Are there Crying Kids in Roomettes?

[amamba]

Seriously OP, I highly recommend ear plugs.

On a trip last summer I didn't have any annoying children near me in the sleeper, but the gentleman in the bedroom next to me was listening to his scanner at all hours of the night and it was constantly squawking and making noise that I could hear in my room through the wall. Now it might be that the sound isn't as well contained in the bedrooms as he was in the room that coudl be opened up to mine in order to make a "suite", but the only thing that saved me from murdering him was my ear plugs.

Plus ear plugs will help drown out the noise of the inevitable banging and squeaking of the car on the tracks.

 

[DET63]

Unless you bring one along with you, there won't be a crying kid in your roomette.

 

[dart330]

I agree on the ear plugs, don't leave home without them. The roomettes are better insulated from noise except for 13 & 14 which share walls with the family bedroom. The bedrooms with a door between them can be loud too. If going in a Superliner, bedroom A is the quietest.

 

[BCL]

Let me be clear- as I am the OP:
1. I use the word crying brats because that's what I see kids who continue to disrupt others as. As the woman said about paying for business class and then having 22 kids ruin her experience- yeah I would have asked for a refund or demanded a different seat. I am not spending an extra $500 of my hard-earned money for a private first class room, only to have it ruined because giggling and crying from young rugrats is going on and Mom and Dad think it's "cute". It's not, it's unbearable. I actually propose that Amtrak and the airlines start creating Adult Only Routes- where if you are under the age of 18, you can't ride. I imagine they would sell very well, as I would be first in line to ride in peace on a 6 hour flight or 2 day train ride, without the annoyance of child noise. Especially if I'm paying extra for privacy. I know this rant makes me sound rude and withdrawn, but I assure you I am not- I am speaking the truth of what many people like me think but can't say outloud- Kids are out of control these days, and it would be wise if companies caught on to this and started doing Adult Only/and or Kids only flights and train rides.

2. I am not anti-social. But this particular trip I want to be alone, and at peace. My real job involves me interacting with the public every day. Fun job, but on my vacation I want to be alone. I don't want to sit at a table and feel forced to bring up "where are you going, where you from?" inbetween my salad and steak sandwich.

Again you chose to use a loaded word that is often used to paint children in a negative fashion. The families that have paid for their rooms have every right to those accommodations as you do. Your tone seems to be that your payment for a private accommodation trumps a family's similar payment. This has nothing to do with my current status as a parent. I would have had the same opinion when I was single and in no immediate concerns of being a parent myself. I have been on that four hour flight with a kid kicking in the back of my seat. I took it with stride because this is a fact of life unless one drives or charters a private plane.

I can assure you that the California Zephyr will never, ever go adults-only. If you didn't notice, Amtrak has both child fares and "family bedrooms". Amtrak is in fact the most child-friendly transportation in the country with children's menus in the dining cars. They're having enough issues with enough equipment, so exactly where are they going to get the money and staff for your proposal of adults-only trains?

If you insist on an adults-only train, there is the Reno Fun Train from Emeryville to Reno. However, that's one where the booze is flowing, and I'm thinking if you're annoyed with children, the adults whooping it up like it's Mardi Gras is going to be even less appealing.

If the possibility that children will be around you really, really bothers you, there is an option:

http://www.amtrak.com/privately-owned-rail-cars

Rent your own car. I don't recall exactly how much, but I thought it was about $2 a mile. I understand that many hobbyists own them, have restored them, and rent them out to defray their costs.

 

[D.P. Roberts]

No I guess it had not yet occurred to me that socially active people should avoid community seating so that socially averse passengers could eat together in quiet seclusion. It takes a lot of effort to twist my mind into a view as confusing and convoluted as that.

Then yours must not be the twisted, confusing, and convoluted mind that came up with the idea of a Quiet Car. Clearly, many passengers don't want to socialize with other passengers. Many trains (though not LD ones that I'm aware of) have Quiet Cars for precisely this reason.

Virtually every other restaurant in the entire country works exactly the way you want. Is that really not good enough?

If, in "virtually every restaurant in the entire country", "everybody keeps their distance and nobody expects to hear so much as a peep from anyone they didn't explicitly choose to eat with", is it that outrageous to want the same on Amtrak? When given the chance, even the most extreme extroverts choose NOT to eat with strangers. Why not give everybody that chance?

I'm introverted myself, but that doesn't mean we have the need or the right to go around forcing our social aversion on others. When I choose to eat in the diner I expect to join the conversation. If I don't want to participate I either take my food to go or I have it delivered or I eat in the snack car, or I just don't bother eating that meal. There are more than enough options to work with.

Wait. I'm sitting quietly, enjoying my meal and not bothering anyone around me, but the person across from me feels awkward and keeps trying to drag me into a conversation in order because HE wants to, and yet I AM the one forcing my aversion on others?

Let me make it clear that the situations and opinions I'm expressing are not what I actually DO onboard. These are my PREFERENCES. What I actually DO is travel with my wife. We've taken a train journey most summers for the past couple of years. Approximately 90% of the time, the two of us are seated with two independently-traveling strangers. To the best of my knowledge, we've only been seated with couples/pairs on TWO occasions. Once, we were seated with two co-workers. The other time, we were seated with another young couple. All of the other times, we were seated with two "singletons", although we've had several breakfasts and one dinner by ourselves (a late seating).

So, for most meals, we're the only people at the table who know each other. Neither of us are extroverts, but we try our best to talk to the other people at the table - starting with the usual icebreakers like where you're from, where you're going, etc. Most of the time, that's about it for talking. Maybe somebody comments on the weather, the scenery, the food, etc. once every few minutes. I'm fine with that. We pass the meal in what I'd call "companionable silence". When I use figures like 40% of the country being introverts, these are the sort of people I think of - people who will talk if they feel they have something to say, but are happy to sit quietly when they don't. I've enjoyed those meals.

Sometimes, we get people who won't talk at all - one word answers to our questions, & clearly no willingness to talk to us. Since my wife and I obviously know each other, there are times when I want to say something (the food, the scenery, etc.), and I try to direct my observations to the whole table. If they don't respond at all, my wife and I just talk to each other. As I said, we do our best to try to include them at first, but if they won't talk we just talk to each other.

We've been seated with someone I'd call an extrovert - someone who talked through the whole meal - maybe two or three times. Always a guy travelling by himself. That's fine too. I'll happily chime in whenever I feel I have something to say, even if the guy is carrying the conversation. Chances are the other single diner isn't saying anything.

What I'm saying is that I'm fine with ANY of these situations. I don't get angry with the guy who talks during the whole meal - after all, it's community dining. I don't get upset with the people who don't talk at all - I don't feel that it's their responsibility to keep me entertained. I'm perfectly happy with any level of conversation.

I just don't understand why you (and others) can't just live with the tablemates you have.

 

[Acela150]

I was in Room 14 back in February. There was a family in the Family Room. The Mother kept the children well occupied and never heard a peep out of the room. They did come and go from the room at Bedtime and in the Morning. But they were very quiet and made minimal noise. I pulled the Mother aside and commended her for keeping the kids occupied and very quiet. I've been in Room 9 and never had an issue. But for some odd reason it was the last car on the SWC.

 

[the_traveler]

. I use the word crying brats because that's what I see kids who continue to disrupt others as.

I bet you were a child once yourself. :wacko: I doubt you were not born as a 35 year old person! :blink:

 

[BCL]

Wait. I'm sitting quietly, enjoying my meal and not bothering anyone around me, but the person across from me feels awkward and keeps trying to drag me into a conversation in order because HE wants to, and yet I AM the one forcing my aversion on others?

Communal tables are actually becoming increasingly common. I remember one place (quick serve Chinese) I'd go for lunch, and if you arrived solo you'd get seated at a big round table next to someone else. You'd get your own tea though. For the most part I don't remember anyone ever talking at that table except with the waiter.

Here's a listing of some restaurants in San Francisco with communal tables:

http://www.zagat.com/sanfrancisco/communal-tables-restaurants

And as my experiences with Amtrak dining cars have been somewhat limited, I still found that I had zero issues when seated with my child for breakfast. Once we were seated with a couple from a room, and they were pleasant and we engaged in small talk. The other time we were seated alone since there weren't many people coming in at the time. While I guess my kid wasn't the greatest behaved (kept on eating those jam packets) I think anyone would be hard-pressed to say there was anything about the experience that was annoying or bratty. Now my kid's full on meltdown on BART last weekend is another matter, but I fault myself for not letting my kid stick the ticket in the fare gate. I was apologetic to everyone, and it strangely stopped when we arrived and I let my kid insert the ticket into the exit gate. I've learned but I occasionally forget. My kid gets to push the elevator button and always has to greet me at the door when I get home from work. When my wife opens the door first, I inevitable have to go back outside and ring the bell again to let my kid greet me.

But frankly - I don't consider kids a problem on Amtrak. I consider the adults taking off their shoes and being seat hogs a bigger problem than the majority of kids. The kids have fun and when they display certain types of behavior they may not know better. The adults know better and simply choose to behave badly.

 

[BCL]

. I use the word crying brats because that's what I see kids who continue to disrupt others as.

I bet you were a child once yourself. :wacko: I doubt you were not born as a 35 year old person! :blink:

I say if anyone wants this they can pay for it.

Drive your own car. Charter a private car service. Heck - charter a private plane. Even on Amtrak I mentioned one can charter a private car and pay Amtrak to haul it around the country.

Amtrak is a government chartered corporation with a mission to serve the people of the United States as well as foreign visitors. That doesn't mean the OP's select (i.e. adult-only) clientele but also families who pay the tax dollars that subsidize the service.

 

[the Other Mike]

I don't know exactly why the OP chose to use such a loaded term as "brats" to describe children. I was thinking maybe it was a trolling post in search of a response. Amtrak markets heavily to families with children. Kids love trains, and trains have a lot of the space and facilities that aren't available with road or air travel. So yeah there's a good chance you'll be hearing crying brats around private rooms. Is that a problem?
I'd ask if a lot of anti-social curmugeons end up in private rooms?

Yes, I do

 

[chakk]

Not only may you find children in coach making undesirable noise, you could well find adults in coach making undesirable. A few years I rode in coach on the CZ from Emeryville to Salt Lake City. A woman in a few seats behind was running a "Dial-A-Prayer" service on her cell phone nonstop from the time she boarded in Reno until the coach attendant turned out the lights and the conductor announced "Quiet Time" over the P.A. Half the car could hear "one side" of her conversations for nearly 6 hours!

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Yours must not be the twisted, confusing, and convoluted mind that came up with the idea of a Quiet Car. Clearly, many passengers don't want to socialize with other passengers. Many trains (though not LD ones that I'm aware of) have Quiet Cars for precisely this reason.

I fully support the idea of having quiet cars on LD trains. Sitting at a diner table with other strangers is a choice. Sitting in a coach car full of loud and obnoxious people should be a choice as well. I support the ability of folks to get away and be on their own. If you so choose, I will eat with you, even if you have zero intention of carrying on a conversation. I just don't understand why you'd intentionally put yourself in a situation you dislike so strongly.

If, in "virtually every restaurant in the entire country", "everybody keeps their distance and nobody expects to hear so much as a peep from anyone they didn't explicitly choose to eat with", is it that outrageous to want the same on Amtrak? When given the chance, even the most extreme extroverts choose NOT to eat with strangers. Why not give everybody that chance?

Luckily everyone already has a chance to eat in relative silence at their own seat or in their own compartment or in the snack car. Why is that not acceptable or even desirable to you compared to being seated across from strangers?

I'm introverted myself, but that doesn't mean we have the need or the right to go around forcing our social aversion on others. When I choose to eat in the diner I expect to join the conversation. If I don't want to participate I either take my food to go or I have it delivered or I eat in the snack car, or I just don't bother eating that meal. There are more than enough options to work with.

Wait. I'm sitting quietly, enjoying my meal and not bothering anyone around me, but the person across from me feels awkward and keeps trying to drag me into a conversation in order because HE wants to, and yet I AM the one forcing my aversion on others?

That sounds like a reasonable rebuttal, until you realize it's from the same person who wrote this...

There's nothing I'd like to change more about Amtrak travel than to get rid of community seating.

Then there's this nugget of information...

We live in a world that is run by extroverts (because they are noisy and bossy and prefer to take control of things). If you don't enjoy making meaningless small talk with strangers whom you'll never see again, then there's something wrong with you.

So who exactly is holding the extremist view here?

 

[D.P. Roberts]

If you so choose, I will eat with you, even if you have zero intention of carrying on a conversation. I just don't understand why you'd intentionally put yourself in a situation you dislike so strongly....

Luckily everyone already has a chance to eat in relative silence at their own seat or in their own compartment or in the snack car. Why is that not acceptable or even desirable to you compared to being seated across from strangers?

1) Eating in the snack car is not the same as eating in the dining car. First of all, the food in the dining car is better. Secondly, it's free.

2) Eating in the room is not the same as eating in the dining car. On a journey of 2-3 days, I look forward to getting out of the roomette for a while (yes, the lounge car is available too, and I go there as well, but it's often too crowded to find a seat, at least during the busy season when I travel). It also has a bigger table (there's no way 2 people can eat at the tiny table in a roomette). You also get a better view in the dining car. It also means a lot less work (well, zero work) for the SCA, who would otherwise have to bring me all my food and drinks, and they probably wouldn't be at the same temperature as when they were plated.

So, as I said, if there's one thing I would change about Amtrak, it would be to get rid of community seating. However, I put up with it because the options are worse.

It's not horrible, I just don't enjoy it. All things being equal, I still look forward to meals.

What bothers me - more than the community seating itself - is the understanding on this forum that "one MUST enjoy community seating in the dining car, because it's traditional to do so. Even if no one at the table wants to talk, you MUST do so anyway! And, if you don't want to talk, you should exclude yourself from the dining car altogether!"

I don't know where it's written down in the Official Amtrak Passenger Manual, and from my experience many other passengers feel the same. If you read the second half of my post, you would see that I DO talk at the table, when my fellow passengers want to - and I leave them in silence if they want that instead. Why is that so wrong?

 

[Everydaymatters]

On my last trip there was a family of four: mom, dad, 2 or 3 years old child and an infant. The infant started to cry and my first thought was "oh no! This is going to be a nightmare".

In no time at all the parents had quieted the baby.

One thing to keep in mind is that parents traveling with children in cramped quarters don't want to hear the noise of loud kids resonating off the walls.

Another poster commented about people leaving the bathroom door open so it keeps swinging back and forth all night. That and the crew talking loudly early in the morning are my biggest gripe. Oh, and let's not forget the people who ring for the SA in the middle of the night.

 

[Guest]

I don't know exactly why the OP chose to use such a loaded term as "brats" to describe children. I was thinking maybe it was a trolling post in search of a response. Amtrak markets heavily to families with children. Kids love trains, and trains have a lot of the space and facilities that aren't available with road or air travel. So yeah there's a good chance you'll be hearing crying brats around private rooms. Is that a problem?

I have to agree with you 100% about the OP's very poor and quite inappropriate choice of referring to kids as "brats".

From my experience, if there is excessive noise at night, its squarely from adults.

 

[user 1215]

Generally where there are children acting up, it's because of bratty parents who prefer to offend others than their own precious gem by not disciplining them appropriately. The children just do what children do.

 

[the Other Mike]

Generally where there are children acting up, it's because of bratty parents who prefer to offend others than their own precious gem by not disciplining them appropriately. The children just do what children do.

Ba Zing, we have a winner

 

[sitzplatz17]

I take no issue with the term "brat". I don't think the OP was referring to all children, rather just the concern that if there are bratty children how likely is it that they would be heard.

I personally find no joy in children, happy or crying ones. But recognize that they are a fact of life when travelling in public.

As long as parents are doing a good job at keeping them occupied I won't make a peep about it. The problem is when the parents are clueless about how obnoxious their brat is being, which, as said above makes the parents the real brats!

 

[BCL]

I take no issue with the term "brat". I don't think the OP was referring to all children, rather just the concern that if there are bratty children how likely is it that they would be heard.
I personally find no joy in children, happy or crying ones. But recognize that they are a fact of life when travelling in public.

As long as parents are doing a good job at keeping them occupied I won't make a peep about it. The problem is when the parents are clueless about how obnoxious their brat is being, which, as said above makes the parents the real brats!

No - it's a loaded term and was used to describe children in general in the context in which I read it.

The fact is that an Amtrak train is not a library. It's not going to be quiet. There's the sound of the rails, the bell, and the horn. The biggest personal annoyance factor on Amtrak isn't going to be children but adults, and several examples were given of how bad adult behavior made for a difficult Amtrak trip. However, the OP specifically homed in on whether children would spoil the experience. And if there is a problem, it's usually going to be the fault of an adult - with or without children.

 

[amamba]

I take no issue with the term "brat". I don't think the OP was referring to all children, rather just the concern that if there are bratty children how likely is it that they would be heard.
I personally find no joy in children, happy or crying ones. But recognize that they are a fact of life when travelling in public.

As long as parents are doing a good job at keeping them occupied I won't make a peep about it. The problem is when the parents are clueless about how obnoxious their brat is being, which, as said above makes the parents the real brats!

No - it's a loaded term and was used to describe children in general in the context in which I read it.

The fact is that an Amtrak train is not a library. It's not going to be quiet. There's the sound of the rails, the bell, and the horn. The biggest personal annoyance factor on Amtrak isn't going to be children but adults, and several examples were given of how bad adult behavior made for a difficult Amtrak trip. However, the OP specifically homed in on whether children would spoil the experience. And if there is a problem, it's usually going to be the fault of an adult - with or without children.

Except in the quiet car, which is advertised as a "library like atmosphere."

 

[D.P. Roberts]

I personally find no joy in children, happy or crying ones. But recognize that they are a fact of life when travelling in public.

No - it's a loaded term and was used to describe children in general in the context in which I read it.

So, to play devil's advocate here for a minute...

Why is "brat" a loaded term? Isn't the OP allowed to dislike children?

I don't dislike children (however, I do dislike dogs, and I'm very glad they're not allowed onboard). Is the OP not allowed to have a preference - even a strong one - for traveling without children around?

 

[JoeBas]

So, to play devil's advocate here for a minute...
Why is "brat" a loaded term? Isn't the OP allowed to dislike children?

I don't dislike children (however, I do dislike dogs, and I'm very glad they're not allowed onboard). Is the OP not allowed to have a preference - even a strong one - for traveling without children around?

Sure he is. And we're allowed to have an opinion about that opinion.

Welcome to America.

 

[BCL]

I personally find no joy in children, happy or crying ones. But recognize that they are a fact of life when travelling in public.

No - it's a loaded term and was used to describe children in general in the context in which I read it.

So, to play devil's advocate here for a minute...

Why is "brat" a loaded term? Isn't the OP allowed to dislike children?

I don't dislike children (however, I do dislike dogs, and I'm very glad they're not allowed onboard). Is the OP not allowed to have a preference - even a strong one - for traveling without children around?

Is it not a loaded term? If one comes in with the expectation that children will spoil the experience, that person will generally find any reason to justify that prejudice whether any annoyance is minor or even quantitatively less than annoyances from adults. If one comes in with the expectation that children will be brats, there's going to be a qualitative sense to that effect. I wish people like the OP wouldn't travel on Amtrak because in my experience someone coming in with a lot of emotional baggage about how bad their experience can be find it to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, anyone who buys a ticket has a right to travel on Amtrak. And that includes families with children as well as people who wish children aren't in their presence.

If it's unacceptable, I suggested chartering a private railcar. If someone really wants a child free experience, that's what one will get. However, I do understand that some of these private railcars are serviced by their owners who often bring along their families as part of the deal.

 

[the Other Mike]

While I certainly understand that some people want to argue for the sake of ...well argueing, I didn't read the OP as saying all kids are brats as much as he was saying all brats are kids. However, I would argue THAT point because many adults I see act like brats.

Discuss, there will be a test on Thursday

 

[user 1215]

As others have already properly stated, there is no expectation of a kid-free experience when dealing with communal transportation. That is why many have private aircraft. And many who don't have private cars & some are lucky to have private varnish!