# Beware of unwanted reservation changes!



## amtrakmichigan (Jul 31, 2012)

Maybe some of you have encountered this situation already, but I wanted to write this post to inform people of what could happen to your reservation.

About a month ago I reserved a roomette online for #30 / c.l. The room given to me was #12 which is downstairs. I did not want a downstairs room unless it was the only roomette available. I called Amtrak and asked if a upstairs room availanle; The agent said room 10 was available for about $30 more. I took it.

About 10 days ago I noticed that the roomette price for my trip dropped to one of the lowest buckets of $142. Since my tickets were not printed yet, I called again to Amtrak and requested the room change to save me about $100. The agent refunded the difference and informed me that I was now in room 2 (fine with me!)

Now this is where it gets goofy! About a week ago I get a email out of the blue (on top of the regular emails I received for the changes I actualy requested) that confirms my reservation has been changed. After reviewing the details carefully I found that I was back in room 12 again.

I called Amtrak minutes latter after receiving the e-mail asking why my bedroom was changed. The Agent was dumbfounded and could'nt offer a reason. She changed it so I was back into room 2 again, and a email to confirm that she did change it back.

Yesterday I get ANOTHER email out of the blue that says the SAME THING; They moved me back to room #12. At this point I'm getting ticked off and again call Amtrak. I explained to the agent all the changes that I made, and the ones THEY made to the reservation. I told her it happened again, which she didnt understand either, but she was determined to find out what was going on with my reservation. After putting me on hold for a few minutes she came back and said that " they moved me from room 2 so that they could accommodate a family that wanted to be together". She switched me back to room 2 and told me that they noted special instructions on my reservation to "not touch my room assignment".

If this happens again, I'm going to tell Amtrak to let the family have there rooms together, but I want a free bedroom upgrade in exchange.

After many years and thousands and thousands of miles traveling with Amtrak, I have never encountered anything like this. I wanted to inform all of you of my story so you can keep a eye on your sleeper room asignments, especialy if you are picky on which room you are in.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jul 31, 2012)

Well at least there sending you a e-mail now when they change your room assignment.

It was easier to move people around when they did not release your room number.

Too bad for the family, that your not willing to give up your room. Your going to get some dirty looks from them.

I am with Amtrak, going the extra bit of a family, but I am in the minority.


----------



## amtrakmichigan (Jul 31, 2012)

What bothers me is that Amtrak obviously has my contact information and could have easily contacted me to ask how I felt about changeing rooms so they could accommadate a family. When I'm told that I will be in room 2, then I expect to be in room 2. Why should I have to go through this trouble and take a room that I don't want when I rightfully booked a certain room ??(its not like I took it from them at gun point).


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 31, 2012)

I too prefer to be in an upstairs Roomette but am willing to accomidate families or groups wanting to be together as long as I know about it in advance! Ive had this happen a few times before, once it involved a Bedroom being changed from E to A which I didn't agree with at all since I wasnt informed till I boarded the Train and some guy was in my Room! 

Wonder if e-ticketing will prevent this kind of messing with Reservations by Amtrak??? :unsure:


----------



## Shanghai (Jul 31, 2012)

I am usually traveling alone when I'm in a roomette and have been switched several

times to a different room. I don't mind the switch as all roomettes are alike. I

do like room 2 on the Superliners as it is convienent to the rest room. I'm happy

to accommodate a family traveling together.


----------



## AutoTrDvr (Jul 31, 2012)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Well at least there sending you a e-mail now when they change your room assignment.
> 
> It was easier to move people around when they did not release your room number.
> 
> ...


Sorry... I have to disagree and side with the OP. If I negotiated a specific assignment for a room. well in advance, I want to keep that assignment. First come... First served :excl:

See Post # 13 in this original thread... h34r:


----------



## Ryan (Jul 31, 2012)

The thing is, until this last phone call, agents didn't have any idea that he negotiated that particular room.

Since the vast majority of people don't negotiate for a specific room, Amtrak's assumption is a logical one.

Hopefully they will find someone a little less picky to move so that the family can be together. I'd certainly be annoyed if I was separated from my traveling companions because someone was too selfish to move.


----------



## jis (Jul 31, 2012)

AutoTrDvr said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > Well at least there sending you a e-mail now when they change your room assignment.
> ...


Here is a revenue opportunity for Amtrak  It is leaving money on the table! They should start charging a room location negotiation fee  A room location is certainly not guaranteed AFAICT.

More seriously, they should regularize the process of getting a specific room assignment with some level of assurance that the room will remain assigned as originally, for a fee, instead of the current ad hoc anyone's guess approach.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jul 31, 2012)

Ryan said:


> The thing is, until this last phone call, agents didn't have any idea that he negotiated that particular room.
> 
> Since the vast majority of people don't negotiate for a specific room, Amtrak's assumption is a logical one.
> 
> Hopefully they will find someone a little less picky to move so that the family can be together. I'd certainly be annoyed if I was separated from my traveling companions because someone was too selfish to move.


He negotiated and paid an extra $30 to get the desired room. If I paid extra to get an upstairs room and got moved back downstairs without notice, I'd be pretty annoyed. I don't consider that picky or selfish at all. I consider that a desire to get what I paid for. It would be like paying for an E+ aisle on UA and finding myself in 29E.

By the way, you are taking Amtrak's "accommodating a family" story pretty literally. Maybe they are, or maybe they have some well-connected passenger or group of passengers who pushed the right buttons to get better rooms. We've had postings here where Amtrak could not accommodate families in adjacent rooms and did not move existing assignments around for them.


----------



## RRrich (Jul 31, 2012)

In general I like to be cooperative but its the "Oh by the way" that annoys me.

I have a roomette booked for later next month. If Amtrak contacts me today telling me that my room has been changed, OK - but if I get to the train and the SCA says 'Oh by the way your room has been changed" it might wipe the smile off my face.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 31, 2012)

Come on Bill, that's ridiculous.

First off, I clearly stated that the agents didn't have any idea that he had negotiated that room. You can't expect an agent moving someone to try and accommodate a family to be omniscient and know that the OP had specifically picked that room. Now that there is a note on the reservation, I would expect that the reservation will remain unchanged.

Second, it's nothing like being moved from E+ to a non-E+ seat. On UA they are two different classes of service. Room 2 and room 12 are in the same class of service, so it's nothing like getting moved from E+ to 29E.

Finally, yes. I'm taking Amtrak's story literally. Strangely enough, I don't consider people liars unless I have a good reason to do so. Yes, agents provide varying levels of service. That doesn't make the agent in this case a liar.


----------



## Ispolkom (Jul 31, 2012)

RRrich said:


> if I get to the train and the SCA says 'Oh by the way your room has been changed" it might wipe the smile off my face.


Oh, that's happened to me. I didn't really care, since a roomette is pretty much a roomette to me. Now if I were moved from a bedroom to a roomette, I'd have a problem.


----------



## amamba (Jul 31, 2012)

The first problem is that it never should have cost more to move to the upstairs roomette - the OP got an agent that didn't know what they were doing and didn't how to change rooms without pushing it to a higher bucket.

The good news is that the OP was then able to get the cheaper price on the room when the prices went down later.

I can totally see both sides of the story. However, as long as the OP can be accomodated in an upper level roomette, I would definitely agree to move for a family. The thing is, if you don't move, you will probably have lots of family members hanging out in the hallway. That will just be annoying. It is probably going to be a more enjoyable ride, overall, to just switch. That is just my $0.02.


----------



## AutoTrDvr (Jul 31, 2012)

Ryan said:


> The thing is, until this last phone call, agents didn't have any idea that he negotiated that particular room.
> 
> Since the vast majority of people don't negotiate for a specific room, Amtrak's assumption is a logical one.
> 
> Hopefully they will find someone a little less picky to move so that the family can be together. I'd certainly be annoyed if I was separated from my traveling companions because someone was too selfish to move.


I guess as annoyed as I'd be if I were told my room was switched unbeknownst to me because "a family wanted to be together." All due respect, Ryan :hi: but where does it say that people in one scenario are "more entitled" than the other?

I realize, it seems "selfish" of me, but please take a look from my perspective. I've been a "solitary traveler" all my life. And all throughout my travels, I've faced a very subtle but persistent bias against the "solitary traveler" from the travel/hospitality industry. This is manifest primarily in re: accommodation assignments, with couples or families getting the choicest assignments (i.e. hotel rooms on the highest floor with the best view, or similar assignments with restaurant tables, etc.). In fact, in many of these cases, "First come... First Served" doesn't even apply! Spaces will be "pre-assigned" with preference to the couple/family. It happens all the time in luxury hotels and restaurants that have sufficient demand and can afford (and have the ability) to discriminate.

Example: Dining room at the El Tovar Hotel, Grand Canyon Natl. Pk. Of course, everyone wants a "canyon view" window seat. What do they do? First, they lay out the floor such that only "tables for 4" are on the canyon window side. And even if you get there real early before anyone else, (I made three reservations for dinner at 5:00p before anyone and requested a canyon view table), it doesn't matter. Upon arrival the 1st night, the manager told me he had cancelled my resv. and put me in a table for two near the serving island! When I asked why, all he said was, "I just can't seat you there." Apparently, those tables were reserved for "couples or families," even though they were totally empty (none *were* actually reserved), and I could have been in/out before they filled up. And the kicker is, when most couples/families come to eat, do they spend most of the time staring out the window? Of course not! They're chatting with each other! At least the solitary guest would actually enjoy the view more! Anyway, I refused the table, cancelled the other reservations and ate a vending machine dinner that evening. Never-mind the little cracker box room on the "opposite" side of the hotel I got to stay in.... :angry:

I can tell you many other war stories in this regard. Point being, "selfishness" works both ways. In the above case, the selfishness of the restauranteur in re: potentially maximizing his profits. He could have put 1-2 tables for two against those windows. But that would not have been "profitable."

The only real fair way to resolve it is to say, "First come... First Served." If families want to be together, they should reserve ASAP. Now, like our dining room manager, Amtrak is certainly free to manage their trains and room assignments as they see fit. It's their train. But I can tell you that the first time I'm bumped from a room assignment without my consent (especially one I negotiated) will be the last time.

PS. Needless to say, I no longer frequent those luxury hotels/restaurants anymore. Both for financial reasons, and for those stated above. As long as it's clean, safe and functional, I'm fine.


----------



## me_little_me (Jul 31, 2012)

I have to agree with OP amtrakmichigan. He stated that he would be amenable to work with Amtrak if they notified him and asked. It has nothing to do with the fact that he wanted to move upstairs (although paying extra for it means they had no right to move him downstairs). but the fact that Amtrak shouldn't arbitrarily move people without their agreement. Same as on a plane. You wait until the last minute and you might not have seats together. You can ask but that is not the same as forcibly changing someone. Moreover, moving between upstairs and downstairs should not be involuntarily done

On the TGV from Paris on a business trip 20 years ago, we couldn't get seats together so when we boarded, we asked the seat occupier next to my wife if he would change with me. He did. On the return train (I was alone as I was there on business and my wife had returned early), I was asked to change seats by a couple and I willingly did so. Interestingly enough, in neither case did the other person know English nor I French but the combination of gestures and translation assistance by nearby passengers made it clear what was being asked. However, any time someone simply takes my seat because they expect me to accommodate them do I allow it. I expect them to acknowledge that they got a favor and it is not their right.

If Amtrak is unwilling to call customers to ask if they will switch, then they need to tell the requesting customer that they will have to check with the SCA to see if someone is willing to change. We moved from one roomette to another when asked by the SCA and we willingly did so but we were asked, not pushed to do so. Switching people leads to dumping on passengers to accommodate friends and "VIPs" and should be prohibited without permission.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jul 31, 2012)

Ryan said:


> Come on Bill, that's ridiculous.
> 
> First off, I clearly stated that the agents didn't have any idea that he had negotiated that room. You can't expect an agent moving someone to try and accommodate a family to be omniscient and know that the OP had specifically picked that room. Now that there is a note on the reservation, I would expect that the reservation will remain unchanged.
> 
> ...


How can you say that the Amtrak agents did not know he negotiated the better room. He did the negotiation with an Amtrak agent. The agent that made the change and charged him the extra fare for the better room sure knew about it. Why wouldn't that agent have noted that in his PNR? If they didn't, then who's fault is that? The OP's. Was he supposed to tell the agent how to do their job. And, since you did not like my UA analogy, how about a US analogy - choice seats. Pay an extra $30 for a choice seat, say 8C, and find yourself in 29E. Same class, extra fare for a better seat.

Sorry: the Amtrak story does not pass the smell test. Considering that we just has a posting here that had a family booked on the Auto Train in Rooms A and N and Amtrak would not consider moving anyone to put them together, Amtrak's story in this case is suspect. I'm not saying the agent who told the OP the family story is a liar. I simply suspect that at some point in the chain of actions someone is being less then entirely truthful. Regardless, I also am very reluctant to call someone "selfish" for simply wanting to get what they paid for.


----------



## AutoTrDvr (Jul 31, 2012)

jis said:


> AutoTrDvr said:
> 
> 
> > Just-Thinking-51 said:
> ...


To be honest, if it came to that, I'd be willing to pay extra for that guarantee, depending on "how much extra." 

But this entire thread got my interest up, so I just called Amtrak customer service. According to the CSA to which I spoke, Amtrak's official policy is _*not*_ to change rooms already assigned to a customer in favor of another. The SCA can "request" a change from a customer at boarding time, but the original recipient is not obliged to change. Is that what happens in practice? Not sure.... But that's what this CSA said...


----------



## Ryan (Jul 31, 2012)

Arnold, if there is a meaningful difference like the canyon table, I agree. That sucks. But the difference between room 2 and room 12 isn't really worth inconveniencing a traveling family in my mind. Obviously other people's opinions vary.



PRR 60 said:


> How can you say that the Amtrak agents did not know he negotiated the better room.


Because there is more than one Amtrak agent? Is it mandated that agents put every detail of a transaction in the notes? Perhaps he should have, but you can't blame an agent for not following a policy that doesn't exist.



> And, since you did not like my UA analogy, how about a US analogy - choice seats. Pay an extra $30 for a choice seat, say 8C, and find yourself in 29E. Same class, extra fare for a better seat.


It's not that I didn't like it, it's that it was wrong. This one is too, since as Amamba pointed out there shouldn't have been an extra charge if the original agent had done their job properly.



> Sorry: the Amtrak story does not pass the smell test. Considering that we just has a posting here that had a family booked on the Auto Train in Rooms A and N and Amtrak would not consider moving anyone to put them together, Amtrak's story in this case is suspect. I'm not saying the agent who told the OP the family story is a liar. I simply suspect that at some point in the chain of actions someone is being less then entirely truthful.


Come on, you know how inconstant Amtrak can be. There's no way you can take a single data point and use that to justify calling someone a liar.



> Regardless, I also am very reluctant to call someone "selfish" for simply wanting to get what they paid for.


And again, if Amtrak had a program where you could pay extra for a choice seat (or room), you'd have a point. But they don't, and the fact that the original agent screwed up doesn't make the OP entitled to preferential treatment. The OP paid for a roomette on a particular train and was never in danger of not getting a roomette somewhere on that train.


----------



## AutoTrDvr (Jul 31, 2012)

amamba said:


> The thing is, if you don't move, you will probably have lots of family members hanging out in the hallway.


Not a problem for me... That's happened to me on airlines before. Again see that original thread. 

Two can play that game! Trust me, I can "stand my ground" out in that hallway. h34r: Well, maybe not

in a "Florida" sort of way... but...


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 31, 2012)

Wow. I never cease to be amazed at the demands by folks. Upper vs Lower, I can understand. MAYBE end vs Middle, but much less so. Quite frankly, Amtrak DOES NOT RESERVE INDIVIDUAL ROOMS. When I worked at Disney and sold hotel rooms, we graciously accepted requests, but absolutely made it clear that within a category of room, there were better rooms than others. Requests were always considered; never guaranteed. Now, Amtrak has an issue if they are actually blocking different roomettes or bedrooms at different buckets. The buckets should be based on the total availability on any given train, and prices should be based on however many are left vs time to departure algorithm.

Now, when a ticket is issued, reassigning a room should cease, with an exception made on the train when boarding at the consent of the passenger. But until that point, a particular room and car number should be able to be requested, but NEVER guaranteed under the system we have today - except when children are involved. We always guaranteed connecting rooms (when requested) if there was a scenario where there could be only children in just one room (ie: 4 adults, 4 kids, yes; 5 adults, 3 kids, no). It's not necessarily fair to blame a family for only booking their vacation 10 months in advance just because a couple of individuals picked rooms 11 months in advance. Families should always trump the lone traveler. Sorry - you get the same scenery and arrive at the same time. Anything else is superficial.

Unfortunately, Amtrak has opened the gates to dissatisfied customers by raising expectations beyond their ability to deliver.


----------



## Shortline (Jul 31, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> Wow. I never cease to be amazed at the demands by folks. Upper vs Lower, I can understand. MAYBE end vs Middle, but much less so. Quite frankly, Amtrak DOES NOT RESERVE INDIVIDUAL ROOMS. When I worked at Disney and sold hotel rooms, we graciously accepted requests, but absolutely made it clear that within a category of room, there were better rooms than others. Requests were always considered; never guaranteed. Now, Amtrak has an issue if they are actually blocking different roomettes or bedrooms at different buckets. The buckets should be based on the total availability on any given train, and prices should be based on however many are left vs time to departure algorithm.
> 
> Now, when a ticket is issued, reassigning a room should cease, with an exception made on the train when boarding at the consent of the passenger. But until that point, a particular room and car number should be able to be requested, but NEVER guaranteed under the system we have today - except when children are involved. We always guaranteed connecting rooms (when requested) if there was a scenario where there could be only children in just one room (ie: 4 adults, 4 kids, yes; 5 adults, 3 kids, no). It's not necessarily fair to blame a family for only booking their vacation 10 months in advance just because a couple of individuals picked rooms 11 months in advance. Families should always trump the lone traveler. Sorry - you get the same scenery and arrive at the same time. Anything else is superficial.
> 
> Unfortunately, Amtrak has opened the gates to dissatisfied customers by raising expectations beyond their ability to deliver.


Seems to me, you could just have your tickets printed and mailed (or print them at home with the E-ticketing thing). By not printing them, so you can change things up later playing the game, you, in my opinion, stand to take a little risk in that they move you around a bit to accomodate a group. That seems fair to me. Can't have it both ways....


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Jul 31, 2012)

AutoTrDvr said:


> Sorry... I have to disagree and side with the OP. If I negotiated a specific assignment for a room. well in advance, I want to keep that assignment. First come... First served :excl:
> 
> See Post # 13 in this original thread... h34r:


Well, he was assigned #12 first.

And from what I read, no matter what he was able to "negotiate", he kept being put back where he started, #12.

I am not that sure that this family wasn't first all along (there was a hold on #2 for them?). That's why he was assigned #12, and whenever the OP attempted to muscle into the middle of that family, he was sent right back to his room, #12. :giggle:


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jul 31, 2012)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> AutoTrDvr said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry... I have to disagree and side with the OP. If I negotiated a specific assignment for a room. well in advance, I want to keep that assignment. First come... First served :excl:
> ...


He didn't request #2, he was assigned that room after he called to get the lower rate (after he had been reassigned to #10 when he requested an upstairs room). I don't know why they just didn't keep him in #10 at the lower rate.


----------



## AutoTrDvr (Jul 31, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> Wow. I never cease to be amazed at the demands by folks. Upper vs Lower, I can understand. MAYBE end vs Middle, but much less so. Quite frankly, Amtrak DOES NOT RESERVE INDIVIDUAL ROOMS.


Not saying they do. When I make reservations, I initially get whatever the computer assigns me. If need be, I then call to see if something I'd prefer is available. If so, then great... I switch. If not, then it's my tough luck.



VentureForth said:


> When I worked at Disney and sold hotel rooms, we graciously accepted requests, but absolutely made it clear that within a category of room, there were better rooms than others. Requests were always considered; never guaranteed.


And did you "pre-reserve" the "better rooms than others" within that category for couples/families or those willing to pay more (i.e. the rack rate)? I definitely would have an issue with that, having been the victim of it many times. In fact, once, I got bumped out of the category (for an inferior one), even though I paid for that category. But that's another war story I'll be happy to tell you about later...



VentureForth said:


> Now, Amtrak has an issue if they are actually blocking different roomettes or bedrooms at different buckets. The buckets should be based on the total availability on any given train, and prices should be based on however many are left vs time to departure algorithm.


I don't think they are "blocking" different rooms on different buckets. I do think the rooms are subject to bucket fluctuations, as are general fares, but I think all rooms are available for assignment whenever made.



VentureForth said:


> Now, when a ticket is issued, reassigning a room should cease, with an exception made on the train when boarding at the consent of the passenger. But until that point, a particular room and car number should be able to be requested,


I'm actually with you, up to this point...  And in the case of the AT (which I frequent most), they have been eTicketing for some time, so the room assignment is almost immediately at booking.



VentureForth said:


> but NEVER guaranteed under the system we have today - except when children are involved. We always guaranteed connecting rooms (when requested) if there was a scenario where there could be only children in just one room (ie: 4 adults, 4 kids, yes; 5 adults, 3 kids, no). It's not necessarily fair to blame a family for only booking their vacation 10 months in advance just because a couple of individuals picked rooms 11 months in advance. Families should always trump the lone traveler.


Sorry, but here's where I must disagree. Would you mind telling me *why* you believe "families should always trump the lone traveler?" And where (either in law or Amtrak policy) it says they can? I didn't make the choices for those families. They chose their life on their own. They chose to have children on their own. They chose to ride the train on their own... They made their choices, as did I. They should be subject to the exact same policies/procedures as I. If there are sufficient accommodations to honor everyone's requests, then great. Otherwise, First come... First served. It's the only fair way.



VentureForth said:


> Sorry - you get the same scenery and arrive at the same time. Anything else is superficial.


Sorry... but no :excl: Same scenery and same time, perhaps, but not necessarily "same comfort!" There are legitimate reasons why I'm so "picky" when it comes to Amtrak rooms... Medical reasons.... I'd be happy to tell you them via PM.



VentureForth said:


> Unfortunately, Amtrak has opened the gates to dissatisfied customers by raising expectations beyond their ability to deliver.


Dissatisfaction, like other things, works both ways.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 31, 2012)

Ispolkom said:


> RRrich said:
> 
> 
> > if I get to the train and the SCA says 'Oh by the way your room has been changed" it might wipe the smile off my face.
> ...


I tend to be in the same vein...I've been moved around once or twice, usually to accommodate funky situations on the western trains, but also because an SCA accommodated a request on-board (such as getting a family together), With that said, for me a roomette is a roomette is a roomette.

A pick-your-roomette fee wouldn't be the worst idea known to man, _provided_ that they could guarantee which side of the train you'd be on. I'd probably pass on it, considering the more-or-less equal nature of rooms, but I suspect it would be reasonably popular.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 31, 2012)

jimhudson said:


> Wonder if e-ticketing will prevent this kind of messing with Reservations by Amtrak??? :unsure:


Actually it makes it even easier.

Not saying that it's going to happen a lot, but it is certainly easier since no new tickets are needed. In AmtrakWolverine's case, if the tickets had been printed then this could not have happened. With an eTicket, it still could happen.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 31, 2012)

AmtrakBlue said:


> Cho Cho Charlie said:
> 
> 
> > AutoTrDvr said:
> ...


Because the agent processing the request for the lower fare didn't first release room #10, they just asked ARROW for a room and ARROW supplied room #2.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 31, 2012)

AutoTrDvr said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > Now, Amtrak has an issue if they are actually blocking different roomettes or bedrooms at different buckets. The buckets should be based on the total availability on any given train, and prices should be based on however many are left vs time to departure algorithm.
> ...


It's not so much a matter of "blocking" rooms, but rather the simple fact that rooms are sold in a specific, albeit odd, order. So depending on how many rooms show up in each bucket, you get the appearance that each room as a specific bucket. And by odd order I mean, it seems like the first rooms sold in a Superliner go like this; 2, 3, 11, 12, 4. I'm not sure after that, but they aren't sold in numerical order.



AutoTrDvr said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > but NEVER guaranteed under the system we have today - except when children are involved. We always guaranteed connecting rooms (when requested) if there was a scenario where there could be only children in just one room (ie: 4 adults, 4 kids, yes; 5 adults, 3 kids, no). It's not necessarily fair to blame a family for only booking their vacation 10 months in advance just because a couple of individuals picked rooms 11 months in advance. Families should always trump the lone traveler.
> ...


Arnold, I'm not trying to put you on the spot here, so please don't feel obligated to answer if you would prefer not. But I'm curious how you'd feel about the following, which happened to me & my family on the AT a few years back:

I had booked rather early, but still for some odd reason got the following room pattern on the lower level, we had 11, 12, 14, and 15 which is the family room. Somehow someone had already gotten 13 despite our rather early booking of things. We never made any requests for changes at all, never even hinted at it. And this precedes eTicketing on the AT.

At checkin in Sanford, the agent walked away and started talking with other people and I was getting worried that somehow things had been screwed up with our reservation. Turns out, the agent saw the above pattern and instead was getting permission to move the people in 13 to 11, such that they weren't "stuck" in the middle of my extended family with several kids. And again, this is not something that I asked for.

It made sense to me and from what I could tell, the couple that got moved didn't seem to mind at all either. They hadn't checked in before us, so they got told as they checked in what had been done.

Now this change didn't cause people to change levels, much less even sides of the train. I do not know if they had originally requested 13 or not, but I do have to wonder as it is not normal to find 13 booked before 11 & 12.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 31, 2012)

Now, to the idea that the agent found out that Kevin's room had been changed because of a family, I'm not real sure that it's possible for an agent to trace things backwards. I know for example, once the rate on a room or seat is changed, the agent can no longer see what the old fare was. ARROW doesn't retain that info.

So I'm thinking that there are two possibilities here: 1) the agent Kevin spoke to was making up a story to try to explain things; 2) the agent that moved Kevin back the second time placed a note into Kevin's reservation explaining why he got moved.

That second choice is far more puzzling to me, since Amtrak usually won't move people around like that upon request from a family. In fact, my experience at the AT posted above isn't really the norm either, or at least it's more like having the SCA move people on a regular train. It was done at the last minute, more or less at boarding time, not months in advance.

Regardless, this whole thing is a bit odd to me.


----------



## AutoTrDvr (Jul 31, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Arnold, I'm not trying to put you on the spot here, so please don't feel obligated to answer if you would prefer not. But I'm curious how you'd feel about the following, which happened to me & my family on the AT a few years back:
> 
> I had booked rather early, but still for some odd reason got the following room pattern on the lower level, we had 11, 12, 14, and 15 which is the family room. Somehow someone had already gotten 13 despite our rather early booking of things. We never made any requests for changes at all, never even hinted at it. And this precedes eTicketing on the AT.
> 
> ...


Well, "officially," I'd say that the agent should have waited until the people assigned to 13 checked in (or, perhaps attempted to call them by phone/cell if that were possible) and asked them if they would switch. Practically, in this particular case, I can see where the difference between 11 & 13 is not much. In fact, it would seem that 11 is a tad better than 13 (closer to the center and further from the trucks). If it were me in 13, and I were contacted up front, I'd have gladly switched. But it most likely wouldn't have been me. ^_^ 

FTR... I'm not at all opposed to switching... or families.  As long as I'm asked up front, and as long as it doesn't subtract from my experience/comfort, I'm more than happy to help. But I do make specific room choices (and do the "negotiating") for specific reasons, some of which, we've already discussed in PM.

I don't know how the algorithm for ARROW works (BTW I assume that's an acronym for something.. "A" mtrack "R" eservation R O W... something... ^_^ ) Hopefully, with eTicketting now underway, they'll do something like the Airlines do and make seat/room maps available and allow people to pick for themselves... I guess those roomettes reserved for crew/SCAs would be "blocked" as are airline "bulkhead" seats or "exit row" seats, etc.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 31, 2012)

No acronym for ARROW.

And it's really a topic for another thread (and one we've beat to death previously), but don't expect a seat map. It's a significantly more complex problem on a train that makes 30 something stops along its route (and I doubt they'd develop the feature just for use on the Auto Train).


----------



## jis (Jul 31, 2012)

AutoTrDvr said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > AutoTrDvr said:
> ...


If that is the policy then there should be some amount of compensation involved when that policy is not adhered to. Otherwise it is just a policy that can be easily flouted since there is no real cost involved in flouting the policy.

Frankly I am not eager to pay extra for something that should happen anyway. But if that is what it takes to give the policy some teeth, as in the agent has to explain why it cost Amtrak extra when making such a change, I'd be willing to pay a suitable fee for same.


----------



## AutoTrDvr (Jul 31, 2012)

Ryan said:


> No acronym for ARROW.
> 
> And it's really a topic for another thread (and one we've beat to death previously), but don't expect a seat map. It's a significantly more complex problem on a train that makes 30 something stops along its route (and I doubt they'd develop the feature just for use on the Auto Train).


Fair enough... I see the difficulty there. Although I think it might be worth putting something together for the sleeper rooms, if nothing else. Is it often that a given sleeper room is booked by totally different parties for just a portion of a LD trip? (e.g. two separate parties, traveling "half the distance" each on the EB and occupying the same room, one each on a different night)?


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 31, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> Wow. I never cease to be amazed at the demands by folks. Upper vs Lower, I can understand. MAYBE end vs Middle, but much less so. Quite frankly, Amtrak DOES NOT RESERVE INDIVIDUAL ROOMS. When I worked at Disney and sold hotel rooms, we graciously accepted requests, but absolutely made it clear that within a category of room, there were better rooms than others. Requests were always considered; never guaranteed. Now, Amtrak has an issue if they are actually blocking different roomettes or bedrooms at different buckets. The buckets should be based on the total availability on any given train, and prices should be based on however many are left vs time to departure algorithm.
> 
> Now, when a ticket is issued, reassigning a room should cease, with an exception made on the train when boarding at the consent of the passenger. But until that point, a particular room and car number should be able to be requested, but NEVER guaranteed under the system we have today - except when children are involved. We always guaranteed connecting rooms (when requested) if there was a scenario where there could be only children in just one room (ie: 4 adults, 4 kids, yes; 5 adults, 3 kids, no). It's not necessarily fair to blame a family for only booking their vacation 10 months in advance just because a couple of individuals picked rooms 11 months in advance. Families should always trump the lone traveler. Sorry - you get the same scenery and arrive at the same time. Anything else is superficial.
> 
> Unfortunately, Amtrak has opened the gates to dissatisfied customers by raising expectations beyond their ability to deliver.


On the contrary, Amtrak does reserve individual rooms and I always use the call center instead of online in order to choose my room. My confirmation includes my room number and car number. That room remains assigned until and unless an agent overrides it to move me.


----------



## Bierboy (Jul 31, 2012)

Shortline said:


> ...Seems to me, you could just have your tickets printed and mailed (or print them at home with the E-ticketing thing).....


As I understand it from Amtrak (http://www.amtrak.com/eticketing-your-ride-is-just-a-barcode-away), e-ticketing only applies to tickets purchased July 30 (yesterday) or later, so I think he's out of luck in that regard.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 31, 2012)

As was noted in the E-tickting thread, many reservations (including mine) made long before 7/30 have been converted to E-tickets.

As Alan noted upthread, having E-tickets actually makes it easier on Amtrak to make this kind of a change, since that barcode (or QR code) can be changed from pointing to a reservation in one room to a reservation in another.


----------



## PaulM (Jul 31, 2012)

AutoTrDvr said:


> ... I can see where the difference between 11 & 13 is not much. In fact, it would seem that 11 is a tad better than 13 (closer to the center and further from the trucks)...


We recently were in room 14 on #5 and 11 on #6. I found no difference in truck noise, but from room 11 slightly more stair and luggage rack noise. Not only that, after getting downstairs rooms for the first time in a long time, my wife announced that she prefers downstairs rooms. I'm sure it would have been different had there been a noisy crowd in the family room on either trip.

Just goes to show you there aren't better and worse rooms, just different individual preferences.


----------



## AutoTrDvr (Jul 31, 2012)

PaulM said:


> AutoTrDvr said:
> 
> 
> > ... I can see where the difference between 11 & 13 is not much. In fact, it would seem that 11 is a tad better than 13 (closer to the center and further from the trucks)...
> ...


The "audible noise" isn't as great a concern. It's the "motion/vibration/bounce" of the trucks and thus, the objective of being as close to the center (and as high) as possible. It's not that bad when I'm awake, but when I'm trying to sleep...


----------



## Ana (Jul 31, 2012)

I'm with those who think it should be first come first served too. While small children obviously need to be seated with their parents, I don't see why adults can't sit separately for awhile, or older children, until a pair of seats open up. My friend and I travelled a few hours before we got seats together, we didn't see any reason to make a fuss. I think it's a bit mean to make someone with a window seat move, if they were there first, and neither of us were arrogant enough to boot out those people who boarded ahead of us just because we were lucky enough to have a companion! We got seats together down the track, and what felt like the excessive thanks of the car attendant for what seemed to me as acceptance of the situation as it stood, no worries.

With the rooms I don't see why someone who had booked earlier than another party should be moved. If a group wants to be together then Amtrak should tell them when they book that there are no longer adjacent rooms, but if it is that important to the family they will check with other customers. If I were the family booking I would at that point say, oh please don't go to the trouble, unless it was a situation with many more very young children than adults and if that were the case, a bedroom would be better for at least some of the party. The people to be switched could at least have the choice. I spend thousands of dollars and fly for many hours in order to take an LD trip. I book as early as possible. I check that I get a room upstairs. I don't see why I should be treated as less important than a family. Nor more important either but first in first served is the only fair way to put someone above another in such a situation, and I make sacrifices (it's a lot to pay so far in advance) so that my room is sorted early on.

Dunno, maybe I'm used to valuing fairness over anything!! I felt outraged on behalf of the OP at comments that they were being selfish, when they were first. When I was a kid, the sofa rules dictated whoever got it first, had it all evening. The getting was no holds barred, so long as you weren't disqualified by leaving before being excused from the table and if someone was injured in the racing for it then that was unfortunate but first was first and my brother and I respected that




.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (Jul 31, 2012)

Ana said:


> I'm with those who think it should be first come first served too. While small children obviously need to be seated with their parents, I don't see why adults can't sit separately for awhile, or older children, until a pair of seats open up. My friend and I travelled a few hours before we got seats together, we didn't see any reason to make a fuss. I think it's a bit mean to make someone with a window seat move, if they were there first, and neither of us were arrogant enough to boot out those people who boarded ahead of us just because we were lucky enough to have a companion! We got seats together down the track, and what felt like the excessive thanks of the car attendant for what seemed to me as acceptance of the situation as it stood, no worries.
> 
> With the rooms I don't see why someone who had booked earlier than another party should be moved. If a group wants to be together then Amtrak should tell them when they book that there are no longer adjacent rooms, but if it is that important to the family they will check with other customers. If I were the family booking I would at that point say, oh please don't go to the trouble, unless it was a situation with many more very young children than adults and if that were the case, a bedroom would be better for at least some of the party. The people to be switched could at least have the choice. I spend thousands of dollars and fly for many hours in order to take an LD trip. I book as early as possible. I check that I get a room upstairs. I don't see why I should be treated as less important than a family. Nor more important either but first in first served is the only fair way to put someone above another in such a situation, and I make sacrifices (it's a lot to pay so far in advance) so that my room is sorted early on.
> 
> ...


Couldn't agree more with everything here.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jul 31, 2012)

Ana said:


> With the rooms I don't see why someone who had booked earlier than another party should be moved. If a group wants to be together then Amtrak should tell them when they book that there are no longer adjacent rooms, but if it is that important to the family they will check with other customers. If I were the family booking I would at that point say, oh please don't go to the trouble, unless it was a situation with many more very young children than adults and if that were the case, a bedroom would be better for at least some of the party. The people to be switched could at least have the choice. I spend thousands of dollars and fly for many hours in order to take an LD trip. I book as early as possible. I check that I get a room upstairs. I don't see why I should be treated as less important than a family. Nor more important either but first in first served is the only fair way to put someone above another in such a situation, and I make sacrifices (it's a lot to pay so far in advance) so that my room is sorted early on.


"LIke"

Well stated, and I agree, but in my own travels I am going point A to point B. So other than the type of room it means nothing to me where it's on the train or the side of the train. Getting someplace is why I am on the train.

We need a happy medium. I just don't think Arrow up to the task, but the extra fee for picking out your room assignment would be the best. Pay 5.00 usd and you get to pick the room number. Don't pay the 5.00 usd get assigned one by the computer 24 hrs in advance.

Only real problem is when they run the car backwards...

Nevermind.


----------



## Dovecote (Jul 31, 2012)

PaulM said:


> AutoTrDvr said:
> 
> 
> > ... I can see where the difference between 11 & 13 is not much. In fact, it would seem that 11 is a tad better than 13 (closer to the center and further from the trucks)...
> ...


My wife and I were in Room 13 back in May on the Auto Train. The adjacent Family Room had a young couple with a toddler. The toddler was quite noisy despite repeated attempts by the parents for their child to be quiet. Fortunately by sleeping time the toddler was quiet and we were able to sleep.

The next morning the toddler was at it again and upon realizing that Room 11 was vacant we asked the SCA if we could move there. He gave us permission and upon moving there we no longer heard the toddler.

There is quite a difference between 11,12 and 13,14 IMHO when it comes to hearing noise from a potentially loud Family Room. It is the luck of the draw however as you could have noisy neighbor occupying 13 (if in 11) or 14 (if in 12).


----------



## AutoTrDvr (Jul 31, 2012)

Dovecote said:


> PaulM said:
> 
> 
> > AutoTrDvr said:
> ...


Well, I've already commented in previous threads on "children & noise" so... lest I get into further "deep excrement" with families :blink: :unsure: For the full bedrooms, the problem I think is the very flimsy partition between two adjoining rooms. I don't think I've ever had an issue with any rooms other than the adjoining room... and, maybe, someone standing right in front of my door.


----------



## amtrakmichigan (Jul 31, 2012)

Wow, as the OP of this topic I didn't have any idea that this was going to start this big of a debate.

Yes I was assigned to room 12 when I originaly made the reservation. There is 2 main reasons I don't want to be in a downstairs room. First is the noise in the middle of the night of people bording and shoving there suitcases in the luggage bin, or better yet when someone forgets something in their suitcase and rummages through all the luggage to get to theirs at 2 a.m. The second reason is I like the view that at upper level room offers, especialy on the C.L.

When I received my email from my original purchase I was assigned to room 12. I called Amtrak within minutes and did ask for a upstairs roomette; this is when they switched me to room #10. I was satisfied at this point. The ONLY reason why I made a switch the second time (to room #2) is because the price dropped from the highest bucket to the lowest bucket. It had nothing to do with me having a love affair with room#2. Obviously someone canceled their reservation and I just happened to catch it at the right time. So when I caught the price bucket drop and took advantage of it, the agent gave me room #2. I could care less if I was in room 10 or 2. I just didn't want to be in rooms 11-14.

To my defense, when I make a reservation and I'm told in a written confirmation that I'm in certain room, then that's where I better be until A) I change it or B) Amtrak calls and ask if I would mind moving me to another room. I'm not a "selfish" person in the least as some people have suggested. But I'm not going to sit back and have something taken away from me that I purchased rightfully. And YES Amtrak does tell you in the e-mail which room you purchased.

And NO!; all roomettes are not the same. Some are closer to a bathroom, some are more prone to train noise, passenger traffic, boarding and luggage rack noise...etc. It would be like one walking into a restaurant ordering and paying for a $40 swordfish dinner, and then receiving a $5 box of Van De Kamps. Then the waiter saying "well whats wrong?...It's still a fish"


----------



## Ryan (Jul 31, 2012)

amtrakmichigan said:


> It would be like one walking into a restaurant ordering and paying for a $40 swordfish dinner, and then receiving a $5 box of Van De Kamps. Then the waiter saying "well whats wrong?...It's still a fish"


No, it's nothing like that. All of the roomettes are in the same fare class. You get exactly what you pay for.


----------



## jis (Jul 31, 2012)

amtrakmichigan said:


> It would be like one walking into a restaurant ordering and paying for a $40 swordfish dinner, and then receiving a $5 box of Van De Kamps. Then the waiter saying "well whats wrong?...It's still a fish"


No. It would be more like complaining about getting the $40 swordfish dinner at a back table with a view of the back alley instead of at a table with a view of the bay.


----------



## GG-1 (Aug 1, 2012)

Aloha

About the only thing that puzzles me is giving the room 2 to keep a family together. Room 2 is across from the attendant.. To really be together rooms across from each other are best.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Aug 1, 2012)

GG-1 said:


> Aloha
> 
> About the only thing that puzzles me is giving the room 2 to keep a family together. Room 2 is across from the attendant.. To really be together rooms across from each other are best.


Nice catch, something smells here. Maybe a sleeping car attended getting trained?


----------



## Ana (Aug 1, 2012)

Hmm, maybe so and the family was a sympathy excuse? Years ago I worked in a hotel and reservations explained overbooking and how they knew which guests could be bumped easily and I was dubious and so they they told me a story about a poor couple whose child was Taken ill and they had to stay a few days longer but the hotel was full but we don't want to cause them stress kicking them out so they were terribly sorry but they'd arranged for me to stay at X hotel (same standard nearby) and they'd arrange the taxi.... well I'd have accepted being bumped no problems and id problably wonder after the poor fictional child and wish them and their parents well!



They targeted people on vacation so that they had rooms available for corporate clients when overbooking went wrong, I could see how it would work! It's just that half of us were up in arms because we wanted the explanation ( the story doesnt work if the fictional couple just decided to stay longer ).


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Aug 1, 2012)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> GG-1 said:
> 
> 
> > Aloha
> ...


Or it was a family booking 3 roomettes (for whatever reason) and they already had #3 & #4, so either #2 or #'s 5 or 6 would be the next logical room to give them. And maybe 5 & 6 were already given to another "family". Just another speculation. I don't anyone will ever know what really happened, unless the OP snoops it out when he travels.


----------



## Ispolkom (Aug 1, 2012)

amtrakmichigan said:


> And NO!; all roomettes are not the same. Some are closer to a bathroom, some are more prone to train noise, passenger traffic, boarding and luggage rack noise...etc. It would be like one walking into a restaurant ordering and paying for a $40 swordfish dinner, and then receiving a $5 box of Van De Kamps. Then the waiter saying "well whats wrong?...It's still a fish"


No, not all roomettes are the same *to you*. On Superliners I've slept in every one except for #1 and 11-14 (though I often book the family bedroom), and *for me* they are all pretty much the same. For me the neighbors and track conditions have made much more of a difference than the location.

To use your fish example, it would be like ordering red snapper, and being served tilapia, something that happens all the time.


----------



## VentureForth (Aug 1, 2012)

johnny.menhennet said:


> Ana said:
> 
> 
> > I'm with those who think it should be first come first served too. While small children obviously need to be seated with their parents, I don't see why adults can't sit separately for awhile, or older children, until a pair of seats open up. My friend and I travelled a few hours before we got seats together, we didn't see any reason to make a fuss. I think it's a bit mean to make someone with a window seat move, if they were there first, and neither of us were arrogant enough to boot out those people who boarded ahead of us just because we were lucky enough to have a companion! We got seats together down the track, and what felt like the excessive thanks of the car attendant for what seemed to me as acceptance of the situation as it stood, no worries.
> ...


I'd almost agree with coach. We're talking about sleeping accomodations, though.



AutoTrDvr said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > but NEVER guaranteed under the system we have today - except when children are involved. We always guaranteed connecting rooms (when requested) if there was a scenario where there could be only children in just one room (ie: 4 adults, 4 kids, yes; 5 adults, 3 kids, no). It's not necessarily fair to blame a family for only booking their vacation 10 months in advance just because a couple of individuals picked rooms 11 months in advance. Families should always trump the lone traveler.
> ...


First come first serve isn't always fair. Whenever there is a scenario where children are involved, the safety and comfort of a family should take priority. It may be hard to explain to someone who is not used to travelling with a family unit involving small children, but there is an element of safety that can be mitigated being either next door or across the hall. This is even more important on Viewliner sets which have a connecting door between bedrooms.



AutoTrDvr said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry - you get the same scenery and arrive at the same time. Anything else is superficial.
> ...


I'm sure there are, and no need to PM. Though noticable, my experience hasn't been that one room is so much better than another that would justify a go/no-go decision. However, I DO respect your position and we must probably choose to agree to disagree.


----------



## MSP_Train_Hopper (Aug 1, 2012)

I don't know how well these compare, but I did a stint working front desk at a hotel for a couple years and dealt with reservations and room assignments. In full disclosure, I've only gone coach on Amtrak and am taking the sleeper reservation process from what I have read on AU board postings.

When someone called into the hotel, we would tell them the room types and prices but not specific rooms (We have a room with 2 double beds for $99, etc.)


If they had a specific room number they liked, we would book them into that room at the time they made the reservation and put a DO NOT MOVE alert on their rez. The room assignment would be included on their confirmation email and barring a mechanical failure, they would get that room.
If they had a general request (close to elevators, high or low floor, etc.) we would make a note in their rez, but not assign them a room at that time. Each morning after checkouts had slowed, the morning shift would run a 'special request' report for people arriving later that day and assign rooms _only to those who made a request_ based on what was available for occupancy during the guest's stay. About 95% of the time we were able to honor everyones placement request. The main clunker was the 4th of July when *everyone* wanted a high floor room overlooking the lake to watch fireworks.
If they made just a general reservation (the vast majority), they would get the type of room they wanted, but the actual room assignment wouldn't be made until they checked in. In this case, the computer would start at the lowest number room and work it's way up as people checked in.

I've always been surprised that Amtrak assigns rooms as all reservations are made, as it takes out a lot of flexibility. An earlier post asked why can't they call people and ask if they are willing to be switched rooms. I know at the front desk where I worked, we simply didn't have the time and resources to be telephone negotiators. With hold times exceeding 30 minutes sometimes and probably less people woking the phones than they would ideally like, I would think Amtrak reservation agents are in the same boat, but even more so.

When it came to noisy neighbors, there were a few things we could do.

* If we were doing rounds and heard people being loud or someone called down with a complaint, we would go talk to the rowdy folks, and if that didn't work we could kick them out.

* If it was a baby crying, then if possible we would offer to move the people who had made the complaint (if possible, I'd even try and slip them a free room upgrade and help move their luggage). If the baby was crying, it must be upset over something and uprooting it's family wouldn't help it one bit. It's a baby, and no one should be surprised that they cry.

* If they complained about it in the morning, we generally would apologize but not offer any compensation. I would explain that had they let us know about it at the time, we would have corrected the situation but since they made the choice to not report it last night, then we were not given given the opportunity to make it right at that time. Many people would play this card with the motivation of getting a discount, and we weren't going to pay for their choice of accepting it through the night.

* Some people would blame us for putting them next to a family, and while we would do the best to help remedy the situation, we have no way of knowing what the dynamics of all the guests' families ahead of time. It may be easier (but not necessarily easy) for Amtrak to tell since everyone needs a ticket to ride, but not everyone needs to be listed on a hotel rez. Also, if you have a sleeper room called the Family Bedroom, it's not hard to figure out what type of guest may be staying in there.

Granted, we had a lot more room inventory to work with (268 rooms vs 1-4 sleeper cars), people weren't in such tight quarters, and the walls were thicker.


----------



## JayPea (Aug 1, 2012)

As for me and my $.03 (inflation these days, you know :lol: ) if someone wanted to change rooms with me to accomodate a family, that would be fine with me, but I'd appreciate the courtesy of a phone call.


----------



## VentureForth (Aug 1, 2012)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> GG-1 said:
> 
> 
> > Aloha
> ...


That's relatively obvious to those of us who have travelled in the sleepers. For newbies to Amtrak & unenlightened reservationists, it's probably not entirely understood.


----------



## VentureForth (Aug 1, 2012)

MSP_Train_Hopper said:


> I don't know how well these compare, but I did a stint working front desk at a hotel for a couple years and dealt with reservations and room assignments. In full disclosure, I've only gone coach on Amtrak and am taking the sleeper reservation process from what I have read on AU board postings.
> 
> When someone called into the hotel, we would tell them the room types and prices but not specific rooms (We have a room with 2 double beds for $99, etc.)
> 
> ...


Essentially my experience, although room number requests were very infrequently honored. We typically ran at 98%+ capacity year-round and it makes it really hard to block folks in and out when some patrons stay as long as 4 weeks. Also, the work going into assigning a room (blocking) was the responsibility of the night auditor. I worked in reservations which was not even co-located. We would fill the hotels' reservations into their inventory 48 hours in advance and that's the amount of time each property had to assign rooms.


----------



## AutoTrDvr (Aug 1, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> AutoTrDvr said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


OK, I agree we need to disagree on the above. Believe it or not, I actually do understand the issues surrounding traveling with young kids, having witnessed many parents struggle with kids on planes/trains etc., as well as me being just as responsible for the transport of my own niece & nephew on occasion. Still, it's my choice/decision and responsibility as to how I transport them when they're in my care. And if I choose public transportation of any sort, it's my responsibility to ensure I can do so safely, and that no other passengers are inconvenienced by my decision. That includes ensuring I get adjoining seats / rooms where needed as early in advance as is possible. If I can't, then I need to pick a different mode, date, time, etc. of transport. It's all about "personal responsibility." First Come... First served is, _*indeed*_, always fair.



VentureForth said:


> AutoTrDvr said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


IME, there are some subtle differences, especially related to height and center location vs. the ends. Some people may be able to tolerate them better and, for them, there isn't that much difference. For me, due to the "medical reasons," there is an increased sensitivity/awareness. Admittedly, height wouldn't seem to matter much on Viewliners, but I've never been on one so I don't know yet. I've only done original Herritage sleepers and SuperLiners, and my use of the Herritage cars predates the medical issues.


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 1, 2012)

AutoTrDvr said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > AutoTrDvr said:
> ...


AutoTrnDr, you summed up my feelings perfectly as well. I had a young daughter, now 23, but when she was young I always made sure we were seated together on airlines when traveling. I always made sure of the seat assignments and considered it MY responsibility, no one else's. However, when the airline moved US, due to equipment changes, it was up to them to help me keep us together.

First come, first served, is, indeed, always fair. It is fair because there is nothing subjective about it and puts the responsibility where it belongs, where people take responsibility to watch out for their and their family's needs.

I am picky about rooms myself and I DO NOT like downstairs. I always make sure of the room when I reserve which is why I do not use the website for sleeper reservations. I would do a move if asked if it would be to what I consider an equivalent room (say a 3 in the 30 car to a 7 in a 31. Being close to the diner isn't critical to me). But ask me, don't tell me.

Onboard the CZ once, the SCA asked if he could move me to the H room from a roomette to accomodate some folks traveling together (no children). Since it has an in-room toilet and is the full width, I think he considered it an upgrade. However, it also has smaller windows and is downstairs, so I told him politely that I preferred to stay where I was. He accepted that graciously and made other arrangements. That was during the afternoon of the first day, and he was great to me the entire trip, so there were evidently no hard feelings.

Bottom line, in the same situation, I would not have moved, either.


----------



## AutoTrDvr (Aug 1, 2012)

MSP_Train_Hopper said:


> I don't know how well these compare, but I did a stint working front desk at a hotel for a couple years and dealt with reservations and room assignments. In full disclosure, I've only gone coach on Amtrak and am taking the sleeper reservation process from what I have read on AU board postings.
> 
> When someone called into the hotel, we would tell them the room types and prices but not specific rooms (We have a room with 2 double beds for $99, etc.)
> 
> ...


I won't ask which hotel/chain it was you worked, but can you tell me whether it's in the "luxury" class (e.g. Starwood/Hilton//Luxury Collection, etc.), or "budget" level (Best Western, Choice Hotels, etc.), or "economy" (Motel-6, Red Roof Inn, etc.), or something totally independent? My experience has been that the higher up one goes on the luxury scale (and thus, greater demand and greater "tourist savviness"), the more "selective" the process is. That is, the more the propensity to "pre-assign" rooms to those expected to arrive on that day, rather than keep all available rooms in the available pool and let "first come first served" prevail. And, with that pre-assigning, comes the greater opportunity to discriminate.

In the time I was staying in those luxury chains, with one exception, I don't think I was ever allowed to reserve a specific room number. They simply would not allow it, or would ignore it if I did. I seemed to do better if it was the case that I was staying there and was securing a 2nd or 3rd stay within a short time. Most of my reservation requests match the 2nd bullet above. Although, in certain chains, my success in getting my requests were far less than 95% towards the luxury end, due to that "pre-assignment" process... much more successful towards the "budget" end as they tended not to pre-assign prior to check in. But again, it also depends a lot on demand.

OK, now I'll relay the war story I mentioned earlier. (Apologizes in advance for the length).

I had reserved (via the chain's Internet site) a hotel room for a hotel in which I had stayed twice before, so I knew it and it's layout, amenities, etc. I won't name the hotel, city or chain, but it would be important to know that it was in a foreign country (it's was US based international chain). The chain has a reservation/room category class where the top floors are their "club/executive/elite" floors (or whatever they were called). This was a recognized class of reservation. You book/pay for that class, you get that class. Any other "requests" are not "guaranteed" until check in. In this case, the hotel's top 2 floors (11 floors in total) were of this class. They also happen to be the only two floors that have an unobstructed view of the city, as the other floors below them face an internal courtyard. As stated earlier, I had stayed at this hotel twice before, and in both cases, I booked and received a room in that class of service.

On (literally) my last visit there, I had booked the same class of room as before (executive/club floor). I put in as special requests (and understood they were not guaranteed), "Highest floor with City View". It was for a weekend stay (Fri & Sat. night). I had booked it 3 months in advance and got the "advanced" rate discount. I arrived on Friday as scheduled at 12:30pm. The business crowd had already vanished. The "weekend wedding" crowd was nowhere yet in sight. Most of the rooms were in the process of being made up. All I expected was to be assigned something on the *10th or 11th floor*, as per the category I booked/paid for. It would, simply, be a "nice to have" to get the 11th floor with a city view. After a 1/2 hour wait, and some internal chattering amongst the front desk staff, my 1st assignment: "_*5th floor, facing the courtyard*_." It wasn't even the class I had paid for! And the front desk person had the stones to try and argue with me that it *was* an executive/club room! I politely "negotiated" a little more, advising him of my previous stays and knowledge of what an executive/club room was. So, after another 10-15 minutes of internal front desk chatter, my 2nd assignment: "_*9th floor facing the courtyard*_." Closer, but no cigar! I kept on "negotiating." I had to convince the FD agent that I knew this hotel, and he wasn't offering me what I had properly reserved.

After another 15-20 minutes and more internal FD chatter, FINALLY, a *room on the 11th floor* :excl: Fantastic! Up I go with the concierge. Upon arrival, not only was the room on the wrong side (not facing the city), but _*it hadn't even been made up yet*_! :angry: :angry: :angry: Even the concierge was embarrassed, and called on the radio to have them try again, I conveyed my sincerest thanks. After another 10-15 minutes, finally, SUCCESS :excl: _*A made up room on the 11th floor facing the city*_! In fact, not just a room, but a *suite*! Polite perseverance pays off! I thanked the concierge once again, and settled in. FTR, I wasn't expecting a suite, but was grateful the ordeal was over. I wondered, "why didn't they do this before and save all that grief?" And, then, I saw it set upon the coffee table. A nice little goody bag with "free meal tickets," a plush toy, sweets and other swag. And an unsealed envelope... "Dear Mr. & Ms, <name redacted - it would give away the country>), We are pleased to welcome you to the <hotel name> and wish to present you with these welcome gifts. Please enjoy your stay!" Oddly, the letter was in English, not the native language. The hotel, it turned out, had a US manager.

Well, obviously, the room had been pre-assigned, and they gave it to me just to keep me quiet. I really feel sorry for Mr. & Ms. <name redacted> (actually, they might not have known what they would have gotten so maybe I don't), but my point is _*I should have been assigned something on one of those two floors initially, since it's the class I reserved and paid for*_. But the rooms were all pre-assigned to couples attending the weddings that weekend (and, furthermore, due to how most of those rooms are booked, were willing to pay "rack rates" for them), as I later discovered. And even, though I was finally settled and got what I wanted, the damage had been done. I didn't enjoy my stay there, and I know that the staff resented my presence, even as polite as I was. They all knew who I was, and what I had done. One of the perks of those "executive/club" floors in that hotel is access to the lounge and outdoor patio, as well as the free food/snacks on the inside of the lounge. The only requirement: you needed to show your room key card to the attendant to prove you were staying on the executive/club floors. I didn't have to show my key card even once! They all knew who I was! :wacko: And, yes, they let me in, but I could tell I was not very welcomed there. When I checked out on Sunday Morning, you could cut the tension at the FD with a knife. Not a word spoken. I left, and vowed never to return. I didn't. I'm sure they were just as pleased with that decision.

OK End of War story. Sorry for the length, but it goes to my point about the "bias" I mention in re: the solitary traveler.



MSP_Train_Hopper said:


> I've always been surprised that Amtrak assigns rooms as all reservations are made, as it takes out a lot of flexibility. An earlier post asked why can't they call people and ask if they are willing to be switched rooms. I know at the front desk where I worked, we simply didn't have the time and resources to be telephone negotiators. With hold times exceeding 30 minutes sometimes and probably less people woking the phones than they would ideally like, I would think Amtrak reservation agents are in the same boat, but even more so.



I guess the question is, how often do they field these kinds of requests. I should think they can handle them like any other contact with reservation agents.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 1, 2012)

There seem to be a lot of accusations about this or that position being selfish and demanding.

But who, _exactly_ is being selfish, and who is being reasonable?

In order to find out I decided to make a quick chart of where people currently sit on this issue.

At first glance this thread appears to be a debate of equal merit between those who believe first come should mean first served and those who believe families should trump everyone else.






But when you think about it, those positions are not quite equals.

If we were truly comparing relatively identical positions we'd see something more like the following.






However, I don't know of anyone who is claiming single people should be able to trump families or anyone else.

There are also other groups that ride Amtrak besides families and single travelers that may have a preference of their own. Taking this into account we now have a somewhat clearer picture of where these positions collide.






I added another angle for friends but that position could just as easily be populated by any number of other possible groups that may ride the train together. If we look at this a bit more objectively we'd see that "first come, first served" fits surprisingly well in the compromise realm and that "families come first" is not really all that fair or objective toward anyone else.






I've traveled on Amtrak by myself, with friends, with family, and with a girlfriend having all manner of other folks surrounding us. If I were _asked_ nicely I might move to a similar room _voluntarily_ in order to make things easier for someone else, regardless of whichever group they did or did not belong to. I would hope most of us would do the same if given such a choice. However, what exactly constitutes a similar room should be up to the individual with the original booking. The choice should still be theirs to make and if I was simply pushed aside without regard to my own wishes I would not consider that a viable solution no matter what group the other party did or did not belong to.

That seems entirely reasonable to me and I'm surprised that one side apparently feels they can trump everyone else at the time and place of their own choosing instead of taking personal responsibility for planning their trip early enough. I'm often reserving my trips soon before departure as a necessary part of maintaining availability for my employer. In those instances I have to accept whatever is left. If I can't make do with what's available then I need to reschedule for another date. Seems simple enough to me.

So far as I can tell nobody is disputing that families should be together. The only thing that's being disputed is how exactly that should be accomplished. Some seem to think that it should be done behind the scenes and only revealed to those who have been involuntarily displaced _after_ the change has already been made. Nothing about that sounds fair or reasonable to me. Others seem to think that it should be up to everyone to book early enough to ensure they are able to select the room(s) they want. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me and I'm surprised this is somehow considered uniquely selfish or demanding. In my view it's the closest thing we have to an objective position expressed so far.


----------



## AutoTrDvr (Aug 1, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> So far as I can tell nobody is disputing that families should be together. The only thing that's being disputed is how exactly that should be accomplished.


Precisely! I certainly am not disputing it.



Texas Sunset said:


> Some seem to think that it should be done behind the scenes and only revealed to those who have been involuntarily displaced _after_ the change has already been made. Nothing about that sounds fair or reasonable to me.


And I don't think that's Amtrak's official policy, either. If it is happening, it is done at the discretion of the agents. That is unacceptable! I cold tell another war story, but I think I've used up my quota for the next year or two!    Maybe in Philly!



Texas Sunset said:


> Others seem to think that it should be up to everyone to book early enough to ensure they are able to select the room(s) they want. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me and I'm surprised this is somehow considered uniquely selfish or demanding. In my view it's the closest thing we have to an objective position expressed so far.


Again, Precisely! :hi:


----------



## AlanB (Aug 1, 2012)

Ryan said:


> And it's really a topic for another thread (and one we've beat to death previously), but don't expect a seat map. It's a significantly more complex problem on a train that makes 30 something stops along its route (and I doubt they'd develop the feature just for use on the Auto Train).


Nope, I disagree. Amtrak already has the base software in place from the original eTicket experiment for Acela. One could see the entire map of the FC car, what seats faced what way and which ones were already sold, and then pick your favorite seat. Wouldn't be very hard at all to adapt that to sleepers.


----------



## jis (Aug 1, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > And it's really a topic for another thread (and one we've beat to death previously), but don't expect a seat map. It's a significantly more complex problem on a train that makes 30 something stops along its route (and I doubt they'd develop the feature just for use on the Auto Train).
> ...


I thought so, but was waiting for you to chime in. Thank you.


----------



## amamba (Aug 1, 2012)

jis said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


But what about the fact that the direction of the sleeper car cannot be guaranteed? Would that be an issue if people were to self-assign rooms?


----------



## jis (Aug 1, 2012)

amamba said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


Since Amtrak is generally not very good at keeping train consists all lined up the same way, all that can be done is reserve specific room or seat in a car and not make any specific statement about which way the car will face. The same problem existed in Acela First Class since there was no guarantee which way the train would face.

There are other places where consists are much more fixed including direction of travel. For example in many countries in Europe the consists are so fixed that they are charted on big charts posted on platforms so that you can find out exactly where the car in which you have your reservation will platform.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 1, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > And it's really a topic for another thread (and one we've beat to death previously), but don't expect a seat map. It's a significantly more complex problem on a train that makes 30 something stops along its route (and I doubt they'd develop the feature just for use on the Auto Train).
> ...


I completely forgot about that.

Was it smart enough to prevent someone from buying Room A from NYP-CVS and someone else from selecting room B from CLT-NOL, preventing a through NYP-NOL room from being available?


----------



## jis (Aug 1, 2012)

Ryan said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


That would be like someone buying a seat from WAS to WIL and a second person buying one from PHL to NYP. I would be astounded if it was unable to handle that properly without screwing up an additional through seat. But admittedly, you never know for sure . 

OTOH, if individuals proceed to assign themselves seats because Mr. A needs that window seat in the 5th row and Ms. B wants an aisle seat on the 8th row because of different levels of rail noise and the way the air conditioning vents blow, and start throwing hissy-fits if their wishes is not catered to, then all bets are off.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 1, 2012)

That's the million $$$ question. I'm sure that the system is smart enough to assign the seats in a logical manner to preserve through seats as long as possible. Once you let people start picking, that smarts goes out the window.

Also, on a train where you're dealing with dozens of seats a little bit of inefficiency is OK. Suboptimal, but OK.

On a train with 4 or 6 bedrooms, there's a much larger need for max efficiency.


----------



## railbuck (Aug 2, 2012)

jis said:


> There are other places where consists are much more fixed including direction of travel. For example in many countries in Europe the consists are so fixed that they are charted on big charts posted on platforms so that you can find out exactly where the car in which you have your reservation will platform.


Yes, but even there it's not unusual to encounter an announcement that "first class is at the front of the train" (or whatever) indicating that the train is reversed from its normal direction.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 2, 2012)

Just weighing in again, I'm inclined to prefer the following:

-Don't assign reservations until close to the last minute. This maximizes your ability to grant other requests; it will also likely avoid the issue of "I can book a roomette from A-B and B-C but not A-C" that happens on occasion.

--Exception: "Downstairs" requests based on disability go into the system with a special flag and get allocated first.

-When assigning, go in the following order:

1) Downstairs/disability requests, as above.

2) Group reservations (families and friends) and bedroom suite reservations.

3) All others filling in afterwards, with requests honored where possible (primarily upstairs requests).

This should avoid _most_ issues...in my experience, there are only going to be a few group reservations on a train, so this should fulfill most requests

As to the "war story" (which sounds like it came from a Holiday Inn), yeah...I don't care if the staff were resentful. They had no right to be, and if they were going to have trouble granting your room request they should have at least proffered something in return or given you the benefits of those rooms even though they couldn't put you in one of the rooms due to a glitch. That the staff was resentful of what you did...if anything, I would have been inclined to call customer service and complain about the situation.


----------



## VentureForth (Aug 2, 2012)

AutoTrDvr said:


> The chain has a reservation/room category class where the top floors are their "club/executive/elite" floors (or whatever they were called). This was a recognized class of reservation. You book/pay for that class, you get that class.


This is so legitimate. I completely understand this scenario, and would have appreciated at least an explanation over excuses such as "I am getting what I paid for".

Two weekend ago, my family and I stayed at a beach resort where they had three categories of rooms: limited view, deluxe room, and balcony. The way the hotel was laid out, only a balcony gave you an ocean view. The deluxe and limited view rooms were identical; only the floor level was different to get a better view of the ocean over neighboring residences and businesses. The price difference was $10, so we went deluxe. I would say our view was 90% obstructed. After reading reviews on trip advisor, turns out limited view was 100% view of parking and dumpsters. I could have caused a stink - and yes, I would have, had my kids not been with me. But they were sold out and the best I could hope for was a $20 voucher. Not worth the stink.

Yes, I got frustrated working at Disney for a similar reason. A water view meant "if you can see a corner of a pool, it's water view". I THINK this had been revised through complaints over the years, but only to add new, revenue buckets... Ugh.

I didn't know Acela turned. I thought same seats always face same direction. How is that possible, or even necessary?


----------



## AutoTrDvr (Aug 2, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Just weighing in again, I'm inclined to prefer the following:
> 
> -Don't assign reservations until close to the last minute. This maximizes your ability to grant other requests; it will also likely avoid the issue of "I can book a roomette from A-B and B-C but not A-C" that happens on occasion.
> 
> ...


Not my issue, I'm afraid! It must be "first come... first served." The problem with "not assigning reservations until close to the last minute" is that facilitates discrimination in favor of those groups/families/friends. The solitary traveler will most likely get shut out of their choices before they even get to bat! If I'm paying the same money as those families and friends for the same class of service, I should get the same chance at my choice. Since there are separate "special facilities" for people needing "assistance," that should be a totally separate thing... but again, first come... first served, even within the context of that "separate thing."



Anderson said:


> As to the "war story" (which sounds like it came from a Holiday Inn), yeah...I don't care if the staff were resentful. They had no right to be, and if they were going to have trouble granting your room request they should have at least proffered something in return or given you the benefits of those rooms even though they couldn't put you in one of the rooms due to a glitch. That the staff was resentful of what you did...if anything, I would have been inclined to call customer service and complain about the situation.


It wasn't a Holiday Inn. It was, actually, quite the opposite on the luxury scale. The Holiday Inn class of hotel chains can't really afford to be that selective. These guys could! The top two floors had the absolute best view of the city, which is for what everyone was competing. The floors below that had no city view at all (blocked by a courtyard). Even if the other "amenities" had been granted, it wouldn't have mattered... the view was everything! In this case, calling "customer service" was not an option, as this hotel was in a foreign country. They do things a little differently there, and it is "expected" that people take what they are given without complaint. If the customer objects, even politely, they get real huffy. They do their best not to show it, but "body language" is a...... ya know..... <well, it rhymes with "rich">. ^_^ Let's just say, I'd love to play "Texas Hold'em" with some of them...  The US based customer service would not have been able to help.

But enough about hotels.... Back to Amtrak trains!


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 2, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Just weighing in again, I'm inclined to prefer the following:
> 
> -Don't assign reservations until close to the last minute. This maximizes your ability to grant other requests; it will also likely avoid the issue of "I can book a roomette from A-B and B-C but not A-C" that happens on occasion.
> 
> ...


You're always free to give up your own assignment Anderson. The part I don't understand is why you decided that everyone else should be _forced_ to follow your own example. Nothing in your post explains that part.


----------



## jis (Aug 2, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Just weighing in again, I'm inclined to prefer the following:
> 
> -Don't assign reservations until close to the last minute. This maximizes your ability to grant other requests; it will also likely avoid the issue of "I can book a roomette from A-B and B-C but not A-C" that happens on occasion.
> 
> ...


Heh! This is exactly similar to what Indian Railways does with AC First Class reservations. Of course that does not prevent any of the usual moaning, bickering and horsetrading soon after people arrive at the train either.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 2, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> I didn't know Acela turned. I thought same seats always face same direction. How is that possible, or even necessary?


Acela turns the seats more than any other train around; at least in the US. In DC the set itself is never wyed, same in Boston too. They just pull in, clean the train, turn the seats that can be turned, load up and go the other direction. Yes, all that occurs over the course of like 2 or 3 hours. And with regard to the "seat that can be turned" comment, seats at tables cannot be turned, they are fixed. All other seat pairs are turned, as well as some of the singles in FC.

For trains that terminate in NY, all sets are run out to Sunnyside first, where they automatically go around the loop track and negate the need to turn the seats. That trip around the loop is also why one can never predict if the FC car will be at the front or rear of any given run.


----------



## amtrakmichigan (Aug 5, 2012)

So I'm back home from my trip now, and I thought that maybe some of you would like to know how my roomette situation turned out.

My tickets were printed and handed to me by the Agent in Dearborn, Mi. The ticket was printed correctly which was room #2 in 3001. When greeted by our sleeper attendent in TOL, one of the first things he said was "I had to move you from #2 to #5 because the bed was broke in #2". Long story short, room #2 sat empty the entire trip except for a few towell bags that the attendent was storing. I really dont think his story added up since it apeared that he wanted the supplies as close as possible to his room (#1). Anyway... At least I wasn't moved downstairs.


----------



## williamflemming (Aug 5, 2012)

amtrakmichigan said:


> Maybe some of you have encountered this situation already, but I wanted to write this post to inform people of what could happen to your reservation.
> 
> The agent said room 10 was available for about $30 more.


That doesn't make sense. I always want the bottom floor, and it costs sometimes 50-100 dollars more expensive to change from top to bottom........I don't get it, they should be GIVING you that 30 bucks.


----------



## printman2000 (Aug 5, 2012)

williamflemming said:


> amtrakmichigan said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe some of you have encountered this situation already, but I wanted to write this post to inform people of what could happen to your reservation.
> ...


Many phone agents will let you change roomettes for no charge. If they want to charge you, call back later and the next person might be willing. I never pay for a room change.


----------



## amamba (Aug 5, 2012)

printman2000 said:


> williamflemming said:
> 
> 
> > amtrakmichigan said:
> ...


There should be no charge to change rooms. If they are trying to charge you for it, they don't know how to do it properly. Politely thank them and call back until you get someone who can do it for you without a fee.


----------



## Nathanael (Aug 5, 2012)

Ryan said:


> Arnold, if there is a meaningful difference like the canyon table, I agree. That sucks. But the difference between room 2 and room 12 isn't really worth inconveniencing a traveling family in my mind. Obviously other people's opinions vary.


Your opinion is simply wrong.

I'll give another example. My fiancee has moderate arthritis and has a lot of trouble with stairs. But she likes to eat in the dining car and use the lounge car. Accordingly, we make a point of getting upstairs roomettes, so that she can walk up the stairs ONCE and walk back down them ONCE, and just stay on the top level the rest of the time. If we were in a downstairs roomette, she'd just have to forego going to the dining car or the lounge car. (I know the attendants will, theoretically, bring you your meals in the lower level.)

Being switched between the upper and lower level is a severe service quality change. Now, the difference between roomette 2 and roomette 3? Probably few would care. But *lots* of people see a *large* difference between upper level and lower level roomettes.


----------



## me_little_me (Aug 6, 2012)

Nathanael said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Arnold, if there is a meaningful difference like the canyon table, I agree. That sucks. But the difference between room 2 and room 12 isn't really worth inconveniencing a traveling family in my mind. Obviously other people's opinions vary.
> ...


I agree that for someone with limited mobility, there is a big difference. My wife has problems climbing stairs albeit, she can do it slowly. Having to repeatedly go up and down stairs would be an issue but doing it once is something she can tolerate.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 6, 2012)

Nathanael said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Arnold, if there is a meaningful difference like the canyon table, I agree. That sucks. But the difference between room 2 and room 12 isn't really worth inconveniencing a traveling family in my mind. Obviously other people's opinions vary.
> ...


For your fiancee, there is a major difference.
For the vast majority of Americans, I'm still right.


----------



## VentureForth (Aug 6, 2012)

Nathanael said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Arnold, if there is a meaningful difference like the canyon table, I agree. That sucks. But the difference between room 2 and room 12 isn't really worth inconveniencing a traveling family in my mind. Obviously other people's opinions vary.
> ...


Can an opinion actually ever be wrong? Perhaps the premise, but isn't an opinion by definition subjective?



AlanB said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't know Acela turned. I thought same seats always face same direction. How is that possible, or even necessary?
> ...


I did, indeed, state that incorrectly. I didn't truly presume that folks would travel backwards from BOS to DC. I figured that they turned the SEATS. I meant to state that I thought the TRAIN faced the same direction regardless of travel. Interesting note about the loop. Wonder why they do that.

On the Shinkansen, the order of the cars are ALWAYS oriented towards the bigger of the terminals - usually Tokyo. This is important as the stations have permanent signs directing people to their train car so they can line up at the right spot before the train arrives, reducing boarding time - a pretty important feature when you try to load/unload 16 cars in 30 seconds.


----------



## jis (Aug 6, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> I did, indeed, state that incorrectly. I didn't truly presume that folks would travel backwards from BOS to DC. I figured that they turned the SEATS. I meant to state that I thought the TRAIN faced the same direction regardless of travel. Interesting note about the loop. Wonder why they do that.


If they really wanted to keep the sets oriented the same way they could. There is track connectivity available to move trains into Sunnyside without going around the loop. However something being totally consistent may be such a culture shock at Amtrak that it would be considered almost like an unnatural act  :lol:

More seriously, with current track layout there are more potential conflicts to take a train into Sunnyside without taking it around the loop. The conflicts will be reduced some with the changes being made to Harold. In any case the number of such moves needed is relatively small, since (a) there are not that huge a number of Acelas anyway, and (b) even fewer of them terminate in NYP.



> On the Shinkansen, the order of the cars are ALWAYS oriented towards the bigger of the terminals - usually Tokyo. This is important as the stations have permanent signs directing people to their train car so they can line up at the right spot before the train arrives, reducing boarding time - a pretty important feature when you try to load/unload 16 cars in 30 seconds.


Indeed! But seriously loading/unloading in 30 secs itself would be an unnatural act too :lol:

More seriously in a six car train with only two cars with special properties (First Class, and Quiet Car) I suppose a consistent announcement about their location in the consist a few minutes before the train's arrival should suffice since it does not take that long to walk 4 car lengths.


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 6, 2012)

Ryan said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


You do not speak for me and do not pretend to. I have definate preferences in roomette placement, and do not want my confirmed space changed without my consent.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 6, 2012)

I never said that people didn't have preferences.

I said that those preferences were based on extremely minor differences that aren't worth getting worked up over.


----------



## MiRider (Aug 6, 2012)

Just throwing in my opinion....

I love Superliners but the downstairs is ugly and utilitarian.

The lower level seating area is absolutely depressing looking - always reminds me of steerage.

I would never willingly sit down there.

I can't imagine how the roomettes near the bathrooms, baggage area, doors, and family bedroom could even be comparable, ambiance-wise, to the upper level.

The roomettes may be physically the same but the overall experience, imo, would be seriously lacking.

My CONO reservations (made 8 months in advance) are for the upper level, #2 and #5 and that's what I expect to be in.

The lower level would be unacceptable and I wouldn't willingly exchange for a lower level roomette for anyone, call me selfish - too bad.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 11, 2012)

jis said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > I did, indeed, state that incorrectly. I didn't truly presume that folks would travel backwards from BOS to DC. I figured that they turned the SEATS. I meant to state that I thought the TRAIN faced the same direction regardless of travel. Interesting note about the loop. Wonder why they do that.
> ...


I admit up front that I'm posting this from the Auto Train on my way home, and therefore don't have access to my track maps. But that said;

As I recall, the only other way into Sunnyside yard other than the loop, is to wrong rail in the normally inbound line 2 or 4 tunnels. One cannot get from the normal outbound line 1 & 3 tunnels to Sunnyside without either using the loop track or making at least 1 and maybe 2 backup moves. By the time the normally outbound line 1 & 3 tunnels pop up to the surface they are past any connection to the yard leads from the yard to the line 2 & 4 tunnels.


----------



## jis (Aug 11, 2012)

Yup. Wrong rail is the only way at present


----------

