No Smoking on four trains

[Anthony]

Apparently equipment constraints have caused a shortage in smoking lounges in the East, so smoking is now prohibited on:

Three Rivers (between New York and Chicago),

Lake Shore Limited (between New York and Albany only),

Cardinal (between Washington and Chicago),

Palmetto (between New York and Miami).

Sounds like they will attempt to make some smoking stops available, but for now on-board smoking is prohibited on those trains.

Just a FYI.

 

[Amfleet]

I'm surprised the Lake Shore did not have the ban for the whole route. Just the other day it had a Horizon Coach Dinette.

 

[Viewliner]

Nice to see too bad they can't do it on all trains or at least Silver Service and Crescent and the entire route of the ones mentioned. I at least hope the routes where smoking is permitted, will get the refurbished Amfleet II Lounges.

Thanks for the info Anthony.

 

[battalion51]

I would have to imagine that's the reasoning behind it. There are 14 rebuilt cars and 11 unrebuilt. One would guess that the Three Rivers, Cardinal, and Palmetto would be taking those cars on, leaving the other 14 cars for the other Long Distance routes. Thanks for the info Anthony.

 

[jccollins]

They need to get rid of smoking, permanently, on ALL trains!

 

[Viewliner]

They need to get rid of smoking, permanently, on ALL trains!

Amen to that!!! Just designate smoking stops.

 

[Amfleet]

They need to get rid of smoking, permanently, on ALL trains!

Amen to that!!! Just designate smoking stops.

And more time for photos for the non-smokers.

 

[tubaallen]

They need to get rid of smoking, permanently, on ALL trains!

Amen to that!!! Just designate smoking stops.

I do agree AMEN to no smoking, however, I disagree with designating smoking stops. I think one thing Amtrak needs to focus on is improving travel times as much as possible, and smoke stops certainly do not help this. If you're going to get rid of smoking, just get rid of it (which isn't probably the greatest idea on LD trains). Otherwise, have a place to do it.

 

[sutton8596]

AMEN to all your AMENS about end the smoking!

Let them smoke during the regular stops, but no special stops, please!

I guess first we ought to pray that ALL the trains survive this year.

 

[Viewliner]

I think smokers should just be able to step right in front of the train to have a quick smoke, but get on quickly with no extension, I was saying smoking stops in terms of Stations where smoking is allowed vs. prohibited (Like NYP).

 

[tubaallen]

I think smokers should just be able to step right in front of the train to have a quick smoke, but get on quickly with no extension, I was saying smoking stops in terms of Stations where smoking is allowed vs. prohibited (Like NYP).

Ah, well I guess in that case, I would be okay with it. I just know that on our corridor trains around here, the conductors sometimes stay an extra minute or two for people to finish up. I don't think that's a good idea.

 

[Bud Green]

Whew! What a bunch of politically correct little busybodies!!!

I ALWAYS see plenty of people using the smoking lounge. If you're all so gung-ho about keeping riders, why would you want to alienate more people who are riding the trains???

I could give a rat's behind about smoking cigarettes, but where will all this politically correct garbage end?

Having a smoking lounge is NO BIG DEAL, but keeping riders IS.

A few of you are quit clueless.

 

[battalion51]

I know for a fact down here that if you want to smoke longer you can wait for the next train. One of our AC's got on the PA nd said if you'd like to smoke you can catch a Tri-Rail, it leaves Ft Lauderdale at 400 tomorrow morning.

 

[spot1181]

On the other hand having all non-smoking trains may attract MORE riders.

I know that I will not eat in a restaurant without a non-smoking section.

 

[Amfleet]

I do think enclosed smoking lounges are actually better than banning smoking altogether. I'm sure passengers who smoke, take Amtrak knowing that they will not be deprived of a quick fix whenever they want and not have to wait for a special smoking stop. Remember, smoking is an addiction and you can run into problems of a passenger getting agressive if they have not had a smoke in a certain amount of time. I know many people who have and are trying to quit and it is tougher than many think.

 

[AlanB]

Add to that, the fact that there are plenty of smokers who ride Amtrak simply because they can smoke. If they could smoke on the airplane, then they'd be at the airport.

Instead they are buying Amtrak tickets. That's more revenue for Amtrak.

While it costs a little extra to setup the cars properly, I personally think that having a smoking lounge is a big selling point for Amtrak. When you have an unconverted lounge, well then that's a big problem. But with a smoker coach or a converted lounge, as long as there are smokers then Amtrak should continue to allow it.

 

[tubaallen]

Whew! What a bunch of politically correct little busybodies!!!I ALWAYS see plenty of people using the smoking lounge. If you're all so gung-ho about keeping riders, why would you want to alienate more people who are riding the trains???

I could give a rat's behind about smoking cigarettes, but where will all this politically correct garbage end?

Having a smoking lounge is NO BIG DEAL, but keeping riders IS.

A few of you are quit clueless.

I don't think most of us are arguing with you on that. We support the smoking lounges. We're mainly just discussing how to handle the situation if they make a train a non-smoking train.

 

[tp49]

Add to that, the fact that there are plenty of smokers who ride Amtrak simply because they can smoke. If they could smoke on the airplane, then they'd be at the airport.

This might be true to some extent but coming back from my most recent trip and seeing the smoking lounges at a couple of airports makes me disagree to some extent (They were packed). Smoking was banned from airplanes a long time ago and by now the traveling public in this country is used to it. I really think that applies to the LD services as most if not all of the corridor services are non-smoking as well as all trains under Amtrak California, The Coast Starlite and all trains in NYS (execpt 48/49).

It all comes down to what one considers is a reasonable time for a smoker to go without which I would place at around 3.5 hours the duration of the average flight.

From personal experience I have noticed that most train crews will allow smokers off at certain stations time permitting to smoke on short haul trains. However, on the long haul routes this is just not feasable particularly in places where there are 100+ miles between stops (namely the Rockies).

Thus, so long as the technology is available to have smoking lounges on the LD's that are well ventilated so not to disturb non-smoking passengers smoking should continue to be allowed on long-haul Amtrak services.

 

[jccollins]

Thus, so long as the technology is available to have smoking lounges on the LD's that are well ventilated so not to disturb non-smoking passengers smoking should continue to be allowed on long-haul Amtrak services.

It wouldn't be a problem if the smoking lounges were well ventilated and the smoke didn't get out into the regular passenger car. I can ALWAYS smell smoke if I am seated in a Superliner coach above the smoking car. This is my main complaint. If I didn't smell smoke above the lounge throughout the trip, I wouldn't complain.

Smokers often get away with leaving the smoking lounge door open to get air from the train (which also lets smoke out into the train). I have complained to conductors about this problem and while most fix it some have chosen to ignore it.

 

[battalion51]

What they should do is place an automatic door into the lounge on the smoking coaches so that unless one of them figures out how to operate the switch to hold the door open it remains closed. Also on trains like the Sunset it is listed as being as a completely non smoking train, but more often than not a smoking lounge appears. When the lounge is there the smokers can smoke, but its no big surprise to the smokers when its not there. I think if this policy is adapted on the four new trains (if we have a lounge you can smoke) than everyone will be happy, non smokers and smokers.

 

[tubaallen]

What they should do is place an automatic door into the lounge on the smoking coaches so that unless one of them figures out how to operate the switch to hold the door open it remains closed.

I know on the single-level equipment, it is open in the lounge, but this is already the case on the superliners. The smoking lounge always has an automatic door.

 

[Amfleet]

Tuballen,

A small correction. About 15 single level lounges have been rebuilt with an enclosed smoking lounge on one side of the snack bar. On the other is about 8 table booths for non-smokers. I know you only worked on a single level train once or twice.

 

[Superliner Diner]

They need to get rid of smoking, permanently, on ALL trains!

Amen to that!!! Just designate smoking stops.

I'm all for banning smoking entirely. Do we really want to delay the train for a smoking stop because some passengers have a drug addiction? They would have to pad the schedules at some stops to give them enough time to light up and get their fix. And whose job will it be to clean up all those discarded butts that will inevitably be littered around the train boarding area on the platforms?

 

[battalion51]

You don't necessarily have to pad the schedule. You just do it major stops that have plans for ten minutes or more in the card, Tampa, JAX, FLO, WAS, etc.

 

[tubaallen]

Tuballen,A small correction. About 15 single level lounges have been rebuilt with an enclosed smoking lounge on one side of the snack bar. On the other is about 8 table booths for non-smokers. I know you only worked on a single level train once or twice.

Amfleet,

Thanks for the correction . You're right, I only worked the LSL once, and that was my only working single level experience. I've rode as a passenger on some of it occasionally, most often on midwest corridor trains, but once in a while on the east coast, or between the midwest and the east coast.

And, on top of that, as soon as I read your post, I realized that I HAVE witnessed ONE of those once. I was surprised by it...it's kind of strange, but definitely a good idea.