# Duplex Roomettes may provide more room?



## dlagrua

I've just seen them in magazines but there are some old configurations of sleeper coaches ( from the 1950's) that seem to offer higher efficency that the modern day Viewliner sleeper cars. In the Summer 2008 edition of Classic Trains magazine they ran an entire issue on Pullman and on sleeper cars in general. All configurations of sleeper cars were discussed but the one that caught my eye were the cars with what they called Single bedrooms and Duplex Roomettes. These rooms or roomettes were staggered one high and one low, such that part of each room was below or above an adjacent one. Maximum space utilization was achieved and I believe that each room had a comode/sink. . These were single high cars like on the Viewliners but they did feature high and low rooms with a few steps to reach the upper rooms. In some NYC slumber coaches up to 26 of these could be put in one lightweight car. I just wonder why this old configuration was abandoned in favor of what we now have today.


----------



## Hytec

dlagrua said:


> I've just seen them in magazines but there are some old configurations of sleeper coaches ( from the 1950's) that seem to offer higher efficency that the modern day Viewliner sleeper cars. In the Summer 2008 edition of Classic Trains magazine they ran an entire issue on Pullman and on sleeper cars in general. All configurations of sleeper cars were discussed but the one that caught my eye were the cars with what they called Single bedrooms and Duplex Roomettes. These rooms or roomettes were staggered one high and one low, such that part of each room was below or above an adjacent one. Maximum space utilization was achieved and I believe that each room had a comode/sink. . These were single high cars like on the Viewliners but they did feature high and low rooms with a few steps to reach the upper rooms. In some NYC slumber coaches up to 26 of these could be put in one lightweight car. I just wonder why this old configuration was abandoned in favor of what we now have today.


The Crescent used Slumbercoaches 25-30 years ago. My brother and sister-in-law rode in one overnight from NYP to NOL and said it was similar to old Pullman heavyweights with upper and lower berths at night, and coach-like seating during the day. They had paid for a bedroom, but due to a hurricane-caused service interruption and equipment shortage, the Heritage sleeper to which they were assigned had been replaced with a Slumbercoach. They felt short-changed because the berths were very cramped for dressing/undressing, daytime seating had no privacy, and they were offered no re-imbursement. It was about this same time that Amtrak got rid of Slumbercoaches.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat

Hytec said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've just seen them in magazines but there are some old configurations of sleeper coaches ( from the 1950's) that seem to offer higher efficency that the modern day Viewliner sleeper cars. In the Summer 2008 edition of Classic Trains magazine they ran an entire issue on Pullman and on sleeper cars in general. All configurations of sleeper cars were discussed but the one that caught my eye were the cars with what they called Single bedrooms and Duplex Roomettes. These rooms or roomettes were staggered one high and one low, such that part of each room was below or above an adjacent one. Maximum space utilization was achieved and I believe that each room had a comode/sink. . These were single high cars like on the Viewliners but they did feature high and low rooms with a few steps to reach the upper rooms. In some NYC slumber coaches up to 26 of these could be put in one lightweight car. I just wonder why this old configuration was abandoned in favor of what we now have today.
> 
> 
> 
> The Crescent used Slumbercoaches 25-30 years ago. My brother and sister-in-law rode in one overnight from NYP to NOL and said it was similar to old Pullman heavyweights with upper and lower berths at night, and coach-like seating during the day. They had paid for a bedroom, but due to a hurricane-caused service interruption and equipment shortage, the Heritage sleeper to which they were assigned had been replaced with a Slumbercoach. They felt short-changed because the berths were very cramped for dressing/undressing, daytime seating had no privacy, and they were offered no re-imbursement. It was about this same time that Amtrak got rid of Slumbercoaches.
Click to expand...

My one quick thought as I rush out the door is that the big problem is that they did not get a reimbursement. I think something fell through the cracks. They were supposed to be reimbursed.

As to being cramped, well, yes that is sort of the point. It offered broom closet space but-----at broom closet prices. That is meant to make it compensate.

Slumbercoaches lasted sometime after that, on into the Amtrak era. Many people did like them, at least if they delberately chose to ride in a small space but at a small cost.

Again,they should have been compensated just as I was last summer when all the sleepers bummed out and I had to ride coach on the Crescent from ATL to WAS.


----------



## had8ley

Bill Haithcoat said:


> Hytec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've just seen them in magazines but there are some old configurations of sleeper coaches ( from the 1950's) that seem to offer higher efficency that the modern day Viewliner sleeper cars. In the Summer 2008 edition of Classic Trains magazine they ran an entire issue on Pullman and on sleeper cars in general. All configurations of sleeper cars were discussed but the one that caught my eye were the cars with what they called Single bedrooms and Duplex Roomettes. These rooms or roomettes were staggered one high and one low, such that part of each room was below or above an adjacent one. Maximum space utilization was achieved and I believe that each room had a comode/sink. . These were single high cars like on the Viewliners but they did feature high and low rooms with a few steps to reach the upper rooms. In some NYC slumber coaches up to 26 of these could be put in one lightweight car. I just wonder why this old configuration was abandoned in favor of what we now have today.
> 
> 
> 
> The Crescent used Slumbercoaches 25-30 years ago. My brother and sister-in-law rode in one overnight from NYP to NOL and said it was similar to old Pullman heavyweights with upper and lower berths at night, and coach-like seating during the day. They had paid for a bedroom, but due to a hurricane-caused service interruption and equipment shortage, the Heritage sleeper to which they were assigned had been replaced with a Slumbercoach. They felt short-changed because the berths were very cramped for dressing/undressing, daytime seating had no privacy, and they were offered no re-imbursement. It was about this same time that Amtrak got rid of Slumbercoaches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My one quick thought as I rush out the door is that the big problem is that they did not get a reimbursement. I think something fell through the cracks. They were supposed to be reimbursed.
> 
> As to being cramped, well, yes that is sort of the point. It offered broom closet space but-----at broom closet prices. That is meant to make it compensate.
> 
> Slumbercoaches lasted sometime after that, on into the Amtrak era. Many people did like them, at least if they delberately chose to ride in a small space but at a small cost.
> 
> Again,they should have been compensated just as I was last summer when all the sleepers bummed out and I had to ride coach on the Crescent from ATL to WAS.
Click to expand...

Bill;

That's a long way to ride in coach when you have a sleeper ticket in your wallet. Just how much did they compensate you? Just curious 'cause we're going to NYP this week-end hopefully in the 10 car.


----------



## printman2000

They have two or three of Amtrak's old slumbercoaches at Dallas' Train Museum. Unfortunately, they were not open. I would love to see inside. I have never seen an image of how those rooms are laid out.


----------



## Madbuster

I slept in a duplex single bedroom on The Canadian two years ago. Mine was the lower room that had my bed roll out from under the room in front/above me. These rooms are smaller than a Amtrak roomette and the day chair is not as soft or comfortable. The in room toilet sticks out in front of you restricting your sitting leg room. However, the bed was MUCH softer and had an actual mattress. Putting away your bed is much easier since you just undo a couple of latches and slide it forward under the room in front of you. I believe their bed pulls down from the wall.

http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/ou...au-sleeping-car

Scroll down this link for a day/night configuration diagram.


----------



## zephyr17

Madbuster said:


> I slept in a duplex single bedroom on The Canadian two years ago. Mine was the lower room that had my bed roll out from under the room in front/above me. These rooms are smaller than a Amtrak roomette and the day chair is not as soft or comfortable. The in room toilet sticks out in front of you restricting your sitting leg room. However, the bed was MUCH softer and had an actual mattress. Putting away your bed is much easier since you just undo a couple of latches and slide it forward under the room in front of you. I believe their bed pulls down from the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/ou...au-sleeping-car
> 
> Scroll down this link for a day/night configuration diagram.


A VIA duplex single bedroom was a "duplex roomette" in tradition railroad accomodation terms and is not the same as a duplex slumbercoach. The duplex roomette was a full first class accomodation and was roomier with better bedding than a duplex slumbercoach room. The duplex just denotes the staggered arrangement of the accomodations.


----------



## dlagrua

Madbuster said:


> I slept in a duplex single bedroom on The Canadian two years ago. Mine was the lower room that had my bed roll out from under the room in front/above me. These rooms are smaller than a Amtrak roomette and the day chair is not as soft or comfortable. The in room toilet sticks out in front of you restricting your sitting leg room. However, the bed was MUCH softer and had an actual mattress. Putting away your bed is much easier since you just undo a couple of latches and slide it forward under the room in front of you. I believe their bed pulls down from the wall.
> 
> http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/ou...au-sleeping-car
> 
> Scroll down this link for a day/night configuration diagram.


Yes that website shows the room arrangements that I am refering to. I can only guess that the reason that they are not used today is for the two or three steps up to the upper roomettes. The pictures seem to suggest that there is more room in these than in todays liner roomettes. If I am not mistaken the duplex arrangement (hi-low) made it possible for roomettes to have the same width as the bedrooms. Perhaps they were more cramped but as noted before, the purpose was to offer more sleeping accomodations at attractive prices. The thing that I like most is that the lower roomettes had beds that can be pulled out or pushed back as many times as one wished to do it. Sit in the chair, get tired lie down for an hour or two and then use the chair again. I am wondering what Amtrak is proposing on the next generation of sleepers? They will obviously need to be made by foreigners as without thinking we put Budd and Pullman out of business. Last I read Amtrak was thinking of contracting out to a Spanish company.


----------



## Ryan

You should read the fleet strategy that Amtrak published recently and was extensively discussed here. Many of your questions will be answered.


----------



## Bootman4U

Duplex Roomettes remain in use on VIA #1 and 2 The Canadian..they are in the "Chateau" sleeping car series. Yes, one bed folds down from the wall the way a conventional roomette operates and the other rolls out from underneath as described above. Personally I prefer the non-duplex models which are found in the "Manor" sleeping car series and fortunately there are more of those on the Canadian trains than there are duplexes.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat

Bill Haithcoat said:


> Hytec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've just seen them in magazines but there are some old configurations of sleeper coaches ( from the 1950's) that seem to offer higher efficency that the modern day Viewliner sleeper cars. In the Summer 2008 edition of Classic Trains magazine they ran an entire issue on Pullman and on sleeper cars in general. All configurations of sleeper cars were discussed but the one that caught my eye were the cars with what they called Single bedrooms and Duplex Roomettes. These rooms or roomettes were staggered one high and one low, such that part of each room was below or above an adjacent one. Maximum space utilization was achieved and I believe that each room had a comode/sink. . These were single high cars like on the Viewliners but they did feature high and low rooms with a few steps to reach the upper rooms. In some NYC slumber coaches up to 26 of these could be put in one lightweight car. I just wonder why this old configuration was abandoned in favor of what we now have today.
> 
> 
> 
> The Crescent used Slumbercoaches 25-30 years ago. My brother and sister-in-law rode in one overnight from NYP to NOL and said it was similar to old Pullman heavyweights with upper and lower berths at night, and coach-like seating during the day. They had paid for a bedroom, but due to a hurricane-caused service interruption and equipment shortage, the Heritage sleeper to which they were assigned had been replaced with a Slumbercoach. They felt short-changed because the berths were very cramped for dressing/undressing, daytime seating had no privacy, and they were offered no re-imbursement. It was about this same time that Amtrak got rid of Slumbercoaches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My one quick thought as I rush out the door is that the big problem is that they did not get a reimbursement. I think something fell through the cracks. They were supposed to be reimbursed.
> 
> As to being cramped, well, yes that is sort of the point. It offered broom closet space but-----at broom closet prices. That is meant to make it compensate.
> 
> Slumbercoaches lasted sometime after that, on into the Amtrak era. Many people did like them, at least if they delberately chose to ride in a small space but at a small cost.
> 
> Again,they should have been compensated just as I was last summer when all the sleepers bummed out and I had to ride coach on the Crescent from ATL to WAS.
Click to expand...


I have had time to think about this. First, maybe there was no compensation since it was an "act of God" rather than an equipment malfunction.

Secondly, I am begining to wonder if it was an old section sleeper rather than a slumbercoach since there was no privacy (slumbercoaches do have doors). Since you are talking about Southern RR operation rather than Amtrak, I think. The Southern would never on a regular basis used a heavyweight section sleeper on that train. But yet it could have plenty of them in storage for just such an emergency as this

One thing about the old roads, they often did have much more standby equipment than today, though sometimes of dubious qualiy.


----------



## Hytec

Bill Haithcoat said:


> I have had time to think about this. First, maybe there was no compensation since it was an "act of God" rather than an equipment malfunction.
> Secondly, I am begining to wonder if it was an old section sleeper rather than a slumbercoach since there was no privacy (slumbercoaches do have doors). Since you are talking about Southern RR operation rather than Amtrak, I think. The Southern would never on a regular basis used a heavyweight section sleeper on that train. But yet it could have plenty of them in storage for just such an emergency as this
> 
> One thing about the old roads, they often did have much more standby equipment than today, though sometimes of dubious qualiy.


I agree that an "Act of God" caused the problem, Hurricane Gloria specifically. My Brother and sister-in-law were delayed by one day between BOS and NYP by Amtrak having to operate the NEC as Dark Territory by Track Warrant, so Amtrak was hard-pressed to accomodate east coast passengers during those 3-5 days following the storm. I wasn't berating Amtrak, I was only attempting to describe what I remembered how my Sister-in-Law described her night in a Slumbercoach.

BTW, by 1986, Southern had long since gotten out of the passenger service business. The Slumbercoaches assigned to the Crescent were those that Amtrak had inherited from the Santa Fe and had had in storage for many years.


----------



## jis

zephyr17 said:


> A VIA duplex single bedroom was a "duplex roomette" in tradition railroad accomodation terms and is not the same as a duplex slumbercoach. The duplex roomette was a full first class accomodation and was roomier with better bedding than a duplex slumbercoach room. The duplex just denotes the staggered arrangement of the accomodations.


That's right. VIA has duplex singles in their Chateau cars. They also have "simplex" singles in their Manor cars. For reasons that I have not been able to articulate even to myself, I prefer the single roomettes (simplex singles) in the Manor cars.

But, I prefer the Amtrak Viewliner Roomettes to either of those two.


----------



## zephyr17

jis said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A VIA duplex single bedroom was a "duplex roomette" in tradition railroad accomodation terms and is not the same as a duplex slumbercoach. The duplex roomette was a full first class accomodation and was roomier with better bedding than a duplex slumbercoach room. The duplex just denotes the staggered arrangement of the accomodations.
> 
> 
> 
> That's right. VIA has duplex singles in their Chateau cars. They also have "simplex" singles in their Manor cars. For reasons that I have not been able to articulate even to myself, I prefer the single roomettes (simplex singles) in the Manor cars.
> 
> But, I prefer the Amtrak Viewliner Roomettes to either of those two.
Click to expand...

I've only ridden the Viewliners a couple of times some years ago, so I can't really comment. But I vastly prefer the traditional RR simple roomette on the Manor cars to Superliner economy bedrooms (aka "roomette"). The bed is bigger and has a much better mattress, the mattress is at window level, so you can look straight out while lying in bed at night, instead of up and out like in a superliner. There is more room for luggage, too.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

Wow, this is all really interesting. I will have to admit, while on a LD train, I have often killed the hours by tinkering with various accommodation designs, attempting to come up with one that is clearly better than what Amtrak offers today. I have yet to come up with anything that has a clear advantage (same passenger capacity, but with more personal space). My #1 target is to reduce the amount of sq footage used by the hallways (especially by eliminating the "jogs").

However, I don't see how these high/low duplex roomettes are more efficient than a Viewliner roomette. Two of the duplex roomettes appear to take up more car sq footage, than one Viewliner roomette. No?


----------



## dlagrua

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Wow, this is all really interesting. I will have to admit, while on a LD train, I have often killed the hours by tinkering with various accommodation designs, attempting to come up with one that is clearly better than what Amtrak offers today. I have yet to come up with anything that has a clear advantage (same passenger capacity, but with more personal space). My #1 target is to reduce the amount of sq footage used by the hallways (especially by eliminating the "jogs").
> However, I don't see how these high/low duplex roomettes are more efficient than a Viewliner roomette. Two of the duplex roomettes appear to take up more car sq footage, than one Viewliner roomette. No?


According to what I have read 50's and 60's era sleeper cars had 24 or 26 of these duplex roomettes per car. The NYC redesigned the cars and increaaed the sleeper capacity so that they could offermore afordable prices. The hi/low configuration was on both sides of the car and it did simplify bed storage for the lower room. Part of each room was under the other. The bedjust slid in under the upper room. I hope to see one of these one day and find out more but very few remain, Regardless we will probably never see this room configuration used again.

Throughtout the years sleeping cars have used 1. the Original Pullman Section (the seats that convert to beds with a curtain), 2. the duplex roomette (both sides bed parallel) , 3. duplex single room (one side only bed crossways) , 4.the double bedroom (types A. B. and C.) 5. The compartment (dates from the heavyweight era. similar to todays bedroom but larger)) and 6. the drawing room (the deluxe accomodation on the section car for up to 3 people)). Today five styles are used Bedroom, Roomette, roomette w toilet (Viewliner only), family bedroom and handicapped bedroom.


----------



## zephyr17

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Wow, this is all really interesting. I will have to admit, while on a LD train, I have often killed the hours by tinkering with various accommodation designs, attempting to come up with one that is clearly better than what Amtrak offers today. I have yet to come up with anything that has a clear advantage (same passenger capacity, but with more personal space). My #1 target is to reduce the amount of sq footage used by the hallways (especially by eliminating the "jogs").
> However, I don't see how these high/low duplex roomettes are more efficient than a Viewliner roomette. Two of the duplex roomettes appear to take up more car sq footage, than one Viewliner roomette. No?


They serve different purposes and were designed with different objectives. Traditional "roomettes" of either stripe (regular or duplex) were designed as private, first class sleeping accomodations for SINGLE travelers. The duplex design was to create more of these private, single traveller spaces in the same amount of room, not to provide the same capacity as having a 2 person accomodation in the same footprint as a roomette. The smallest private accomodation for two travelers in those days was a "Double Bedroom" which is similiar to an Superliner delux bedroom, but a little smaller. The Superliner delux bedroom is somewhere between a Double Bedroom and a Compartment in size. Again, cannot speak authoritatively about Viewliners.

Traditional roomettes were designed and marketed primarily to single business travelers, a market that no longer exists for overnight services in any meaningful sense. Hence, no more single capacity rooms.

If you want your ideas jump started, get hold of the Classic Trains Pullman edition of a couple of years ago. In it they describe all the various sleeping accomodations provided by pullman (sections, roomettes, duplex roomettes, single bedrooms, double bedrooms of the "A,B,C,D" varieties, compartments, drawing rooms).


----------



## zephyr17

dlagrua said:


> Cho Cho Charlie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, this is all really interesting. I will have to admit, while on a LD train, I have often killed the hours by tinkering with various accommodation designs, attempting to come up with one that is clearly better than what Amtrak offers today. I have yet to come up with anything that has a clear advantage (same passenger capacity, but with more personal space). My #1 target is to reduce the amount of sq footage used by the hallways (especially by eliminating the "jogs").
> However, I don't see how these high/low duplex roomettes are more efficient than a Viewliner roomette. Two of the duplex roomettes appear to take up more car sq footage, than one Viewliner roomette. No?
> 
> 
> 
> According to what I have read 50's and 60's era sleeper cars had 24 or 26 of these duplex roomettes per car. The NYC redesigned the cars and increaaed the sleeper capacity so that they could offermore afordable prices. The hi/low configuration was on both sides of the car and it did simplify bed storage for the lower room. Part of each room was under the other. The bedjust slid in under the upper room. I hope to see one of these one day and find out more but very few remain, Regardless we will probably never see this room configuration used again.
> 
> Throughtout the years sleeping cars have used 1. the Original Pullman Section (the seats that convert to beds with a curtain), 2. the duplex roomette (both sides bed parallel) , 3. duplex single room (one side only bed crossways) , 4.the double bedroom (types A. B. and C.) 5. The compartment (dates from the heavyweight era. similar to todays bedroom but larger)) and 6. the drawing room (the deluxe accomodation on the section car for up to 3 people)). Today five styles are used Bedroom, Roomette, roomette w toilet (Viewliner only), family bedroom and handicapped bedroom.
Click to expand...

Drawing rooms were not limited to section cars only. Many postwar all private room car configurations included drawing rooms.

Oh, and I guess we are forgetting the Master Rooms of the Southern and the Pennsy(?).


----------



## Long Train Runnin'

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Wow, this is all really interesting. I will have to admit, while on a LD train, I have often killed the hours by tinkering with various accommodation designs, attempting to come up with one that is clearly better than what Amtrak offers today. I have yet to come up with anything that has a clear advantage (same passenger capacity, but with more personal space). My #1 target is to reduce the amount of sq footage used by the hallways (especially by eliminating the "jogs").
> However, I don't see how these high/low duplex roomettes are more efficient than a Viewliner roomette. Two of the duplex roomettes appear to take up more car sq footage, than one Viewliner roomette. No?



:lol: and Pullman had teams working day and night trying to solve these problems. Its an interesting question, What makes the perfect sleeping car? From a passenger stand point its the room offer the most space and amenities for the lowest price. The railroad (or Pullman) had to create a happy medium where they could offer amenities, but fit the maximum number of rooms or compartments in the car.

IMHO the Viewliner rommette is more more comfortable then the Superliner.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat

dlagrua said:


> Cho Cho Charlie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, this is all really interesting. I will have to admit, while on a LD train, I have often killed the hours by tinkering with various accommodation designs, attempting to come up with one that is clearly better than what Amtrak offers today. I have yet to come up with anything that has a clear advantage (same passenger capacity, but with more personal space). My #1 target is to reduce the amount of sq footage used by the hallways (especially by eliminating the "jogs").
> However, I don't see how these high/low duplex roomettes are more efficient than a Viewliner roomette. Two of the duplex roomettes appear to take up more car sq footage, than one Viewliner roomette. No?
> 
> 
> 
> According to what I have read 50's and 60's era sleeper cars had 24 or 26 of these duplex roomettes per car. The NYC redesigned the cars and increaaed the sleeper capacity so that they could offermore afordable prices. The hi/low configuration was on both sides of the car and it did simplify bed storage for the lower room. Part of each room was under the other. The bedjust slid in under the upper room. I hope to see one of these one day and find out more but very few remain, Regardless we will probably never see this room configuration used again.
> 
> Throughtout the years sleeping cars have used 1. the Original Pullman Section (the seats that convert to beds with a curtain), 2. the duplex roomette (both sides bed parallel) , 3. duplex single room (one side only bed crossways) , 4.the double bedroom (types A. B. and C.) 5. The compartment (dates from the heavyweight era. similar to todays bedroom but larger)) and 6. the drawing room (the deluxe accomodation on the section car for up to 3 people)). Today five styles are used Bedroom, Roomette, roomette w toilet (Viewliner only), family bedroom and handicapped bedroom.
Click to expand...


One very rare bird you are missing from pre Amtrak days is the master room. three people and a shower. there were very few showers on trains back then. The one in the master room was for those passengers in that room only.

Also you mention the drawing room as being in the same car as the sections. Actually there were many,many floor plans, such as 8 section 5 DBR, 10 sec 1 compt dr, 6 compart 5 drawing room,the list and the possible combinations goes on and on and on.


----------



## Gingee

Speaking of different train accomodations, has anyone seen the old I Love Lucy movie where they are going on a train? Looks like there is a long walking area (wide) and just bunk like beds with curtains. Has anyone ever been on a train like that or is it mainly a Hollywood type train?


----------



## MrFSS

Gingee said:


> Speaking of different train accommodations, has anyone seen the old I Love Lucy movie where they are going on a train? Looks like there is a long walking area (wide) and just bunk like beds with curtains. Has anyone ever been on a train like that or is it mainly a Hollywood type train?


Those are sections, or lower and upper berths. Only *The Canadian* still has them on their train.


----------



## dlagrua

Its nice to reminisce about the evolution of sleeping cars and how the advent of air travel has influenced the changes. Its seems today Amtrak is content to standardize mainly on two basic types of accomodations; the bedroom and the roomette. I just hope that on the next generation of sleepers we still have all of the amenitites and conveniences that we do today. For instance the toilet and sink in the Viewliner roomettes is a real convenience, especillay when you have to go in the middle of the night. The shower in the bedrooms is also a convenience and we always use it, preferring to arrive fresh and dresssed for the day. We appreciate the extra privacy of the bedrooms as you need not wear clothes when exiting the shower and can get dressed sitting on the sofa in the room.

As to how rail travel will change when the next generation of sleepers is bought and delivered we don't know but we can only hope that the accomodations will still be reasonably comfortable and not be downgraded. Does anyone know if any plans for the next generation sleeper cars exist?


----------



## Bill Haithcoat

had8ley said:


> Bill Haithcoat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hytec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've just seen them in magazines but there are some old configurations of sleeper coaches ( from the 1950's) that seem to offer higher efficency that the modern day Viewliner sleeper cars. In the Summer 2008 edition of Classic Trains magazine they ran an entire issue on Pullman and on sleeper cars in general. All configurations of sleeper cars were discussed but the one that caught my eye were the cars with what they called Single bedrooms and Duplex Roomettes. These rooms or roomettes were staggered one high and one low, such that part of each room was below or above an adjacent one. Maximum space utilization was achieved and I believe that each room had a comode/sink. . These were single high cars like on the Viewliners but they did feature high and low rooms with a few steps to reach the upper rooms. In some NYC slumber coaches up to 26 of these could be put in one lightweight car. I just wonder why this old configuration was abandoned in favor of what we now have today.
> 
> 
> 
> The Crescent used Slumbercoaches 25-30 years ago. My brother and sister-in-law rode in one overnight from NYP to NOL and said it was similar to old Pullman heavyweights with upper and lower berths at night, and coach-like seating during the day. They had paid for a bedroom, but due to a hurricane-caused service interruption and equipment shortage, the Heritage sleeper to which they were assigned had been replaced with a Slumbercoach. They felt short-changed because the berths were very cramped for dressing/undressing, daytime seating had no privacy, and they were offered no re-imbursement. It was about this same time that Amtrak got rid of Slumbercoaches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My one quick thought as I rush out the door is that the big problem is that they did not get a reimbursement. I think something fell through the cracks. They were supposed to be reimbursed.
> 
> As to being cramped, well, yes that is sort of the point. It offered broom closet space but-----at broom closet prices. That is meant to make it compensate.
> 
> Slumbercoaches lasted sometime after that, on into the Amtrak era. Many people did like them, at least if they delberately chose to ride in a small space but at a small cost.
> 
> Again,they should have been compensated just as I was last summer when all the sleepers bummed out and I had to ride coach on the Crescent from ATL to WAS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bill;
> 
> That's a long way to ride in coach when you have a sleeper ticket in your wallet. Just how much did they compensate you? Just curious 'cause we're going to NYP this week-end hopefully in the 10 car.
Click to expand...

Sorry Jay .your question got lost in the responses. What J got was a voucher for the difference between coach and sleeper. Have long since applied it. I do not remember if I was offered anything else, such as cash back.


----------



## Hytec

Gingee said:


> Speaking of different train accomodations, has anyone seen the old I Love Lucy movie where they are going on a train? Looks like there is a long walking area (wide) and just bunk like beds with curtains. Has anyone ever been on a train like that or is it mainly a Hollywood type train?


Yes, what you saw was a real pre-WWII heavyweight Pullman sleeping car, I remember them well. The car had open opposed seating during the day, and upper and lower berths separated by heavy curtains at night for sleeping. The lower berths were formed by rolling the opposing seats down and flat to form a mattress. The upper berths were folded down from the ceiling wall area above the windows.

This link shows a Pullman Sleeper from the early 1900s in its daytime configuration. You can see the upper berths folded up against the ceiling/wall area above the windows. I rode overnight in several Pullman Sleepers as a child and remember them with mixed feelings...1) they were comfortable for sitting and sleeping, but 2) the upper berths were very cramped for putting on your clothes the next morning.


----------



## railiner

I have made many trips between Denver and New York from the late '60's until the late '80's, and my favorite of all accommodations was the Single Slumbercoach room. I loved the price, the privacy, and the private facility, which by the way, you could use late at night without having to raise the bed as you would in a roomette. true, the bed was considerably narrower than the First Class room, but I was very comfortable in it. I would always try to get an "upper level" room, as it seemed more open and less claustrophobic. And the view out was a bit better, and it gave you a little more privacy if you kept your shades up at night to view activities during station stops.

The most common diagram was 24 single, 8 double rooms for an incredible 40 beds in a single level car. There were also a number of 16 single, 10 double room cars. These cars had what I call the 'choice' rooms. At some point in their career, four of the original double rooms had their upper bed removed, and were marketed as singles. So you got the same small bed as the duplex singles, but you had a huge amount of space otherwise, not to mention the much larger window.


----------



## GAT

Hytec said:


> Gingee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of different train accomodations, has anyone seen the old I Love Lucy movie where they are going on a train? Looks like there is a long walking area (wide) and just bunk like beds with curtains. Has anyone ever been on a train like that or is it mainly a Hollywood type train?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, what you saw was a real pre-WWII heavyweight Pullman sleeping car, I remember them well. The car had open opposed seating during the day, and upper and lower berths separated by heavy curtains at night for sleeping. The lower berths were formed by rolling the opposing seats down and flat to form a mattress. The upper berths were folded down from the ceiling wall area above the windows.
Click to expand...

I think that is the car that (at least on the Canadian National Railroad) had a single drawing room at one end - Huge! Two windows and, if memory serves, two lower beds. My wife and I occupied one in 1967 from Vancouver to Toronto. CN sold the room at a bargain price because the cars were so old.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Hytec said:


> Yes, what you saw was a real pre-WWII heavyweight Pullman sleeping car, I remember them well. The car had open opposed seating during the day, and upper and lower berths separated by heavy curtains at night for sleeping. The lower berths were formed by rolling the opposing seats down and flat to form a mattress. The upper berths were folded down from the ceiling wall area above the windows.


Sections did not just exist in the heavyweight era. While they were not very popular, they still existed, including the rare 22-section cars, which had the highest capacity of all, into the lightweight era. Amtrak briefly had a few such cars on the roster, even.


----------



## Bootman4U

If you ever have the opportunity, try traveling on a service such as CityNightLine in Europe or on one of the Elipsos Trenhotel services. On the former there are double and triple accommodations (not couchettes) which are First Class (vs. the 6-bunk couchettes) which have the three bunks stacked and pull down; a private bathroom facility and a private shower. They are marvels of efficiency; there are also upper and lower level doubles offering the same..the ones above have double sets of windows kinda like in the Sightseer Lounge car with the toilet/shower; the lowers have no shower. The Trenhotels which run between France, Spain, Italy, and Switzerland offer the so-called "Grand Classe" doubles with toilet and separate shower and upper and lower beds similar to what is in a Superliner. Taking any of these lets you know what CAN be done on so-called "long distance" trains and I just wish we had these over here.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat

Green Maned Lion said:


> Hytec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, what you saw was a real pre-WWII heavyweight Pullman sleeping car, I remember them well. The car had open opposed seating during the day, and upper and lower berths separated by heavy curtains at night for sleeping. The lower berths were formed by rolling the opposing seats down and flat to form a mattress. The upper berths were folded down from the ceiling wall area above the windows.
> 
> 
> 
> Sections did not just exist in the heavyweight era. While they were not very popular, they still existed, including the rare 22-section cars, which had the highest capacity of all, into the lightweight era. Amtrak briefly had a few such cars on the roster, even.
Click to expand...

Very true, GML,

It is true in a general way that the sections kind of faded away, sort of as roomettes came on the scene.For example, PRR, NYC, Santa FE, largely,but not completely, had all room sleepers.(from their streamlined cars, that is).

But that is a generality.

There were some lightweight streamlined sleepers with sections. We see this today in the Canadian equipment (built about 1954--55). There was also US equipment built with sections at about the same time.

I seem to recall reading that the reason some lines continued to order lightweight sleepers with sections was for routes which had a large military contingent. The idea that the government pays for the transporation of the troops and thus wanted the cheapest space available.

Incidentally I have heard it said that the lower berth was the best bed on rails ever. I cannot testify to that myself, just repeating what I have read.I think that it covers the entire space is what they were talking about.


----------



## Bootman4U

When I first took the "Canadian" the "sections were intact. Later, one was removed and the "shower cabin" was installed in its place and that makes the trip much nicer than it used to be.

The current section lower berth consists of those two rather wide facing seats being converted to a single bed with the heavy curtains (just like in thos 1930's and 1940's Hollywood movie depictions) and the lower also has THE window!! It is a much wider bed than the roomette pull-downs which are tapered at the foot (but of course you have a lot more privacy in the latter as well as the private "facility" (pain in the ass as it can be to get to in the middle of the night...).

And VIA is still running a few of the "drawing room" accommodations on each train..basically a triple with its own bathroom..and I am looking forward to finally being in one on my trip Toronto-Vancouver at the end of May.


----------



## dlagrua

Although we will never see them again, I read that the old Pullman section cars had very comfortable beds with thick matresses. I've seen sections only in movies and in books and they don't offer much privacy. All they did in those cars (which looked like coaches during the day) was to pull down a bed above and convert the chairs to a bed below at night. A curtain was your only privacy barrier. Those Pullman coaches were just large dormitories. They were the cheapest form of long distance train travel, and you had little privacy but at least you had a bed to sleep in at night. While it was before my time and I never rode in a Pullman car, I much prefer the accomodations of today with the walls and door that can be locked.


----------



## Tony

Gingee said:


> Speaking of different train accomodations, has anyone seen the old I Love Lucy movie where they are going on a train? Looks like there is a long walking area (wide) and just bunk like beds with curtains. Has anyone ever been on a train like that or is it mainly a Hollywood type train?


Yea, I remember those episodes.

There is also another set of I Love Lucy episodes where they were again travelling on a train, but this time they have private bedrooms which appear larger than many hotel rooms I have stayed in.


----------



## jis

dlagrua said:


> While it was before my time and I never rode in a Pullman car, I much prefer the accomodations of today with the walls and door that can be locked.


Hey! The Superliner Is are Pullman Cars! That is they were built by Pullman Standard!

The last car built by Pullman Standard was the last Superliner of that order and today proudly wears the name "George M. Pullman".

Bombardier acquired the intellectual property pertaining to Superliners in 1987.


----------



## Bootman4U

"I've seen sections only in movies and in books and they don't offer much privacy."

Here's one small example of what that "privacy" can cost you (notice I didn't ask how much you actually need LOL);

On the "Canadian" for this coming summer the price of a lower berth in a section can run from $1031 CAD and up depending on departure date and that's for the entire trip Toronto-Vancouver (4 nights with 3 meals per day included); a so-called "cabin for one" (i.e., a roomette) ranges from $1320 CAD and up.


----------



## zephyr17

jis said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> While it was before my time and I never rode in a Pullman car, I much prefer the accomodations of today with the walls and door that can be locked.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey! The Superliner Is are Pullman Cars! That is they were built by Pullman Standard!
> 
> The last car built by Pullman Standard was the last Superliner of that order and today proudly wears the name "George M. Pullman".
> 
> Bombardier acquired the intellectual property pertaining to Superliners in 1987.
Click to expand...

True, they are Pullmans in that sense. However, the term "Pullman" car really referred to a car operated by The Pullman Company, the operating company, that ceased operations on 12/31/1968, not cars built by Pullman-Standard car building company (otherwise there would be quite a few boxcars that were "Pullmans"  ) . The Pullman Company operated cars by all manufactuers, so you could easily ride in a Budd-built "Pullman", and certainly did on the orignial CZ. The anti-trust ruling of 1947 broke Pullman up into the car building company and the operating company precisely because of Pullman, Inc's problems with, excess charges for, operating sleeping cars built by other manufacturers.


----------



## zephyr17

dlagrua said:


> While it was before my time and I never rode in a Pullman car, I much prefer the accomodations of today with the walls and door that can be locked.


Pullman cars of the streamline era had a wide variety of private accomodations, most more comfortable than their Amtrak descendents. Complete with doors and walls. Sections were not very popular then.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat

Yes, but then some railroads did not cooperate with the pullman comany thus those cars were technically called sleepers regardless of accomodations. Those railroads which did work with the pullman company, which was most of them, called those cars pullmans.

Thus the difference between a sleeper and a pullman was that of ownership, leasing, operating details. Google pullman company.

Many cars had in them both sections and private rooms as I have already noted.

Some examples:

6 sections 6 roomette 4 double bedrooms

4 sec 4 rmt 5 dbr 1 compartment

8 section 5 double bedroom

8 sections 1 comparment restaurant lounge

and on ad on and on and on it goes..........thus confining the word pullman to sections is not correct.

The relationship between the railroads and the pullman company cooperating meant that cars could be switched around all over the country as needed for special sections substitute equipment, added crowds, sports event extra trains, political conventions extra trains This mass supply of pullmans which could be run on lines to which they were not normally assigned.

Of course that is not needed today since Amtrak is one national company.(though exceeingly low on standby equipment)

The averae passenger did not care who owned what so, really, the words pullman and sleeper could be used interchanegably and the world would keep spinning.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

zephyr17 said:


> If you want your ideas jump started, get hold of the Classic Trains Pullman edition of a couple of years ago. In it they describe all the various sleeping accomodations provided by pullman (sections, roomettes, duplex roomettes, single bedrooms, double bedrooms of the "A,B,C,D" varieties, compartments, drawing rooms).


I do have the "old" GrandLuxe brochures, which I think covers at least some of that.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

jis said:


> But, I prefer the Amtrak Viewliner Roomettes to either of those two.


I prefer the Viewliner Roomettes, period.


----------



## sunchaser

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, I prefer the Amtrak Viewliner Roomettes to either of those two.
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer the Viewliner Roomettes, period.
Click to expand...

I haven't ridden in the Viewliners, but I do like the Superliner bedrooms. But someday, just once, I would like to ride in one of these!


----------



## railiner

Bootman4U said:


> .
> The current section lower berth consists of those two rather wide facing seats being converted to a single bed with the heavy curtains (just like in thos 1930's and 1940's Hollywood movie depictions) and the lower also has THE window!! It is a much wider bed than the roomette pull-downs which are tapered at the foot (but of course you have a lot more privacy in the latter as well as the private "facility" (pain in the ass as it can be to get to in the middle of the night...).


Some sleepers featured small (much smaller than viewliner) upper berth windows. Early roomettes, did not have the tapered ends to the beds. They had heavy zippered curtains you could close at night, so if you had to climb out of bed and raise it to access the toilet, you slid open your door and backed out into the aisle covered up by your curtain to give you the standing room to raise and relower your bed.



dlagrua said:


> Although we will never see them again, I read that the old Pullman section cars had very comfortable beds with thick matresses. I've seen sections only in movies and in books and they don't offer much privacy. All they did in those cars (which looked like coaches during the day) was to pull down a bed above and convert the chairs to a bed below at night. A curtain was your only privacy barrier. Those Pullman coaches were just large dormitories. They were the cheapest form of long distance train travel, and you had little privacy but at least you had a bed to sleep in at night. While it was before my time and I never rode in a Pullman car, I much prefer the accomodations of today with the walls and door that can be locked.





zephyr17 said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> While it was before my time and I never rode in a Pullman car, I much prefer the accomodations of today with the walls and door that can be locked.
> 
> 
> 
> Pullman cars of the streamline era had a wide variety of private accomodations, most more comfortable than their Amtrak descendents. Complete with doors and walls. Sections were not very popular then.
Click to expand...

I was going to say the same thing. The early sections were wide open, only private at night with curtains all around. The later streamliner cars had bulkheads between each section, and some even had walls on the aisles with sliding doors.


----------



## zephyr17

railiner said:


> Bootman4U said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> The current section lower berth consists of those two rather wide facing seats being converted to a single bed with the heavy curtains (just like in thos 1930's and 1940's Hollywood movie depictions) and the lower also has THE window!! It is a much wider bed than the roomette pull-downs which are tapered at the foot (but of course you have a lot more privacy in the latter as well as the private "facility" (pain in the ass as it can be to get to in the middle of the night...).
> 
> 
> 
> Some sleepers featured small (much smaller than viewliner) upper berth windows. Early roomettes, did not have the tapered ends to the beds. They had heavy zippered curtains you could close at night, so if you had to climb out of bed and raise it to access the toilet, you slid open your door and backed out into the aisle covered up by your curtain to give you the standing room to raise and relower your bed.
> 
> 
> 
> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although we will never see them again, I read that the old Pullman section cars had very comfortable beds with thick matresses. I've seen sections only in movies and in books and they don't offer much privacy. All they did in those cars (which looked like coaches during the day) was to pull down a bed above and convert the chairs to a bed below at night. A curtain was your only privacy barrier. Those Pullman coaches were just large dormitories. They were the cheapest form of long distance train travel, and you had little privacy but at least you had a bed to sleep in at night. While it was before my time and I never rode in a Pullman car, I much prefer the accomodations of today with the walls and door that can be locked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> While it was before my time and I never rode in a Pullman car, I much prefer the accomodations of today with the walls and door that can be locked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pullman cars of the streamline era had a wide variety of private accomodations, most more comfortable than their Amtrak descendents. Complete with doors and walls. Sections were not very popular then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was going to say the same thing. The early sections were wide open, only private at night with curtains all around. The later streamliner cars had bulkheads between each section, and some even had walls on the aisles with sliding doors.
Click to expand...

And also many, many other totally private room offerings other than sections (roomettes, double bedrooms, compartments, drawing rooms, master rooms, etc). Sections became increasingly rare as time went on, although they never disappeared entirely, they were not the primary form of Pullman travel long before Amtrak came along. Many "name" trains were advertised as "All Private Room".

Often they were kept because those traveling on government business could not get more than a lower berth, so some trains retained section accomdations specifically to serve that market. Other railroads just sold government workers a roomette at a lower berth rate.


----------



## railiner

zephyr17 said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootman4U said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> The current section lower berth consists of those two rather wide facing seats being converted to a single bed with the heavy curtains (just like in thos 1930's and 1940's Hollywood movie depictions) and the lower also has THE window!! It is a much wider bed than the roomette pull-downs which are tapered at the foot (but of course you have a lot more privacy in the latter as well as the private "facility" (pain in the ass as it can be to get to in the middle of the night...).
> 
> 
> 
> Some sleepers featured small (much smaller than viewliner) upper berth windows. Early roomettes, did not have the tapered ends to the beds. They had heavy zippered curtains you could close at night, so if you had to climb out of bed and raise it to access the toilet, you slid open your door and backed out into the aisle covered up by your curtain to give you the standing room to raise and relower your bed.
> 
> 
> 
> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although we will never see them again, I read that the old Pullman section cars had very comfortable beds with thick matresses. I've seen sections only in movies and in books and they don't offer much privacy. All they did in those cars (which looked like coaches during the day) was to pull down a bed above and convert the chairs to a bed below at night. A curtain was your only privacy barrier. Those Pullman coaches were just large dormitories. They were the cheapest form of long distance train travel, and you had little privacy but at least you had a bed to sleep in at night. While it was before my time and I never rode in a Pullman car, I much prefer the accomodations of today with the walls and door that can be locked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> While it was before my time and I never rode in a Pullman car, I much prefer the accomodations of today with the walls and door that can be locked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pullman cars of the streamline era had a wide variety of private accomodations, most more comfortable than their Amtrak descendents. Complete with doors and walls. Sections were not very popular then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was going to say the same thing. The early sections were wide open, only private at night with curtains all around. The later streamliner cars had bulkheads between each section, and some even had walls on the aisles with sliding doors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And also many, many other totally private room offerings other than sections (roomettes, double bedrooms, compartments, drawing rooms, master rooms, etc). Sections became increasingly rare as time went on, although they never disappeared entirely, they were not the primary form of Pullman travel long before Amtrak came along. Many "name" trains were advertised as "All Private Room".
> 
> Often they were kept because those traveling on government business could not get more than a lower berth, so some trains retained section accomdations specifically to serve that market. Other railroads just sold government workers a roomette at a lower berth rate.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is very thin line between a late model section with its aisle partition and sliding door, to say a Superliner roomette. The big difference is the fact that the upper and lower berths in the sections could be sold to separate individuals. The Superliner room, (and all private rooms on Amtrak) is only sold complete.


----------



## zephyr17

You know, I've often considered the Superliner "roomette" to be a section with a door (and small, bad beds...).


----------



## jis

zephyr17 said:


> You know, I've often considered the Superliner "roomette" to be a section with a door (and small, bad beds...).


But the accommodation is not sold as if it was a section.


----------



## zephyr17

jis said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I've often considered the Superliner "roomette" to be a section with a door (and small, bad beds...).
> 
> 
> 
> But the accommodation is not sold as if it was a section.
Click to expand...

I know, I was speaking of the physical attributes, not how it was sold. Call it a Single Occupancy Section (SOS), which Pullman did offer, where the upper was not sold.


----------



## jis

zephyr17 said:


> I know, I was speaking of the physical attributes, not how it was sold. Call it a Single Occupancy Section (SOS), which Pullman did offer, where the upper was not sold.


Yup. That is what it is


----------



## zephyr17

jis said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, I was speaking of the physical attributes, not how it was sold. Call it a Single Occupancy Section (SOS), which Pullman did offer, where the upper was not sold.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. That is what it is
Click to expand...

Wish it had a real section lower berth bed in it, though...sigh.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat

One thing Amtrak does much better than the preAmtrak lines and that is that every sleeping car passenger has access to a shower.

Before Amtrak, the master rooms on the Crescent and the Broadway Limited had showers. The drawing room in the rear car of the CZ had a shower. Some lounge cars on various Southern Pacific trains had one shower to be shared by all sleeping car passengers. Maybe a few others.

QUESTION:

Did anybody on here use any of those pre Amtrak showers? I have not. Just wonder who has.


----------



## dlagrua

Bill Haithcoat said:


> One thing Amtrak does much better than the preAmtrak lines and that is that every sleeping car passenger has access to a shower.
> Before Amtrak, the master rooms on the Crescent and the Broadway Limited had showers. The drawing room in the rear car of the CZ had a shower. Some lounge cars on various Southern Pacific trains had one shower to be shared by all sleeping car passengers. Maybe a few others.
> 
> QUESTION:
> 
> Did anybody on here use any of those pre Amtrak showers? I have not. Just wonder who has.



Pre-Amtrak was before my time but I cannot imagine a passenger on a LD train like the CZ not having access to a shower for a two night, three day trip. I can only guess that the overnight routes may not offered bathrooms with showers but the LD routes? Certainly they must have offered something or the smell on the train would have been terrible.

As for the duplex roomettes, it was reported earlier in this post that one traveler remembers up to 40 of these units in a single sleeper but they were obviously private roomettes.


----------



## MisterRick

Speaking of cramped sleeping accomodations on board of a train, check out this picture. I was looking around on Google Images for pictures of different types train sleepers and came across this poor ******* who looks like a canned sardine.

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/8880/train06.jpg

Not sure where this is but I assume that it could be a train line in either India, Pakistan or another country in that region.

Another thing that comes to mind, what's to stop someone from going in and stealing your stuff? or even god forbid having a sicko pervert on board the train with rape on their mind or putting a knife to your throat? On that train all that's between you and them is a lousy curtain. I mean granted in the Amtrak sleepers when you leave your room the door cannot be locked but at least at night you can afford some safety and privacy by locking the door from the inside and having a call button for the attendant in the event that someone tries to break down your door.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

dlagrua said:


> Pre-Amtrak was before my time but I cannot imagine a passenger on a LD train like the CZ not having access to a shower for a two night, three day trip. I can only guess that the overnight routes may not offered bathrooms with showers but the LD routes? Certainly they must have offered something or the smell on the train would have been terrible.As for the duplex roomettes, it was reported earlier in this post that one traveler remembers up to 40 of these units in a single sleeper but they were obviously private roomettes.


They didn't have showers. People in those days didn't shower every day off the train, why would they bother doing it on the train?

I've never been big on showering. I do it if I've been sweating or if I'm tired (it helps wake me up), but I've gone a week without showering numerous times.

The fact of the matter is, showering frequently increases production of needed body secretions (such as skin oil) to make up for it being washed off. The very fact that you shower often makes you have a need to shower often. My girlfriend, who has never showered more than about once a week on a regular basis, produces very little skin oil because she doesn't shower. It will take her a week to be notably greasy, even her hair. In fact, if she does shower more than about once a week (as a result of needed functions or whatnot) she becomes dried out.

Secondarily, I have come to cease noticing how much my office smells. Not of me- of rodents. We have a bunch of them, and rodent urine smells. It REEKS. However, since my office ALWAYS smells of it, I have come to not notice it anymore. The smell you think would become so unbearable would, in fact, just slip into the background and cease being noticed.


----------



## Chris J.

Green Maned Lion said:


> The fact of the matter is, showering frequently increases production of needed body secretions (such as skin oil) to make up for it being washed off. The very fact that you shower often makes you have a need to shower often. My girlfriend, who has never showered more than about once a week on a regular basis, produces very little skin oil because she doesn't shower. It will take her a week to be notably greasy, even her hair. In fact, if she does shower more than about once a week (as a result of needed functions or whatnot) she becomes dried out.


I generally shower ever day. If I don't have a shower one day I feel a bit icky; and my hair feels greasy as anything. If I just leave it it generally improves and isn't too bad. Not that I make a habit of going for days without showers, but when camping or at music festivals a shower isn't a real option.

When I was a kid we didn't have a shower in the house; and I'm younger than Amtrak.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat

Green Maned Lion said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-Amtrak was before my time but I cannot imagine a passenger on a LD train like the CZ not having access to a shower for a two night, three day trip. I can only guess that the overnight routes may not offered bathrooms with showers but the LD routes? Certainly they must have offered something or the smell on the train would have been terrible.As for the duplex roomettes, it was reported earlier in this post that one traveler remembers up to 40 of these units in a single sleeper but they were obviously private roomettes.
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't have showers. People in those days didn't shower every day off the train, why would they bother doing it on the train?
> 
> I've never been big on showering. I do it if I've been sweating or if I'm tired (it helps wake me up), but I've gone a week without showering numerous times.
> 
> The fact of the matter is, showering frequently increases production of needed body secretions (such as skin oil) to make up for it being washed off. The very fact that you shower often makes you have a need to shower often. My girlfriend, who has never showered more than about once a week on a regular basis, produces very little skin oil because she doesn't shower. It will take her a week to be notably greasy, even her hair. In fact, if she does shower more than about once a week (as a result of needed functions or whatnot) she becomes dried out.
> 
> Secondarily, I have come to cease noticing how much my office smells. Not of me- of rodents. We have a bunch of them, and rodent urine smells. It REEKS. However, since my office ALWAYS smells of it, I have come to not notice it anymore. The smell you think would become so unbearable would, in fact, just slip into the background and cease being noticed.
Click to expand...


I remember pre=Amtrak days well. Very few trains had showers, as listed above (noting that I may hae forgotten some). You mention the CZ, but note that I said the CZ only had one shower on the whole train, and that was for occupants of the drawing room in the rear observation lounge dome car. So far as I know, those were the only drawing rooms in the country which had showers. Truth to tell, I doubt if there was any serious difference between the"drawing room" on the CZ and the "master room" on the Crescent and the Broadway.

GML's point about getting used to odors is very well taken. Think no further than this word: cigarettes. Not only did not travelers have to bathe every single day we were largely used to cigarette smoke.

It is called conditioning If you are used to i,t never know any difference,then you do not think about it.

When I was in sleeper I did use towl, soap and water more places than I do today.

And do not forget coach passengers: no shower for them then or now either.


----------



## railiner

MisterRick said:


> Speaking of cramped sleeping accomodations on board of a train, check out this picture. I was looking around on Google Images for pictures of different types train sleepers and came across this poor ******* who looks like a canned sardine.
> http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/8880/train06.jpg
> 
> Not sure where this is but I assume that it could be a train line in either India, Pakistan or another country in that region.
> 
> Another thing that comes to mind, what's to stop someone from going in and stealing your stuff? or even god forbid having a sicko pervert on board the train with rape on their mind or putting a knife to your throat? On that train all that's between you and them is a lousy curtain. I mean granted in the Amtrak sleepers when you leave your room the door cannot be locked but at least at night you can afford some safety and privacy by locking the door from the inside and having a call button for the attendant in the event that someone tries to break down your door.


Yikes! That looks like the berths on a submarine. Or perhaps the triple-tiered bunks on a music band tour bus.


----------



## Bob Dylan

No offense to anyone but I'll take a pass on riding on a train or bus or plane or any other means of transportation with people who do not bathe/shower, maintain personal hygene! I understand that third and fourth world countries have a problem with this but unless one is homeless there really is no excuse to smell like you spent the week @ Woodstock or hanging out under a bridge! Ill admit that some people are overly concerned with cleanliness but this obession/compulsion is still better than a greasy/sweaty/smelly seat or table mate!

Back in the day when I was in the Navy we took "Navy showers" @ sea but still bathed/performed personal hygene daily! I can remember riding the dog and overnight trains when no showers were available, Bill is correct that only a few trains had any kind of shower available even for first class passengers but also the stations and other public facilities had Public Showers that one could pay a small fee to use! I rememeber as a boy the ones in Chicago Union Station although we didnt use them since we were on a day trip!

My motto is do whatever one wants when @ home but when out in public, especially on public transportation, a shower a day, with a little deodarant, goes a long way to keeping others and yourself comfortable! I'm still wondering if GML isnt putting us on especially about the mice/rats!


----------



## Ispolkom

MisterRick said:


> Another thing that comes to mind, what's to stop someone from going in and stealing your stuff? or even god forbid having a sicko pervert on board the train with rape on their mind or putting a knife to your throat? On that train all that's between you and them is a lousy curtain. I mean granted in the Amtrak sleepers when you leave your room the door cannot be locked but at least at night you can afford some safety and privacy by locking the door from the inside and having a call button for the attendant in the event that someone tries to break down your door.


I've traveled in shared compartments (and worse: the third-class sleepers Russians call platskartnyi) and actually the lack of privacy is the reason you're safe. Nobody is going to commit a crime when everyone is watching. The worst that ever happened to me was someone filched rubles from my wallet, and even in that case the thief left me my passport and enough money to get by until the end of the month.

We're planning a trip to Europe, and I was surprised to learn that some European night trains now segregate couchette passengers by gender.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat

jimhudson said:


> No offense to anyone but I'll take a pass on riding on a train or bus or plane or any other means of transportation with people who do not bathe/shower, maintain personal hygene! I understand that third and fourth world countries have a problem with this but unless one is homeless there really is no excuse to smell like you spent the week @ Woodstock or hanging out under a bridge! Ill admit that some people are overly concerned with cleanliness but this obession/compulsion is still better than a greasy/sweaty/smelly seat or table mate!
> Back in the day when I was in the Navy we took "Navy showers" @ sea but still bathed/performed personal hygene daily! I can remember riding the dog and overnight trains when no showers were available, Bill is correct that only a few trains had any kind of shower available even for first class passengers but also the stations and other public facilities had Public Showers that one could pay a small fee to use! I rememeber as a boy the ones in Chicago Union Station although we didnt use them since we were on a day trip!
> 
> My motto is do whatever one wants when @ home but when out in public, especially on public transportation, a shower a day, with a little deodarant, goes a long way to keeping others and yourself comfortable! I'm still wondering if GML isnt putting us on especially about the mice/rats!



Jim, somehow it worked out. I took several long coach trips, like Chattanoooga to San Francisco, as a young man.I never sent people running into the Pacific Ocean to get away from my smell.

After all most people bathe/shower before boarding if they can and wear clean clothes. And we do not do our gardening on board, we really do very little to create new uncleanness.

I vaguely remember the showers in Chicago Union Station. I think they developed a reputation for not being safe.

I mentioned earlier that many people used to smoke. So all that smoke odor was all over the whole train. But we were used to it. You mentioned whether GML was putting us on with the rat urine thing....I think not...but even if he was he was still making a point about conditioning, a very valid point.

And if you really go back in time, remember trains (nor anything else) used to not be air conditioned. So people were unbathed, smoking and air blowing in the window. But they survived and did not know how bad off they were. By the way, the trainmen came through closing the windows befoe entering tunnels. My(late) parents remember those days, I do not.


----------



## zephyr17

Bill Haithcoat said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> 
> No offense to anyone but I'll take a pass on riding on a train or bus or plane or any other means of transportation with people who do not bathe/shower, maintain personal hygene! I understand that third and fourth world countries have a problem with this but unless one is homeless there really is no excuse to smell like you spent the week @ Woodstock or hanging out under a bridge! Ill admit that some people are overly concerned with cleanliness but this obession/compulsion is still better than a greasy/sweaty/smelly seat or table mate!
> Back in the day when I was in the Navy we took "Navy showers" @ sea but still bathed/performed personal hygene daily! I can remember riding the dog and overnight trains when no showers were available, Bill is correct that only a few trains had any kind of shower available even for first class passengers but also the stations and other public facilities had Public Showers that one could pay a small fee to use! I rememeber as a boy the ones in Chicago Union Station although we didnt use them since we were on a day trip!
> 
> My motto is do whatever one wants when @ home but when out in public, especially on public transportation, a shower a day, with a little deodarant, goes a long way to keeping others and yourself comfortable! I'm still wondering if GML isnt putting us on especially about the mice/rats!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim, somehow it worked out. I took several long coach trips, like Chattanoooga to San Francisco, as a young man.I never sent people running into the Pacific Ocean to get away from my smell.
> 
> After all most people bathe/shower before boarding if they can and wear clean clothes. And we do not do our gardening on board, we really do very little to create new uncleanness.
> 
> I vaguely remember the showers in Chicago Union Station. I think they developed a reputation for not being safe.
> 
> I mentioned earlier that many people used to smoke. So all that smoke odor was all over the whole train. But we were used to it. You mentioned whether GML was putting us on with the rat urine thing....I think not...but even if he was he was still making a point about conditioning, a very valid point.
> 
> And if you really go back in time, remember trains (nor anything else) used to not be air conditioned. So people were unbathed, smoking and air blowing in the window. But they survived and did not know how bad off they were. By the way, the trainmen came through closing the windows befoe entering tunnels. My(late) parents remember those days, I do not.
Click to expand...

Just a reminder to everyone, the Superliner Is were not originally equipped with the "public" shower, they only had the showers in the then-Deluxe Bedrooms (they also did not have the upstairs bathroom, either). It was some years before the showers were installed, I recall the first showers showing up in the late 1980s. So the non-shower days were not that long ago and went well nearly 20 years into the Amtrak era. I don't recall an overwhelming stench from the "Economy Bedroom" (now roomette) passengers.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Upon reflection I think I agree with Bill, I had forgotten that smoking used to be so prevelant in all public places, especially those where alcohol was served such as lounge cars!  And the no A/C thing too, WOW, guess we'd all die today without it, especially in the South! I never knew that Superliner Is didnt have the shower for the economy (ie roomettes)

bedrooms since I usually rode coach on the few times I rode a Superliner train years ago! 

And come to think of it also, lots of homes didnt have showers or even running water back in the day so the Saturday night bath was a ritual where it was warm enough! (dont know what they did in Minnesota in the winter!LOL :lol: )Also as Bill has pointed out folks dressed up more back in the day, I can just picture riding in a non-AC coach across the desert in August in a suit and tie or formal womens dress!(well, not me but the ladies! :lol: ) Makes us realize once again that maybe these are the good ole days even though old memories are often good ones!


----------



## Hytec

MisterRick said:


> Another thing that comes to mind, what's to stop someone from going in and stealing your stuff? or even god forbid having a sicko pervert on board the train with rape on their mind or putting a knife to your throat? On that train all that's between you and them is a lousy curtain. I mean granted in the Amtrak sleepers when you leave your room the door cannot be locked but at least at night you can afford some safety and privacy by locking the door from the inside and having a call button for the attendant in the event that someone tries to break down your door.


You should be aware that when Pullmans were in wide service 70-90 years ago, American travelers, especially those who paid for First-Class Pullman service, had higher moral standards than you assume for today's travellers. Name trains that carried Pullmans also carried lounges and diners specifically for First-Class passengers. Coach passengers were blocked from entering the First-Class cars. So the issues you raise were not considered a problem for Pullman travellers, even those in sections.


----------



## lyke99

jimhudson said:


> And come to think of it also, lots of homes didnt have showers or even running water back in the day so the Saturday night bath was a ritual where it was warm enough! (dont know what they did in Minnesota in the winter!LOL :lol: )Also as Bill has pointed out folks dressed up more back in the day, I can just picture riding in a non-AC coach across the desert in August in a suit and tie or formal womens dress!(well, not me but the ladies! :lol: ) Makes us realize once again that maybe these are the good ole days even though old memories are often good ones!



My North Dakota-born mother talks about not having running water in the "old house" and baths being conducted in a galvanized steel washtub in the kitchen. The kettle on the stove provided occasional warm ups to the water. I've lived in Minnesota - with running water - all my life.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

jimhudson said:


> No offense to anyone but I'll take a pass on riding on a train or bus or plane or any other means of transportation with people who do not bathe/shower, maintain personal hygene! I understand that third and fourth world countries have a problem with this but unless one is homeless there really is no excuse to smell like you spent the week @ Woodstock or hanging out under a bridge! Ill admit that some people are overly concerned with cleanliness but this obession/compulsion is still better than a greasy/sweaty/smelly seat or table mate!
> Back in the day when I was in the Navy we took "Navy showers" @ sea but still bathed/performed personal hygene daily! I can remember riding the dog and overnight trains when no showers were available, Bill is correct that only a few trains had any kind of shower available even for first class passengers but also the stations and other public facilities had Public Showers that one could pay a small fee to use! I rememeber as a boy the ones in Chicago Union Station although we didnt use them since we were on a day trip!
> 
> My motto is do whatever one wants when @ home but when out in public, especially on public transportation, a shower a day, with a little deodarant, goes a long way to keeping others and yourself comfortable! I'm still wondering if GML isnt putting us on especially about the mice/rats!


My girlfriend and I like rodents, although we have no rats. A bunch of mice and a gerbil. They make good pets- they are generally friendly, and except for the omnipresent sound of running in wheels (I swear, the ideal mouse trap involves a wheel somehow!) they are extremely quiet.

Now, I don't walk onto a train after a week of not showering; in fact, I shower the day before I ride and every day aboard if I'm in sleeper. A train is an enclosed place, and in todays standards of cleanliness, I'd prefer not to be the person who adds new odors to the train. But the point of the matter is, the reason we get dirty so often is we shower so often.

By the way, we aren't particularly fastidious, us humans. Rodents are much more so. They will clean themselves dozens of times a day.


----------



## MisterRick

Hytec said:


> You should be aware that when Pullmans were in wide service 70-90 years ago, American travelers, especially those who paid for First-Class Pullman service, had higher moral standards than you assume for today's travellers. Name trains that carried Pullmans also carried lounges and diners specifically for First-Class passengers. Coach passengers were blocked from entering the First-Class cars. So the issues you raise were not considered a problem for Pullman travellers, even those in sections.


I see your point.


----------



## toddinde

Hytec said:


> The Crescent used Slumbercoaches 25-30 years ago. My brother and sister-in-law rode in one overnight from NYP to NOL and said it was similar to old Pullman heavyweights with upper and lower berths at night, and coach-like seating during the day. They had paid for a bedroom, but due to a hurricane-caused service interruption and equipment shortage, the Heritage sleeper to which they were assigned had been replaced with a Slumbercoach. They felt short-changed because the berths were very cramped for dressing/undressing, daytime seating had no privacy, and they were offered no re-imbursement. It was about this same time that Amtrak got rid of Slumbercoaches.


 Slumbercoach rooms had as much daytime privacy as any sleeping car private room; just smaller. The single rooms were like roomettes with a narrower bed. The double rooms were similar to Amtrak’s roomettes, and similar to a section, but entirely enclosed. Definitely not a bedroom though.


----------



## toddinde

Hytec said:


> Yes, what you saw was a real pre-WWII heavyweight Pullman sleeping car, I remember them well. The car had open opposed seating during the day, and upper and lower berths separated by heavy curtains at night for sleeping. The lower berths were formed by rolling the opposing seats down and flat to form a mattress. The upper berths were folded down from the ceiling wall area above the windows.
> 
> This link shows a Pullman Sleeper from the early 1900s in its daytime configuration. You can see the upper berths folded up against the ceiling/wall area above the windows. I rode overnight in several Pullman Sleepers as a child and remember them with mixed feelings...1) they were comfortable for sitting and sleeping, but 2) the upper berths were very cramped for putting on your clothes the next morning.


You can still ride them across Canada on VIA’s Canadian. They’re fun and very comfortable.


----------



## zephyr17

toddinde said:


> You can still ride them across Canada on VIA’s Canadian. They’re fun and very comfortable.


They are not currently selling open berth sections on the Canadian due to
COVID restrictions. I checked them last month and they weren't available for the entire period of released inventory 11 months out.

What is weird is they are selling coach seats. Sections are no worse than coach in terms of possible disease transmission.


----------



## toddinde

zephyr17 said:


> They are not currently selling open berth sections on the Canadian due to
> COVID restrictions. I checked them last month and they weren't available for the entire period of released inventory 11 months out.
> 
> What is weird is they are selling coach seats. Sections are no worse than coach in terms of possible disease transmission.


That is weird. Doesn’t seem to make any sense, but I guess that’s the way things are.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Before this thread was revisited it was last posted in 2010. Several of these members have since died. It Ok to start a new thread sometimes.


----------

