# Club car



## Mike (Dec 22, 2010)

My wife and I will be tavelling on the Silver Meteor in January from Washington to Winter Hsven, FL. Does this train usually have a club or a lounge car?


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2010)

Mike said:


> My wife and I will be tavelling on the Silver Meteor in January from Washington to Winter Hsven, FL. Does this train usually have a club or a lounge car?


It has a lounge car, and it is on the "coach side" of the dining car.


----------



## PaulM (Dec 22, 2010)

It has a cafe car with tables and spartan decor. To call it a lounge or club car is a stretch.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 22, 2010)

The beautiful Amfleet II lounge cars, and the even nicer Heritage lounge cars, are all gone. The Amfleet II lounges are all diner-lites now, with the ugly, cold blue-and-grey decor.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Dec 22, 2010)

I vaguely remember the "classic" Amfleet Lounge from a trip about 17 years ago on the pre-Superliner CONO. At least they were "loungey." Of course I spent more time on that trip in the Dome


----------



## pennyk (Dec 22, 2010)

The lounge car (on the coach side) fills up pretty quickly with families playing cards and with coach passengers eating from the snack bar. The other side of the lounge (closest to the diner) usually has a couple of tables occupied by the conductor/assistant conductor and attendants. I usually can find a place to sit, if I want to - even if I share a booth with a stranger. In a few minutes, my table mate is no longer a stranger.


----------



## the_traveler (Dec 22, 2010)

pennyk said:


> I usually can find a place to sit, if I want to - even if I share a booth with a stranger. In a few minutes, my table mate is no longer a stranger.


But (s)he is usually much stranger after spending some time with you, right?


----------



## GG-1 (Dec 22, 2010)

the_traveler said:


> pennyk said:
> 
> 
> > I usually can find a place to sit, if I want to - even if I share a booth with a stranger. In a few minutes, my table mate is no longer a stranger.
> ...


:lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Mele Kalikimaka

Aloha


----------



## national limited (Dec 23, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The beautiful Amfleet II lounge cars, and the even nicer Heritage lounge cars, are all gone. The Amfleet II lounges are all diner-lites now, with the ugly, cold blue-and-grey decor.


Are there any photos of these Amfleet II lounge cars available somewhere on the web? I don't think I've ever seen an Amfleet lounge.


----------



## spacecadet (Dec 23, 2010)

national limited said:


> Are there any photos of these Amfleet II lounge cars available somewhere on the web? I don't think I've ever seen an Amfleet lounge.


I'm not finding any photos of the interiors, but I have seen photos online previously that showed Amfleet food service cars denoted as "Lounge" cars, and I've ridden in them also. I don't remember them being "beautiful" by any stretch, though the ones I rode in were basically set up the way the last dome car is now - half the car was booths, the other half was individual chairs (and I remember them swiveling). They had that same brown and orange decor also.

There have been a lot of different lounge car configurations in Amtrak's history so there may have been some "beautiful" configuration that I haven't seen, but I think probably what I'm describing is what Green Maned Lion was referring to.

By today's standards these were better than what we have now, but at the time they seemed a poor replacement for the heritage lounge cars that were still in the system, if you got lucky enough to get a train with one still in the consist. Though I think the heritage lounges all basically got converted to be similar to the Amfleet configuration eventually, just with the food service area at the end of the car rather than the middle. So the car still felt a lot more open and free-flowing than the Amfleets.


----------



## pennyk (Dec 23, 2010)

the_traveler said:


> pennyk said:
> 
> 
> > I usually can find a place to sit, if I want to - even if I share a booth with a stranger. In a few minutes, my table mate is no longer a stranger.
> ...


Dave, that is what my relatives say. They accuse ME of getting stranger every year. :wacko:


----------



## had8ley (Dec 23, 2010)

OlympianHiawatha said:


> I vaguely remember the "classic" Amfleet Lounge from a trip about 17 years ago on the pre-Superliner CONO. At least they were "loungey." Of course I spent more time on that trip in the Dome


I still have night mares about the meals ???, and I say that loosely, that came out of the nuclear reactor in the "Am-dinette." I still would prefer the dome to Superliner equipment but a Heritage diner-lounge would have probably been a better fit.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Dec 23, 2010)

I think "lounge cars" by whatever name are or were among the most fascinating cars on a train,just because there were so many forms they could take.

Mostly I am remembering pre Amtrak equipment. (Though I take nothing from sightseer lounges or the pacific parlor car.)

They might be called club lounge cars, tavern lounges, etc

Sometimes they were combined with other cars,such as coach lounge, sleeper lounge, diner lounge.etc

Sometimes they had domes. Sometimes they rounded observation end.

To this day the Canadian is graced at the rear with an observation lounge dome sleeper. The pre Amtrak CZ had such a car, in fact those two were very similar as to equipment.

Some lounge cars had a theme, and or pictures and such appropriate to the route. There was a cable car room on the pre Amtrak CZ. There was a sun lounge on the Silver Meteor. It was a lounge sleeper with large windows to make up for no dome.

It goes on. There are no doubt categories I am not remembering as to how flexible lounge cars could be.

The cafe lounges, such as on the Crescent, are unsatisfactory to my needs,as it being all tables, no lounge seats.


----------



## Larry H. (Dec 23, 2010)

This will probably bring howls from the "spartan" is fine crowd. Club cars as mentioned used to be the most wonderful and cozy of railcars. Nearly any old movie of train travel features great scenes of people seating enjoying conversation and beverages in the Club Cars. After Amtrak took control of the ordering all the glamor and even the comfort went out of them. To this day I cringe at them calling a cheap plastic looking set of bench seats and a card table a "Lounge". I don't know where they got that idea but it is well beneath the thousand dollar overnight fare they seem to find legitimate. Too bad the service and equipment don't match the prices.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 23, 2010)

The only thing that the prices need to match is the demand, and they're doing a fine job.

If the trains were running empty, you'd have a point.


----------



## Larry H. (Dec 23, 2010)

Ryan said:


> The only thing that the prices need to match is the demand, and they're doing a fine job.
> 
> If the trains were running empty, you'd have a point.



And the competition is? They are running with what is provided by Amtrak an no more, no less and do not represent the service the cost is based on. My guess would be that perhaps you've never ridden a class train from the past?


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2010)

Ryan said:


> The only thing that the prices need to match is the demand, and they're doing a fine job.
> 
> If the trains were running empty, you'd have a point.


Ever hear of a monoply.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 23, 2010)

Larry H. said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing that the prices need to match is the demand, and they're doing a fine job.
> ...


There's a reason that those trains aren't around anymore.
Try as I may, I can't make a logical thought out of the bolded portion. Care to try again?



Guest said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing that the prices need to match is the demand, and they're doing a fine job.
> ...


If you think you can to better, you're welcome to start a competing company.


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


We have had much better in the past. Other countries put Amtrak to shame, even Canada.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 23, 2010)

Yep, and they did so well, they're thriving today, right?


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Dec 23, 2010)

I miss the club car on the Montrealer. Now THAT was an example of what a lounge car could be, especially during the Holiday season. (Then again, I was a tad younger and a wee bit more of a party animal back then) Nevertheless, Amtrak could take some lessons about what makes a good experience in the lounge car from it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Yep, and they did so well, they're thriving today, right?


Yes, in other countries.


----------



## Donctor (Dec 23, 2010)

Guest said:


> We have had much better in the past. Other countries put Amtrak to shame, even Canada.


Certain foreign rail systems do put Amtrak to shame. VIA Rail is not one of them. Canada's trains may be nice, but they are hardly an example of an efficient rail network. (Not saying that Amtrak _is_ an example of an ideal rail system, but at least they try. And at least there's something to show for it — California service, for example.)

But who am I to talk? I have yet to ride both of Canada's trains.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Dec 23, 2010)

A couple of points on Canada's VIA system:

First, I know I was not clear on this, but The Montrealer was an Amtrak train (WAS to MTR) that used Heritage equipment. I remember there being an actual piano on at least one of its lounge cars.

Secondly, VIA does a respectable, and in some ways better job with its 'corridor service' than Amtrak does in the NEC.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 23, 2010)

spacecadet said:


> I'm not finding any photos of the interiors, but I have seen photos online previously that showed Amfleet food service cars denoted as "Lounge" cars, and I've ridden in them also. I don't remember them being "beautiful" by any stretch, though the ones I rode in were basically set up the way the last dome car is now - half the car was booths, the other half was individual chairs (and I remember them swiveling). They had that same brown and orange decor also.
> 
> There have been a lot of different lounge car configurations in Amtrak's history so there may have been some "beautiful" configuration that I haven't seen, but I think probably what I'm describing is what Green Maned Lion was referring to.
> 
> By today's standards these were better than what we have now, but at the time they seemed a poor replacement for the heritage lounge cars that were still in the system, if you got lucky enough to get a train with one still in the consist. Though I think the heritage lounges all basically got converted to be similar to the Amfleet configuration eventually, just with the food service area at the end of the car rather than the middle. So the car still felt a lot more open and free-flowing than the Amfleets.


First of all, beauty is and always will be in the eye of the beholder. I loved those lounges, orange seventies eyesore colours included. They were nice and fun and I have fond memories riding in them.

I don't know if I ever rode in a heritage lounge. I may have. I was a wee kid at the time, if so. I am 26 years old. I have never rode a non-Amtrak long-distance train. I have no basis to compare Amtrak to except VIA rail, the only remotely comparable network in the world. All other systems are either tiny or put them to shame.

I do turn, however, to a railroad timetable, circa 1953. There were some beautiful trains, such as the 20th Century Limited. There were some real stinkers, including an unnamed accommodation train that ran from New York to Chicago on the Water Level Route stopping at every podunk imaginable, containing a snack coach and sleepers that "may not run on every train". Run time? I don't feel like figuring it, but it makes the Lake Shore seem like the Shinkansen, let alone the Limited.

Amtrak runs a consistent train system, nothing like the 20th Century, but nothing like that bloody accommodation run, either. Those special luxury trains, while they may have run every day, were special luxury trains. Normal people didn't ride them, nor could they afford the extra fare to do so.

Larry, I have pulled teeth out of your alligator self over inflation and your preposterous theorizing on cost. I will refrain from doing so again.



The Davy Crockett said:


> A couple of points on Canada's VIA system:
> 
> First, I know I was not clear on this, but The Montrealer was an Amtrak train (WAS to MTR) that used Heritage equipment. I remember there being an actual piano on at least one of its lounge cars.
> 
> Secondly, VIA does a respectable, and in some ways better job with its 'corridor service' than Amtrak does in the NEC.


VIA's corridor service is a bad joke. Corridor services should run hourly or better during daylight, period. Until they do they are regional rail systems with multiple frequencies. Which is what VIA has. The NEC is a corridor. The Keystone is a Corridor. Stretching my definition, perhaps the Empire service is. The Cascades, Lincoln, Wolverine, and even the damned Hiawatha are not corridors, end of discussion.

VIA runs a trio of tourist trains, a bevy of accommodation trains, and a few multiple frequency inter-cities. They don't have a train "network" outside of the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal area. They don't network- they misconnect more laughably than NJ Transit. VIA can't even work up the sense to have their two tourist trains connect in the same station- either extending the Canadian to Montral or the Ocean to Toronto.

Amtrak has a real rail network, and it will serve the average traveller quite comfortably. Could it be better? Sure.

Amtrak gets their network right, and for that I will forgive the more spartan lounges. VIA can keep them, if that means keeping a sensible service.


----------



## Larry H. (Dec 23, 2010)

Granted I have not ridden canadian trains for some time, but they had rather well appointed and thought out lounges and other non revenue cars. Things which amtrak has consistently down graded from the hundreds of fine examples they inherited from major rail road of the era before Amtrak. Amtrak used to leave Chicago with a Lounge on one of the New York trains that contained a sweeping circular shaped bar with oil paintings and wonderful lamps and restful stuffed chairs. All of which they removed and never tried to provide the grade of service that was normal for passenger companies to provide. You need only but to look at the old ads from travel magazines or National Geographic to see what wonderful cars had been provided the traveling public to entice them. Granted they didn't make it because at the time flying was a status symbol and trains were old hat. But in todays market of even increasing ridership there is no reason to believe that providing equipment that helps to make a trip memorable and enjoyable to more than rabid rail fans would make sense. There is a reason trains were seen as part of the vacation as much as congress seems to think otherwise. Any method of transportation that is going to take upwards of three days to compete the trip would benefit from cars that make the trip worth the cost, particularly when the customer is paying for rather expensive and ever increasing sleeper fares. You can argue from now on and I won't agree that those amfleet card table style lounges are a lounge by any standard thats worth a darn.

An as to the Canadian, there is also a reason they choose to up date the 50's rail cars and restore them to their prime days. It attracts customers. Which after all when your running a rail service is the idea. They still know what a diner looks like and how a lounge is incorporated into a consist. American is the country that has lost its way in rail service, not the other way around.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Dec 23, 2010)

Um.... Excuse me GML, but my brother-in-law rides between Toronto and Ottawa on a regular basis. If the train is late, you AUTOMATICALLY will get a credit to apply to your next trip. No calls to customer service, no discretion on the part of the rep on the line... I've ridden it myself on a number of occaisions - not as often as the NEC, to be sure - but the trains are clean, the service is great and there is a civilized attitude on the part of the crew that is often lacking on the NEC.

So, NO, NOT end of story. Say what you will, but I *respectfully *disagree with you.


----------



## Larry H. (Dec 23, 2010)

Green Manned Lion,

Your right discussing these things with people who haven't experienced the way long distance trains worth their name operated would make one not have much of a reference point to work from. Sure I rode some awful trains. One the New York Central ran to St. Louis from New York city in the early 60's. No water, frozen up windows, non reclining seats in coach on over night trains, lousy food, they wanted out of the train business for sure. What better way to run off passengers than offer lousy service. Maybe thats why when I ride amtrak and pay 5,000 for a round trip for two I seem to have the silly idea that perhaps the food and quality of cars would match the fare.

I think your over considering the price structure. Before things got tough for the railroads for all the known reasons, they ran solely first class trains.. Panama Limited, Super Chief, Twentieth Century, ect. Those trains charged pullman rates and perhaps a bit more for the added consist but were standard fare at the time. If you study the old ads you will see that even the coach passengers were treated to fine lounges, diners and chair cars with painted decor, large rest rooms, and very comfortable seating. They knew that attraction was a benefit to them. Its almost odd to see so many people think that improving something makes it out of touch with the times. People rush out to buy the latest IPod, Flat Screen TV, Computer, and spend plenty of cell phones an other perks. Why is it that its then considered that no one appreciates something a bit nicer in rail cars? My guess is that the people who are riding now are those for who the service is adequate but that many, and I have talked to quite a few on board, for who their one time try at long distance sleeper travel was probably their last. And most of those agree that the service and cars do not meet the expectations of the price they paid.


----------



## Larry H. (Dec 23, 2010)

Gee that made two of us!


----------



## Ryan (Dec 23, 2010)

Where is the money going to come from for that level of service, Larry?

You already complain about the high costs of tickets, and you've indicated that you're not interested in paying more in taxes, so just how do you think Amtrak is going to come up with the funds to outfit cars in the manner in which you desire?


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2010)

How do expect to argue with GML about the class the trains in America used to have. After all, he is 26 yrs old.


----------



## rrdude (Dec 23, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Where is the money going to come from for that level of service, Larry?
> 
> You already complain about the high costs of tickets, and you've indicated that you're not interested in paying more in taxes, so just how do you think Amtrak is going to come up with the funds to outfit cars in the manner in which you desire?


Corporate advertising, and outfitting. The "IBM Club Car". Club lounge brought to you by Microsoft.......... It could work.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 23, 2010)

Larry H. said:


> Gee that made two of us!





Guest said:


> How do expect to argue with GML about the class the trains in America used to have. After all, he is 26 yrs old.


Logging out and posting as a guest to try and bolster your argument is pretty disingenuous, Larry. Particularly when you screw it up and stay logged in.



rrdude said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Where is the money going to come from for that level of service, Larry?
> ...


Haven't we discussed that here recently? If there was good money in it, I'd wager that you'd see companies clamoring to do it. Plus, there would be all sorts of logistical issues with having uneven level of service provided by different cars in different consists.


----------



## Palmland (Dec 23, 2010)

The best 'lounge' on the Viewliner trains is your roomette or bedroom in the sleeper. Your attendant will gladly bring you ice and glasses and beverage of choice - or bring your own. Actually the glasses are plastic and on a couple occasions we brought real ones.


----------



## Donctor (Dec 23, 2010)

Larry H. said:


> An as to the Canadian, there is also a reason they choose to up date the 50's rail cars and restore them to their prime days. It attracts customers. Which after all when your running a rail service is the idea. They still know what a diner looks like and how a lounge is incorporated into a consist. American is the country that has lost its way in rail service, not the other way around.


In this situation, there were/are two options:

1 – Have a fleet of "nice" (and endlessly expensive to maintain) cars that attract tourists.

2 - Attempt to maintain as efficient a rail system as possible, so that customers are attracted to the train because it's a useful travel choice.

VIA, including its Corridor to a certain degree, has stuck to the former (with the exception of the Hudson Bay, which really does provide an essential service for the seventeen people who have yet to migrate to more southernly points).

Amtrak has veered more toward the latter (though the California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, and Coast Starlight are "tourist trains," as is the Builder to a large degree).


----------



## Donctor (Dec 23, 2010)

Larry H. said:


> Why is it that its then considered that no one appreciates something a bit nicer in rail cars?


Typically, at least in railfan groups, it's the nostalgic, out-of-touch railfans who want something a bit nicer. On the train, that's not necessarily the case.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 23, 2010)

The Davy Crockett said:


> Um.... Excuse me GML, but my brother-in-law rides between Toronto and Ottawa on a regular basis. If the train is late, you AUTOMATICALLY will get a credit to apply to your next trip. No calls to customer service, no discretion on the part of the rep on the line... I've ridden it myself on a number of occaisions - not as often as the NEC, to be sure - but the trains are clean, the service is great and there is a civilized attitude on the part of the crew that is often lacking on the NEC.
> 
> So, NO, NOT end of story. Say what you will, but I *respectfully *disagree with you.


Wow, they give you a refund for bad service. Whoop de whoo. Pfui. There are those of us in this train stuff that aren't just rail fans and spoiled brats. Its railfans like you and Larry that get us branded as a cult, that get services cut, that useful transportation services killed.

I like trains. I enjoy travel on them. But I am not a rail fan. I'm a transit advocate. I don't want a bleedin' refund when the service gets there late. I want to get there, when I want to get there, and I want to get there on time. I want to be able to leave NY within an average of 30 minutes of entering the station and arrive in Washington DC in less than four hours. I want this to happen reliably. If the lounge car has a piano, that's nice. Stuff the piano if that means the train is going to not be the above.

Amtrak runs the best service that congress allows them to run. They don't make money doing it. They can raise the standards to how you see fit, Larry, and not raise the fares- and lose more money and get the hell shut down. They can raise the fares to Canadian levels, and lose the people who really use them for transportation. Amtrak costs about what Greyhound does. At about 3X the cost, I'd rather ride the dog.

I think trains are a much nicer way to travel than bus or plane for a variety of reasons. I don't stare all doey eyed at the things, or get hard to them, or get off to them. They are a nice way to get from point A to point B.

The more ways I can get from Point A to Point B without tiring myself out at the wheel or getting my dignity violated, the better.

If you want more than that, YOU get yourself a calculator, a contract with Bombardier, and some paper, and you figure out what you are going to charge to make money moving people from point A to B while plating the damned thing in gold.



Guest said:


> How do expect to argue with GML about the class the trains in America used to have. After all, he is 26 yrs old.


Yeah, I'm 26. I operate in the present, not the past.


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 24, 2010)

Also... Amtrak can't just decide they want pretty chairs in a car and plop them down. The cars, seats, and tables have to be bolted down in ways the FRA approves. The lounge cars of yesterday would not be approved by the FRA I'm sure.

The "diner-lite" cars were not designed to be lounges. No one at Amtrak said "let's design a lounge car this way." The diner lite cars exist because Amtrak is out of options and money for single level equipment. The diner lite cars were designed to be multi-purpose, they can be used as "cafe" cars, or "diner" cars if needed.

One day, hopefully there will be a budget for Viewliner Lounge cars, I will expect them to look nice. The new SSL cars coming out of beech grove are quite pretty in my opinion.


----------



## Donctor (Dec 24, 2010)

Just for those who are interested, I believe this page shows the old Amfleet II lounge seating configuration.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 24, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > How do expect to argue with GML about the class the trains in America used to have. After all, he is 26 yrs old.
> ...


That wasn't Larry, totally different IP in a totally different part of the country.


----------



## rrdude (Dec 24, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> > Gee that made two of us!
> ...


Yes, we discussed it B4, but I still think it would work. I'm stubborn (stoopid) like that. Corporate "advertising" is all around us, museums, public TV, public radio, yada, yada, someone just needs the stones to try it. (and be prepared to update their resume if it falls flat) Think of it. A "Microsoft Lounge" with all the coolest and latest Microsoft "gadgets" on display for the patrons to use. OK, may _that_ would be flop. How about "Club Apple"?

Or the piano-lounge car, brought to you by Budweiser.

And, just because I'm stubborn, I think at some point, some organization, or individual, will create a "JD Power-Like" Amtrak Employee-of-the-year award too.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 24, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Guest said:
> ...


Thanks. Lord only knows what his "That makes two of us" comment was supposed to mean, then.


----------



## Larry H. (Dec 24, 2010)

Its too bad that in a discussion of what a lounge is and was and might still be one is attacked as some kind of weirdo for expecting or hoping for a bit nicer designs from amtrak in the future. I realize that the internet is full of people who relish the idea of disagreeing and then calling others names but this board has never been one of them until lately. I thought the idea here was to foster rail traffic in this country. Settling for the most spartan of cars shouldn't be our goal. Somehow supporters of amtrak here of late are only interested in defending what many have found to be less than satisfactory service and consist. ( I hope you can understand that). Many here have mentioned how lounges at one time were designed. Settling for a set of bench seats with a table between them as a lounge is not satisfactory to me or many others I am sure.

I realize the limitations put on Amtrak by congress. I think what many are trying to say is that with some imaginative thinking cars might be a bit more pleasant than current offerings. If that is silly thinking, then I am guilty. Lets realize too that the CS runs the very popular first class lounges which are often the topic of the reasons some here wish to experience that train. Why then is it so crazy to think that other trains might not benefit from similar cars? Someone in Amtrak with some passenger experience suggested that as a traffic builder and it has been a draw for sure. No one is saying amtrak has currently the ability to do this on all long distance trains. What I am suggesting is that when new cars are created a few idea that once made the Lounge a great place to enjoy the ride, relax and watch the scenery or read a book, could fairly easily be done. Design is a matter of how things are laid out, what kinds of seating and wall treatments are used. Look at the popular cruise ship industry. Every new liner is shown to be fancier and provide better services that the last. In the days when trains were competing for the passenger dollar they too understood the advantages of having a train that people wanted to ride because the experience of getting there was a part of the vacation or trip.

I do not think the personal attack methods used here of late by those who hold opposing views is helpful to free and open discussion of what is or could be. There are two sides to every discussion and I welcome both. I hope some others will rethink there current name calling and scorn for those who may hold a different point of view.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 24, 2010)

Nobody's calling you names, Larry, so quit complaining. My disagreement is with the reality of your posts, It's all well and good to opine about what could be, but realistically it isn't going to happen for quite some time, unless you'e willing to pay higher fares or have more government subsidy money go to Amtrak. You've very clearly stated your disagreement with both of those.

There's a reason that the kind of luxury and service that you pine for has fallen by the wayside, people aren't willing to spend the kind of money required to have that level of service. It's why the freight railroads wanted to get rid of the passenger trains and why we have Amtrak today.

Complaining with no solution doesn't do a thing to foster rail travel in this country and only paints us as members of that "train cult" that aren't interested in realistic solutions to todays transportation needs.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Dec 24, 2010)

I find it amusing that my having the 'nerve' to have a thought or idea that certain people disagree with causes them to resort to tactics along the lines of implying I'm a cult loving spoiled brat. It may make them feel superior, but in reality they don't do their views any favor in the court of public opinion. I don't let the fact that they are obviously so unhappy bother me. In fact, I feel rather sorry for them. What is too bad is that such nonsense diminishes and discourages the exchange of ideas in a forum such as this. Merry Christmas to EVERYONE. Peace to all mankind.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 24, 2010)

You couldn't be more wrong (I couldn't be happier), and your passive-agressive posts don't do you any favors either.

Feel free to have whatever thought or your opinion you want to, but be prepared to back them up with some realism, rather than just play the victim when it's pointed out that your ideas aren't practical.


----------



## zephyr17 (Dec 24, 2010)

Riding mostly in the west, I find the "lounge" facilities on the Eastern single level LDs are pretty bad. They aren't pleasant to hang around in, they are not particularly comfortable and they are certainly not attractive. While the Superliner Sightseer may not be super plush, they are not spartan either. They are attractive cars (or were before the bad blue paint job they did a couple of years ago that is now peeling and bubbling badly). So Amtrak does not have to be spartan. This discussion makes me sorry I don't think I ever saw an Amfleet II lounge before they were converted.

I don't think it would break the bank to create a more welcoming lounge/cafe. After all, they spent a bunch of cash mutilating a bunch of perfectly good diners to make the diner/lounges (CCCs) that now they can't find good uses for.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Dec 24, 2010)

My post was not even directed at you Ryan, but if the shoe fits, by all means wear it.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 24, 2010)

My apologies - I couldn't imagine who else it could have possibly been directed to.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2010)

Ryan said:


> You couldn't be more wrong (I couldn't be happier), and your passive-agressive posts don't do you any favors either.
> 
> Feel free to have whatever thought or your opinion you want to, but be prepared to back them up with some realism, rather than just play the victim when it's pointed out that your ideas aren't practical.


Who put you in charge. Who are you to say someones ideas aren't practical.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 24, 2010)

Being in charge has nothing to do with the matter. Explain to me how Amtrak can work a Christmas miracle and spend money to make the lounges nicer without raising fares or getting more money from the government?


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Being in charge has nothing to do with the matter. Explain to me how Amtrak can work a Christmas miracle and spend money to make the lounges nicer without raising fares or getting more money from the government?


It is not my job to explain to YOU, on how to run a railroad. Amtrak employs people to try and attract customers to a comfortable and attractive mode of transportation


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 24, 2010)

The Davy Crockett said:


> I find it amusing that my having the 'nerve' to have a thought or idea that certain people disagree with causes them to resort to tactics along the lines of implying I'm a cult loving spoiled brat. It may make them feel superior, but in reality they don't do their views any favor in the court of public opinion. I don't let the fact that they are obviously so unhappy bother me. In fact, I feel rather sorry for them. What is too bad is that such nonsense diminishes and discourages the exchange of ideas in a forum such as this. Merry Christmas to EVERYONE. Peace to all mankind.


If my expression of opinion discourages you from posting on this board, you have some real problems that have nothing to do with your opinions. I don't care for the court of public opinion- I am not looking to be elected to office.

The idea that current fares and subsidies could pay for superior equipment with just incrased passenger traffic is flawed. Why? Lets do the math. The Diner-Lite conversions involved, as you state, spartan furnishings and cost about 750k a car. So lets do it over with lavish furnishings for... a million a car? So that's $25 million bucks- do the math, million bucks a car, 25 Amfleet II food service cars.

Now, Amtrak provided service to about 1.5 million people long distance on the single-level trains last year, generating about $121 million, or about 80 a piece. Granting the lounges would likely live a life of about 10 years in that configuration, ok? Now, Amtrak financial reports indicate that the LD trains have a marginal financial benefit of about .15, or about 15% on average of the money collected from an additional passenger proves beneficial to the company- if the company was making a profit, you'd probably call it a profit margin.

So that would mean each additional passenger could contribute $12 towards the cost of this luxury refit. Which means you'd have to produce about 2.1 million new passengers over 10 years, or 210,000 a year. There are 5 trains that run with this lounge, 10 runs. Each run, as it were, would have to get 58 more passengers per diem. Each run carries about 400 people, thus meaning you'd have to increase traffic 15% over current regular growth and trends. I don't think the trains actually have the capacity to handle that growth.

So there you go. Statistically unrealistic, and it operates on the assumption that such amenities would really drive ridership to that degree. It doesn't, particularly. Oh, it drives ridership, but not that much.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 24, 2010)

Ah, Davey - forgot that GML posted on page 1. 



Guest said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Being in charge has nothing to do with the matter. Explain to me how Amtrak can work a Christmas miracle and spend money to make the lounges nicer without raising fares or getting more money from the government?
> ...


Which is exactly what they're doing. If you propose that they make a change, it's your job to explain how that change would be in Amtrak's best interest. You forget that you're the one that's trying to change the status quo.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Ah, Davey - forgot that GML posted on page 1.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have not fogotten anything. Many people on this forum have made comments or ideas of a better way to run Amtrak, but some clown keeps saying it's just not practical.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 24, 2010)

Keep in mind that whatever company took over the assets of American Orient Express (I forget their name) tried putting their luxury cars on the back of Amtrak trains and selling space on them, essentially offering a scheduled luxury service. It failed, and the company went out of business.

People will pay more for better service. The issue is, will enough people be willing to pay enough more for better service to make it worthwhile? The answer typically seems to be no. It's the same thing in the airline industry. Airlines that tried to cater specifically to higher fare passengers with luxury accommodations have died and/or replaced their product with your typical coach and "first class" (which, when it comes down to it, is a bit like Amtrak business class or Acela first class for US domestic flights) accommodations, many of the latter of which are filled with elite frequent fliers traveling on upgrades.

Airlines used to have lounges and piano bars on 747s, too. Those got replaced with seats.

Travelers who truly want luxury and have the means to pay for it tend to have their own transportation (be it a private jet, a private railcar, limousine, etc.). Public, common-carrier mass transportation generally has not done too well trying to provide luxury and paying for it with fares.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 24, 2010)

Guest said:


> I have not fogotten anything. Many people on this forum have made comments or ideas of a better way to run Amtrak, but some clown keeps saying it's just not practical.


I am not a clown, I am a guy who spends more time dealing with the politics of rail/mass transportation than anyone I know on this board besides Jishnu. As such, I have some idea how things work, both financially and politically.

Believe me, Amtrak implementing it on a positive-for-Amtrak basis is not practical. It will either spend money they don't have, or annoy its lords and masters in Congress with "wasteful luxury for the rich" nonsense. If you want luxury on a government subsidized service, you have to justify that luxury, and pay for it, in a way that either doesn't add to that subsidy or makes it look like it doesn't add to that subsidy. And then you might have a chance unless somebody who wants to make a name for themselves blows the thing out of proportion.

Say, for instance, some essentially dead woman's husband wanting to put her out of their misery versus her parents not wanting to. In a sane world, that would be a private matter. In our world, Terry Schivo was a international incident.

Alternatively, Amtrak wants to waste tax payers money on luxury lounge cars that they can't 100% prove will pay for themselves. Key campaign speeches. It draws away from the fact that their campaign platform of More Services + Less Taxes = Reduced Deficit does not mathematically work.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > I have not fogotten anything. Many people on this forum have made comments or ideas of a better way to run Amtrak, but some clown keeps saying it's just not practical.
> ...


GML, if you look at my post, I was not refering to you, but


----------



## Ryan (Dec 24, 2010)

Sorry, GML - I must be the clown in question. 

Instead of name calling, explain why I'm wrong.


----------



## Larry H. (Dec 24, 2010)

I was going to give up this conversation since it is so difficult to express an opinion without being challenged. But here is another probably foolish try.

No one mentioned to my knowledge what Ryan is suggesting that magically lounges get redone this instant and at great cost. On the contrary I am trying to make a point which is somehow missed that when Amtrak is working on the plans for new consist the lounge car could without spending a fortune on luxuries make it a more interesting and cozy car. Rows of bench seats does not make a lounge no matter how you try to spin it. But I agree were stuck with it. I spent 50 years redesigning public spaces and I know full well how a few added touches and minor changes might make for a car that has a feel of welcoming that the Diner Lite or what ever the lake shore has been running as lounges are. I realize that its due to the government not spending money on equipment that is partially to blame. But as mentioned the superliner lounges are several steps better than what the interior of those Lake Shore cars are like.

A point mentioned already is the money spent on the CCC cars that for the most part no one seems to want. It appears that someone at least was thinking out of the box to create a variety of interior space. Sadly it isn't the best diner especially with the staffing issues that come with it. But a lounge that is being built from scratch could contain some interesting combinations of curved booths and swivel seating which at one point they ran. It would not be out of the box luxury but a few touches like well placed artwork, even if as in some cars amtrak posters greatly increases the softness of the hard furniture.

And while some dismiss the idea that passengers paying sleeper fares shouldn't expect more than a bed to sleep in or room to sit in, I have run into considerable passengers who felt the train did not live up to what they expected for the cost. Thats an argument that will continue I suspect.

I hope this is clearer since somehow what I have said is not understandable to this point.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 24, 2010)

Larry H. said:


> when Amtrak is working on the plans for new consist the lounge car could without spending a fortune on luxuries make it a more interesting and cozy car.


Thanks, Larry - I finally understand your point. I've also read Amtrak's fleet replenishment plan that says that Amtrak plans on running the current Amfleet II cars until 2022. So yeah, in 12 years when Amtrak starts bringing those replacements online, it'd be nice if they were able to come up with a different design that was a little more welcoming as I agree that the current "lounge" cars aren't anywhere that I'm interested in spending extended lengths of time. Lets come back in 10 years and discuss that when there's actually an opportunity to do something about it, shall we?

See what happens when you take the time to write out a well thought out post with logical points?


----------



## spacecadet (Dec 25, 2010)

Trogdor said:


> People will pay more for better service. The issue is, will enough people be willing to pay enough more for better service to make it worthwhile? The answer typically seems to be no.


Well, this is not true. Why has Amtrak been so desperate for sleeping cars and diners? Because they don't have enough of either one to meet demand. Both of these types of cars are for first class service (dining cars can be used by coach passengers, but they're mostly used by first class passengers).



> It's the same thing in the airline industry. Airlines that tried to cater specifically to higher fare passengers with luxury accommodations have died and/or replaced their product with your typical coach and "first class" (which, when it comes down to it, is a bit like Amtrak business class or Acela first class for US domestic flights)


I'm not sure where you're getting this either, and anyway it's not a valid comparison.

Most flights are 3 hours or less. At 3 hours or less, even the filthy rich don't need a private suite with a lie-flat bed. That's true on a train or a plane. That's why you don't see high-end luxury service on domestic flights.

But you certainly do on international flights, including those operated by US airlines. On flights 12 hours or longer, if an airline doesn't offer a class that includes lie-flat beds, gourmet food and personal privacy, they're at a serious competitive disadvantage. And these classes typically subsidize the economy cabin. Airlines make most of their money on business and first class passengers. Some airlines actually *lose* money consistently on their economy cabins on certain routes - they only maintain them at all to satisfy their network and alliance obligations (and the alliance benefits them overall, if not on every individual route).

The point being, yes, on longer flights the airlines do offer very high end luxury accommodations, and this is where they make their money. And these services are in high demand, and also bring prestige (and therefore positive PR) to an airline.



> Airlines used to have lounges and piano bars on 747s, too. Those got replaced with seats.


They got replaced with seats because seats generate revenue and lounges (on airplanes) don't. This is not the same as a train, because firstly, we're not talking about replacing a non-revenue generating car with a revenue-generating one. Lounges on trains are revenue-generating to begin with - we're just talking about the relative "niceness" of the lounge car.

Also, on a train, if you want more revenue you just add more cars. Obviously Amtrak can't do that right now because they don't have more cars, but assuming they had more sleeping cars, they could use them even now on some routes. Who's to say with better service they couldn't sell even more roomettes and bedrooms?

Amtrak is artificially constrained by a shortage of equipment, so there is currently no incentive for them to actually try to sell more rooms, and that's why the lounge cars look the way they do right now. When you need to try to actually sell accommodations, amenities become sacred cows. When you sell out of rooms months in advance, suddenly your biggest problem is basic needs like making sure there's enough food for all those people, and that it can be served reliably and in basic comfort. That's why we have the diner lites.

My point is that your basic premise is wrong. People *will* pay extra for better service, and they've demonstrated that throughout the ages and continue to do so on the airlines. You can't look at a 2 hour flight and compare it to a 14 hour train ride. Compare a 14 hour flight and that 14 hour train ride and see what the airline offers, even without the ability to add extra space to their planes. The fact that the AOE failed doesn't mean the entire concept of high end transportation accommodations and amenities failed.


----------



## Larry H. (Dec 25, 2010)

Thank you, very well and thoughtfully put. Its the same reason I mentioned the Cruise ships. You don't see many bare bones no fills cruise ships advertised because people want to have nice surroundings. Take away the oil paintings, the fine food, and furniture, fancy woodwork and pools and they would just be freighters and more than likely out of business. That is somewhat my contention as well. Amtrak is doing it self no favor by running bare bones consist. It may make some here happy, but my guess is they are loosing may times the possible riders to those who for various reasons put up with it.

The comparison made that the American land Cruise didn't make it was bogus as well. That train was extremely high end and over priced from anyones perspective. Limited scheduling as well. My contention is that a well appointed, not overly so, comfortable train will indeed attract more riders. Again its part of the reason for the Pacific parlor cars popularity and why the Empire Builder when it was rechristened as an upgraded train became the train everyone wanted to ride. It needs to be a balance between cost of tickets and quality of consist, food and service. Everywhere you go people who are paying a higher rate for something generally expect something to go along with that cost. Its always been true, thats why the Super Chief was the standard for rail travel for years and why they lost the name use at Amtrak when they decided not to maintain the quality of experience any longer. It just became any old train once the quality was gone. That is where the whole system has ended up.

Again it isn't totally amtraks fault, a government run system is too prone to bickering, especially among politicians who probably never rode a train in their life and have chauffeured cars and private dining rooms for them selves. I don't know if we can ever totally fix it considering the way its constructed today. They are probably doing the best they can with what they have at the moment and many of the unpopular cuts are due to congress and their lack of knowledge about what makes a train a alternative way worth taking. Maybe with higher gas prices and a changing airline industry it will turn around at some point. I just hope that the next generation of cars will consider the overall concept of providing service and comfort to the public in a way that makes they want to come back.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 25, 2010)

Larry H. said:


> The comparison made that the American land Cruise didn't make it was bogus as well. That train was extremely high end and over priced from anyones perspective. Limited scheduling as well.


Larry,

Just to be clear here, what Trogdor was referring to wasn't the typical land cruises that were run on special itineraries. There was an attempt several years ago to run a semi-regular high end attachment to existing Amtrak trains. They partnered with Amtrak to add a few of the luxury cars to the rear of existing Amtrak runs, including the Zephyr and one of the Silvers. I think that they also did the Chief, but I won't swear to that.

While the luxury cars didn't run every day, there were regularly scheduled opportunities to ride these cars. Typically they would turn around at the end of the run and go right back the next day, then take a day or two off before running the route again.

The prices, while still high as compared to Amtrak, were much lower than the typical "land cruises" they traditionally had offered. That of course was due in part to the fact that it wasn't a two week trip, but either an overnight trip or a 2 night trip.

I was actually going to take one of the runs to Florida, along with my mom, but alas by the time we had figured out our dates, the one run that we could do was already pulled from booking because ridership was too low. They ended up canceling more than half the planned runs do to lack of ridership.

One mistake that I think that they did make however with this idea was that they tried this in the very late fall, early winter almost up to Christmas. That was the wrong time of the year to really test this type of market. Most people save vacation time for the summer, and even those that don't come late fall are usually plotting out Christmas trips to visit family (not luxury trips) and spending their extra cash on presents.


----------



## Larry H. (Dec 25, 2010)

Hi Allan,

I checked those fares as well and it was still pretty steep. The improvements I am taking about are more cosmetic with reasonable touches of class that make the difference between a sterile looking cookie cutter car and one which is "friendly" and "inviting". That does not cost a bundle more, it just takes the right person to design the interior with those goals in mind. Once the cars are built then they are paid for over a very long running time. I am not talking about increased fares as the prices are to my way of thinking rather steep as it is. Just better passenger consideration that some of the "Lounges" on single level trains are now running. Somehow I don't think that this conversation used to break down along these lines when passengers trains were run by individual railroads. Its obvious from the attempts to have a inviting interior for the passenger in nearly all the history of long distance runs that it was a common practice and not considered pandering to the wealthy or out of touch as seems to be the way some today choose to see it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 25, 2010)

Larry H. said:


> Hi Allan,
> 
> I checked those fares as well and it was still pretty steep. The improvements I am taking about are more cosmetic with reasonable touches of class that make the difference between a sterile looking cookie cutter car and one which is "friendly" and "inviting". That does not cost a bundle more, it just takes the right person to design the interior with those goals in mind. Once the cars are built then they are paid for over a very long running time. I am not talking about increased fares as the prices are to my way of thinking rather steep as it is. Just better passenger consideration that some of the "Lounges" on single level trains are now running. Somehow I don't think that this conversation used to break down along these lines when passengers trains were run by individual railroads. Its obvious from the attempts to have a inviting interior for the passenger in nearly all the history of long distance runs that it was a common practice and not considered pandering to the wealthy or out of touch as seems to be the way some today choose to see it.


I totaly agree, but some will say, it's just not practical.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 25, 2010)

Larry H. said:


> Hi Allan,
> 
> I checked those fares as well and it was still pretty steep. The improvements I am taking about are more cosmetic with reasonable touches of class that make the difference between a sterile looking cookie cutter car and one which is "friendly" and "inviting". That does not cost a bundle more, it just takes the right person to design the interior with those goals in mind. Once the cars are built then they are paid for over a very long running time. I am not talking about increased fares as the prices are to my way of thinking rather steep as it is. Just better passenger consideration that some of the "Lounges" on single level trains are now running. Somehow I don't think that this conversation used to break down along these lines when passengers trains were run by individual railroads. Its obvious from the attempts to have a inviting interior for the passenger in nearly all the history of long distance runs that it was a common practice and not considered pandering to the wealthy or out of touch as seems to be the way some today choose to see it.


Larry,

I fully understand what you're advocating for and I agree with you that Amtrak needs to be thinking about smaller touches just like you're describing.

I just wanted to make sure that you realized what Trogdor was referring too, and yes those fares weren't cheap. On average they were about 2 to 3 times what Amtrak charged for sleeper service at that time. But one of the regular excursions would have charged probably 5 to 6 times what Amtrak would have charged for a comparable run, so they were sort of hitting the middle of the road as it were in their effort to try and attract more business to the "luxury" market.


----------



## Larry H. (Dec 25, 2010)

I think one reason some are having trouble with this concept when we reference older car designs is that they some how feel that good design didn't help the railroads. It is true that mostly it didn't and that service and quality were abandoned by most railroads of the time with a few exceptions. That doesn't preclude the thought however that the workmanship and design standards of those late passenger trains before they fell from popular use wasn't a fine reference point for layouts of the cars. What I think some of us are advocating that those principles of layout and style be updated to simpler versions for modern use. I believe whom ever designed the CCC car was aware of the seating pattern of some of those late cafe cars on passenger trains of the 50's where that side seating was intermixed with standard tables for a more casual but stylish look.


----------



## Larry H. (Dec 25, 2010)

Another thought which is almost tied to this whole discussion is how somehow todays trains are being divided in the same way we see the political attitude of today. The have's and have not's. Those who want a place to sleep other than a chair are placed in the "upper" class and thus should be subject to much higher fares than was standard at the time. I probably live on one of the smaller yearly incomes on here, and yet when pullman service was the standard on trains I never had to feel like I was paying 10 times more for some incredible extra. It was a simple choice, do I want to ride for two days sitting in a chair, or do I want a bit of privacy and a place to lay down. This whole way in which train passengers are now seen as either taking advantage of the government and wanting something they shouldn't get is a more recent development. Another reason why its too bad that government had to play a role at all, things didn't break down along these lines before it became a public service.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 25, 2010)

Larry H. said:


> This whole way in which train passengers are now seen as either taking advantage of the government and wanting something they shouldn't get is a more recent development. Another reason why its too bad that government had to play a role at all, things didn't break down along these lines before it became a public service.


And the worst part is that it's not true! Sleeper passengers actually get less of a subsidy per mile than do coach passengers.

Government interference in the free market, namely subsidized roads and planes, is why government now needs to play a role in running trains.


----------



## Mark Del Monte (Dec 25, 2010)

Larry H. said:


> I was going to give up this conversation since it is so difficult to express an opinion without being challenged. But here is another probably foolish try.
> 
> No one mentioned to my knowledge what Ryan is suggesting that magically lounges get redone this instant and at great cost. On the contrary I am trying to make a point which is somehow missed that when Amtrak is working on the plans for new consist the lounge car could without spending a fortune on luxuries make it a more interesting and cozy car. Rows of bench seats does not make a lounge no matter how you try to spin it. But I agree were stuck with it. I spent 50 years redesigning public spaces and I know full well how a few added touches and minor changes might make for a car that has a feel of welcoming that the Diner Lite or what ever the lake shore has been running as lounges are. I realize that its due to the government not spending money on equipment that is partially to blame. But as mentioned the superliner lounges are several steps better than what the interior of those Lake Shore cars are like.
> 
> ...



I have ridden in both heritage lounges and Amfleet lounges in my life as well as the coach equivalents of each car and of course hands down the heritage cars were the best I ever rode on. One did not need a sleeper when those coaches were around and the heritage cars with there dimmer decor had that kind of cozy tavern feel. With that said to me the Amfleet II Cafe's were ok not the worst not the best. On my first train trip as a kid coming off the CZ as the first train I ever rode and getting on the LSL it was a bit of a shock. The Amfleet lounges are not the best for sightseeing they felt claustrophobic to me and they certainly did not make you wanna stay for awhile. However they did do the job on a route that is only 24 hours long without the constant flow of spectacular scenery and that was effectively serve a wide variety of food to passengers throughout the trip. I have to admit as much as we would love to hate Amfleet's they did kinda grow on me in there old interior scheme. The absolute worst lounges on a train are out here in California. The Surfliners and there identical equivalent on the Capitol Corridor are coach on top and lounge on the bottom. There are only 2 tables down stairs and if you guess that the LSA and the conductors grabbed those you are absolutely right. Now on a 2 hour ride on the Capitols this is not much of an issue to me but imagine the 7 hour ride to San Luis Obispo on the Surfliners or even the 12 to 14 hour ride on the Coast Daylight to San Francisco when it starts and you can see how unattractive this kind of lounge can be. There is worse than Amfleet cars greyhound also comes to mind on that list lol. This just goes on the same list of growing improvements that Amtrak needs to make and I think even in this thread Amtrak could get a lot of research and development for free, but either way I will still ride Amtrak just hoping for more improvement. Finally a bigger improvement I have been shouting from the roof tops on the Capitol Corridor is the resurrection of a decent hot full meal choice. When I take the train into the Bay Area and I am running around all day like I have done with no time to stop and eat one of the things that appeals to me is the ability to just wait til I get on the train.I remember ordering a Salmon Dinner Tray Meal that came out of one of those Surfliner 1/4 lounges and it was dining car quality and I don't even mean Diner Lite. 

Mark Del Monte


----------



## Larry H. (Dec 25, 2010)

Yes the whole thing has devolved into looking at a train from the position that its divided into classes of passengers. It used to be one train going to various destinations with choices of service that all fit within the cost of operating a whole train. Now every little thing is divided up and cost are juggled to make one set of passengers look like they are taking advantage of others. Its a sad thing.


----------



## Larry H. (Dec 25, 2010)

Mark it reminds me of the CCC cars they have been running on the City for a while, although I think the lounge is back due to enough outrage at its demise. That idea was so flawed it wasn't funny. Not only did it only have three tables for a lounge with a train of passengers often amounting to hundreds in leaving chicago, but as you say, one of them was taken by the conductor, and often the couple remaining ended up in the possession of a few passengers which never left it. So much for a lounge on that run. I think maybe amtrak got the message on that one, everyone hated it. I think part of the reason for the trouble is that there is a disconnect between reality and budgets and planing at amtrak. Too many decisions wether forced on them or on their own tend to always eliminate things that were always taken for granted previously. I fear that the next congress will do much the same.


----------



## Rail Freak (Dec 25, 2010)

Larry H. said:


> Yes the whole thing has devolved into looking at a train from the position that its divided into classes of passengers. It used to be one train going to various destinations with choices of service that all fit within the cost of operating a whole train. Now every little thing is divided up and cost are juggled to make one set of passengers look like they are taking advantage of others. Its a sad thing.



Sorry, I dont see that. But I havent been ridding trains that long, either!!!


----------



## Larry H. (Dec 25, 2010)

I hope you didn't take that to mean the passengers feel that way, I meant the government seems to be inclined to do so.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Dec 25, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Ah, Davey - forgot that GML posted on page 1.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No worries Ryan. Hope you had a good holiday! :hi:


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Dec 25, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> > I find it amusing that my having the 'nerve' to have a thought or idea that certain people disagree with causes them to resort to tactics along the lines of implying I'm a cult loving spoiled brat. It may make them feel superior, but in reality they don't do their views any favor in the court of public opinion. I don't let the fact that they are obviously so unhappy bother me. In fact, I feel rather sorry for them. What is too bad is that such nonsense diminishes and discourages the exchange of ideas in a forum such as this. Merry Christmas to EVERYONE. Peace to all mankind.
> ...


Now that is a whole lotta number crunching... One thought on this is that when I'm in a sleeper I use my room as my personal lounge - as has been suggested in this thread. I in effect camp out in my room, other than for meals, or to view the scenery in the SSL, as its not worth spending time in the lounge otherwise. If the lounge was more of a draw, I'd certainly drop some greenbacks in it. Would there be enough people like me to support better lounge service? I can't answer that. I hear what your saying about it not working in the past. I think that the better level of service, the more ridership will increase and the more people will be willing to spend for it. Some of this could be achieved through better personel management for relatively little cash, while some would certainly require a bigger capital expenditure and be a gamble...

Just some thoughts from a turkey dinner induced stupor... Hope you've had a good x-mas.


----------



## Donctor (Dec 25, 2010)

Larry H. said:


> Mark it reminds me of the CCC cars they have been running on the City for a while, although I think the lounge is back due to enough outrage at its demise. That idea was so flawed it wasn't funny. Not only did it only have three tables for a lounge with a train of passengers often amounting to hundreds in leaving chicago, but as you say, one of them was taken by the conductor, and often the couple remaining ended up in the possession of a few passengers which never left it. So much for a lounge on that run. I think maybe amtrak got the message on that one, everyone hated it. I think part of the reason for the trouble is that there is a disconnect between reality and budgets and planing at amtrak. Too many decisions wether forced on them or on their own tend to always eliminate things that were always taken for granted previously. I fear that the next congress will do much the same.


As far as I'm aware, the following were the reasons for adding the lounge:

1. There's an axle requirement, and it makes more sense to have a lounge than an empty coach, especially because...

2. The City is interlined with the Eagle, a train that already has a lounge.

3. There wasn't enough lounge space in the CCC.

When a Sightseer is bad-ordered, the City and the Eagle will typically run with two CCCs. It's not that bad, but the trip isn't the same without a Sightseer.


----------



## Larry H. (Dec 26, 2010)

Yes I agree the trip is not the same (IE return passengers), when the level of equipment is not up to expectations. Its odd I happened to hear a NPR program this morning, or at least on NPR, probably from a European country overnight fill in show, but they were interviewing Russian Passengers on a new line that follows a 100 year old route from Russia to France. Brand new train designed for long distance business which has flourished even amongst business travelers. They were interviewing passengers who were all offering rave reviews of the "details" of decor and conveniences this train offered and how much better it was than any of the European equipment. I thought it was timely for the discussion were having as to wether offering a product that people find attractive compared to one that just gets them there.


----------



## Larry H. (Dec 26, 2010)

A quick google gives a number of stories about this train.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11434770


----------

