When two people share, the seemingly ridiculous fares start looking a little more reasonable.

By the way, the slumbercoach, at least the one I rode in on the Crescent in 1990, had a toilet in the room. However, if the bed was set up, you couldn't use it, at least not without folding up the bed. The current Amtrak roomette is an improvement in that regard.


----------



## railiner (Aug 18, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> By the way, the slumbercoach, at least the one I rode in on the Crescent in 1990, had a toilet in the room. However, if the bed was set up, you couldn't use it, at least not without folding up the bed. The current Amtrak roomette is an improvement in that regard.


Are you talking about a Slumbercoach or a Roomette?
The beds in the Slumbercoaches were narrow enough to allow use of the toilet without raising the bed, IIRC....


https://i1.wp.com/www.train-museum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/030217_camera_ready_train_station-26.jpg?ssl=1


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 18, 2020)

railiner said:


> Are you talking about a Slumbercoach or a Roomette?
> The beds in the Slumbercoaches were narrow enough to allow use of the toilet without raising the bed, IIRC....
> 
> 
> https://i1.wp.com/www.train-museum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/030217_camera_ready_train_station-26.jpg?ssl=1


I concur. The Slumber Coaches on the Crescent were like you describe. The few times I was in a Roomette on that Train the Toliet was under the bed when it was down.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 19, 2020)

railiner said:


> Are you talking about a Slumbercoach or a Roomette?
> The beds in the Slumbercoaches were narrow enough to allow use of the toilet without raising the bed, IIRC....
> 
> 
> https://i1.wp.com/www.train-museum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/030217_camera_ready_train_station-26.jpg?ssl=1


Well, I can't argue with a photograph. I guess I remember wrong.


----------



## Barb Stout (Aug 19, 2020)

Skyline said:


> It is conceivable that the initial improvement in the Covid-19 pandemic may mirror that of AIDS. That is, effective treatments and not an effective vaccine. I hope we have learned something important from the AIDS era -- that to truly stem the infection rate of Covid-19 it will take rapid testing and treatment that is available to all, regardless of ability to pay.


With regard to treatments for Covid19, I read an article (NYT?) that several clinical trials for non-vaccine treatments for Covid19 were having trouble getting enough subjects in the trials due to the delay between the test and getting the results and also the hospitals or other health care facilities where the clinical trials would normally take place are/were at capacity and the doctors who might be otherwise interested in getting involved with the trials were too busy with full ICUs. It was news to me that clinical trials are run at hospitals.


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Aug 19, 2020)

tommylicious said:


> Thank you very much. The roomette bathroom creeps me out!


Me too... but at least you can control the 'clean;' having to use a public bathroom creeps me out even more.


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Aug 19, 2020)

the_traveler said:


> And much easier to do so at 3 am, instead of finding your pants and shoes, putting them on and either going down the hall or to the lower level.


Uh huh! At my age I'm quite 'active' at night... that's why I like the loo in the room... makes it so much easier... especially on a rolling and bouncing train!


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Aug 19, 2020)

the_traveler said:


> My own opinion is that the VL H room is the best room on Amtrak, and the Superliner H room is the worst room on Amtrak.


I've traveled on both. The viewliner room is outstanding... but the small commode is ... well ... really really difficult to maneuver. Now, on the the Superliner H Room... beware of all the problems! 

Problem 1 - Some of the coaches have battery operated fire alarms just outside the H room door. The batteries are never changed and the warning 'chirping' occurs frequently. When this happens I have called the conductor who says he can't touch it as it is a federal offense to remove the battery.,, and that if I removed the battery I would be arrested on a federal offense. I mean, so the battery is dead and the alarm keeps chirping and you need to live with it. Pure stupidity!

Problem 2 - You are at the end of a bank of bathrooms... it gets smelly. Also when folks don't close the doors they slam back and forth as the train rolls along. So you hear all that noise until you go out and shut the door yourself.

Problem 3 - This is one of the hottest and stuffiest rooms on the train and there is no window to open. Something about the arrangement of the heating and cooling systems makes the room hotter than most others. 

Problem 4 - Lots of people tend to gather and talk outside the bathrooms. More noise! 

So beware of the Superliner H rooms!!!


----------



## me_little_me (Aug 19, 2020)

20th Century Rider said:


> I've traveled on both. The viewliner room is outstanding... but the small commode is ... well ... really really difficult to maneuver. Now, on the the Superliner H Room... beware of all the problems!
> 
> Problem 1 - Some of the coaches have battery operated fire alarms just outside the H room door. The batteries are never changed and the warning 'chirping' occurs frequently. When this happens I have called the conductor who says he can't touch it as it is a federal offense to remove the battery.,, and that if I removed the battery I would be arrested on a federal offense. I mean, so the battery is dead and the alarm keeps chirping and you need to live with it. Pure stupidity!
> 
> ...


That wasn't my experience at all on the Chief and CONO last year. My complaints were the room door which always opened itself when I was out of the room and the curtain instead of a door for the bathroom.


----------



## bratkinson (Aug 19, 2020)

me_little_me said:


> That wasn't my experience at all on the Chief and CONO last year. My complaints were the room door which always opened itself when I was out of the room and the curtain instead of a door for the bathroom.



I always travel with a couple of carpenters' wood shims to stop rattles (the upper bunk when up) and to keep the door closed when I'm out of the room. Usually 1 or 2 shims will be sufficient to ensure the door doesn't open. I usually put them up high so they're less conspicuous to passersby. These shims are available in packages of 24 or so for under $5 at any home center as well as some hardware stores.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 19, 2020)

20th Century Rider said:


> Me too... but at least you can control the 'clean;' having to use a public bathroom creeps me out even more.


I'm not sure what the worry is about public bathrooms, especially those on a train, where you're the only person using the space. The medical experts claim that picking Covid-19 from surfaces is less of a risk than catching it from the emissions of other people's breathing apparatus (mouth and nose). And you can always wash and sanitize your hands after you touch any surfaces, anyway. I think the "toilet plume" thing, while theoretically possible, is not the menace and risk that some people make it out to be. Anyway, you don't hear about corona clusters traced to people using a public toilet, it's more like weddings, frat parties, bars, spring break crowds, etc. True, sometimes public bathrooms aren't cleaned as much as they should be (Hi there WAS men's room at Gate A!), and thy're disgusting, but that was the case before the Covid pandemic, and people managed to use them anyway without getting sick and dying.

Believe me, I have never seen any Amtrak public bathroom as disgusting as some of the port-o-potties that have been installed at certain Maryland State Parks that will remain nameless, while the perfectly good real bathrooms at the same parks have been closed allegedly because of the Covid epidemic... whoops, that's a different rant, I should save that for my state representative, not AU, sorry about that....


----------



## joelkfla (Aug 20, 2020)

20th Century Rider said:


> Problem 2 - You are at the end of a bank of bathrooms... it gets smelly. Also when folks don't close the doors they slam back and forth as the train rolls along. So you hear all that noise until you go out and shut the door yourself.





me_little_me said:


> That wasn't my experience at all on the Chief and CONO last year. My complaints were the room door which always opened itself when I was out of the room and the curtain instead of a door for the bathroom.


I had exactly the same problem as 20th Century Rider on the CL last year. The bathroom doors opened and slammed on their own all night, and the sewage odor came and went at random.

OTOH, no problem with the door on the H room, but the door on my roomette on the CZ opened just about every time as I was walking away.


----------



## Qapla (Aug 20, 2020)

Doesn't the H-room on a superliner have a window on each side of the train? while the viewliner H-room does not?


----------



## pennyk (Aug 20, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Doesn't the H-room on a superliner have a window on each side of the train? while the viewliner H-room does not?


I find the view much better from a Viewliner H room than from a Superliner H room. If I remember correctly, the second window in the superliner is small and is on the other side of the toilet.


----------



## Maglev (Aug 20, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Doesn't the H-room on a superliner have a window on each side of the train? while the viewliner H-room does not?


It has windows on both sides, but they are small--half the size of a regular Roomette or Bedroom window. The small size considerably restricts the view.


----------



## Nick Farr (Aug 20, 2020)

Winecliff Station said:


> At least enclosed in a roomette you wouldn’t smell the refrigerated items... I see the argument against the microwave but I doubt a fridge would be problematic



Anything with a compressor unit would vastly increase power demands, especially multiple ones.

And microwaves are out of the question as far as increased fire/smoke hazards.


----------



## PVD (Aug 20, 2020)

The VL H room is not car width, one side is on the aisle.


----------



## joelkfla (Aug 20, 2020)

PVD said:


> The VL H room is not car width, one side is on the aisle.


Yes. The door faces the end of the car. There's a narrow window out to the aisle, so you can get a small glimpse of what's on the other side of the train.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Aug 21, 2020)

pennyk said:


> If I remember correctly, the second window in the superliner is small and is on the other side of the toilet.



That is correct. Once had an H room in a Superliner. It was "OK", but I'd not book another one again. (Didn't book that one, but got it assigned because there was an issue with my original booking which was for a Bedroom.


----------

