The hidden Union Station (Chicago): Take a tour

[Cho Cho Charlie]

Regardless, I'm not so certain that Amtrak getting into the 'hotel' business is really that much of a stretch; The company already operates a network of rolling hotel rooms on rails (sleeping cars) complete with dining service. A stationary room would seem to be even easier to operate and manage (as an alternative, you could always contract-out the day to day operation to a local hotel operator with existing staff and experience).

That would seem to be to be a good argument that Amtrak should not get into the 'hotel' business. Their rolling hotel rooms and dining service, isn't exactly leaving Amtrak swimming in cash.

And I am sure that Congress will mucky it up so that an Amtrak 'hotel' can't compete with their favorite campaign contributors, the Hiltons and the Marriotts.

 

[willem]

The "hotel/rooms" idea has great merit. If Amtrak were possible of "thinking outside the box", I'd like to see them contract with a branded hotel company, and build X rooms that are of normal size, and have the normal amenities, but also build Y rooms that are almost specifically designed for missed connections, and/or crew.

As I recall, the space designated for "hotel" rooms is not nearly large enough to interest a major-brand hotel. I don't know what would be involved in allocating more space for hotel rooms. I would be interested in having an attached hotel, but the economics would probably demand that it be significantly upscale, like Saint Louis or Denver.

Holding rooms against the possibility of a missed connection would not make sense to me. If a hotel could sell a room, it should sell the room. Once the missed connection is certain, Amtrak could reserve rooms, as I assume it does now.

Similarly, designing lower-class rooms for passengers whose trains missed connections does not make sense to me. If it's a hotel, have rooms available for sale to the general public. I would not even set aside lower-class rooms for crew space unless the number of rooms is almost constant. As a manager, I would not want rooms to sit empty because there are fewer crew members than crew rooms, and I would not want crew members to be in two different classes of rooms because there are more crew members than there are crew rooms.

For all I know, Amtrak has considered all this and decided setting space aside for a hotel did not make sense. Perhaps Amtrak even discussed it with one or more major hotel brands and found little interest.

 

[blondninja]

These hotels though are just brands. Nearly every hotel is really just franchised and has to meet brand standards of whatever chain they use.

Thus Amtrak could be the franchisee or rent space to a third party who would in turn franchise with Hilton, Starwood, Marriott etc.

Of course, there's a W right down the street as well as a Marriott and the Palmer House Hilton so that limits some of the brands due to proximity.

Perhaps an Ace hotel or smaller boutique brand if they were serious.

 

[KauaiJohn]

Is there a way to see it without suscribing?

 

[willem]

Amtrak is apparently not serious about having a hotel in Chicago Union Station, as was mentioned earlier. This would seem to make franchise discussions irrelevant.

 

[dlagrua]

It is great to see the restoration of the great hall in Chicgos Union Station but what can never be restored is the stone train shed that connected to the great hall. An office building now sits there similar to what was done to Penn Station in NY and at Bostons North Station.

A few years ago when the EB arrived at 3AM we could not find our baggage so a Red cap took us down below to the basement of the Union Station to retrieve our luggage. Its not pretty down there; strictly baggage, storage and utilities but at least we can say that we were there! AFAIK the CUS basement is off limits.