Viewliner Sleeper Bathroom Question

[glensfallsse]

In the new Viewliners, without the in-room bathrooms, does anybody know how they'll use the extra space? Will they still have the sink and mirror in the room or will they instead put a larger seat in place of the narrower one, like the Superliner? And does this mean the upper bunk will now be usable for a 6-4 guy?

 

[PVD]

I believe the sink stays, but last time I looked, the RailPlan (company that makes the modules) has pictures of the mockup on their site.

 

[Ferroequinologist]

Incredible that at a time when public toilets are a MAJOR health risk Amtrak is downgrading service so that toilets are eliminated from private rooms. Even before Covid-19 this was a foolish move.

 

[IndyLions]

In my opinion, listening to your customers and potential customers is rarely a foolish move. A lot of people are grossed out by having an unenclosed toilet in the Viewliner Roomette. If you are trying to appeal to a wider audience it is probably the right move.

And let’s face it, we’re averaging about one significant pandemic every 50-100 years (1915 flu and this one) - I don’t think EVERY decision should be made based on the potential for a pandemic. Public restrooms aren’t suddenly going to go the way of the pay phone...

 

[PVD]

The cars were designed and the roomette modules were ordered years ago. The roomette modules are probably all built and sitting crated on pallets. That ship has already sailed. More people wanted them gone, than wanted them to stay....

 

[Exvalley]

Let's be honest. If the sink stays in the roomette it will be a combination sink and urinal for many travelers.

 

[Rasputin]

Let's be honest. If the sink stays in the roomette it will be a combination sink and urinal for many travelers.

Unfortunately I think you may be correct. Keeping the sinks but getting rid of the toilets is a questionable move. Should have been all or nothing.

 

[me_little_me]

Unfortunately I think you may be correct. Keeping the sinks but getting rid of the toilets is a questionable move. Should have been all or nothing.

Disagree. Having a sink means shaving, washing hands before and after eating in-room or out, brushing teeth, etc. Think of the line of people with everyone every night waiting to brush their teeth and every morning waiting to shave (well, half the people).
As to other uses, well, there are always the very tall or the stupid everywhere.

 

[Exvalley]

Think of the line of people with everyone every night waiting to brush their teeth and every morning waiting to shave (well, half the people).

Is that a problem in the Superliners?

 

[me_little_me]

Is that a problem in the Superliners?

11 roomettes - 2 bathrooms
14 roomettes, one family room - 4 bathrooms (one upstairs/3 downstairs)

Am I right?

 

[Rasputin]

Having a sink means shaving, washing hands before and after eating in-room or out, brushing teeth, etc.

Well, that is what it means to me also but to uncouth people I am afraid it will suggest other opportunities and unfortunately there are plenty of uncouth people around.

 

[Exvalley]

11 roomettes - 2 bathrooms
14 roomettes, one family room - 4 bathrooms (one upstairs/3 downstairs)

Am I right?

Yes and no. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the utilization of Superliner bedrooms is far from uniform. The upstairs bathroom sees much more use than the downstairs bathrooms.

Regardless, the argument that there Viewliners would have queues for brushing teeth seems to be a bit overstated. At most you might need to wait a couple of minutes. Some people see that as a fair tradeoff compared to having a combination sink/urinal in the roomette.

I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer here. Just as with the toilet located in the roomette there will always be a split opinion.

 

[joelkfla]

Let's be honest. If the sink stays in the roomette it will be a combination sink and urinal for many travelers.

Ooh! Yet another use for the steps to the upper berth. (Picture, if you will ...)

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

More people wanted them gone, than wanted them to stay....

Prove it.

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

In my opinion, listening to your customers and potential customers is rarely a foolish move. A lot of people are grossed out by having an unenclosed toilet in the Viewliner Roomette. If you are trying to appeal to a wider audience it is probably the right move.

I assume you always stay in a hotel, where there is a common shared bathroom down the hall. For me, I think my grandparents did.

Yea, I suspect that Hilton or Marriott would save a lot of money, if they could get away with building hotels without private bathrooms in their rooms.

 

[Ferroequinologist]

Prove it.

Exactly. There is no such proof! A compromise would be to have a couple of bathrooms at the end of the hall for those whose sensibilities are offended by a toilet in the room. For older people, trips to the bathroom in the middle of the night are common and having to trudge down the hall is a real pain. Also the Roomettes are far too small for two people and should not even be permitted. Amtrak is in reality a nationalized railway and should be looking after the interests of the public. Public bathrooms - especially the tiny ones on Amtrak - are breeding grounds for germs. I've had the flu three times in my life. One was on Amtrak and I am certain that it was a result of using the public 'bathroom' in a Superliner -and that was back in the 1980s. Amtrak hasn't progressed. The same Superliners are still running - aging and in sad shape. New Viewliners have been downgraded to rooms with no toilets. Maybe some people here haven't noticed, but in the rest of the USA there has been a major upgrading of bathroom standards -- just look at hotels from the most simple motel to a five star hotel. Amtrak seems NOT to have noticed. You'd think the management back in Washington think we go to outhouses. It's a disgrace. And the same can be said of then unhealthy junk food they are serving.

 

[PVD]

I personally like the bathroom in the roomette. I'm one of those get up a couple of times a night folks myself. But I don't have to prove anything. This was beaten to death years ago, when the cars were designed and the contracts were signed. And just like today, it was clearly a divided issue. Do I think they might have made a different call if it was today, yes. Surveys were sent out and focus groups conducted, as well as input from marketing and engineering/maintenance and OBS. I think many people feel differently today than 4-5 years ago, but lots of people really disliked the idea of sleeping in a room with a toilet, and privacy was brought up by many people who were sharing the room. If you want proof of something that happened 5 years ago, good luck with the FOIA and obtaining internal documents and records. A decision was made that many of us are not thrilled with, but having our own opinions does not entitle us to our own facts.

 

[Qapla]

Why not have some roomettes with toilets and some without and let them be requested/assigned on a fcfs basis

 

[me_little_me]

Yes and no. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the utilization of Superliner bedrooms is far from uniform. The upstairs bathroom sees much more use than the downstairs bathrooms.

Regardless, the argument that there Viewliners would have queues for brushing teeth seems to be a bit overstated. At most you might need to wait a couple of minutes. Some people see that as a fair tradeoff compared to having a combination sink/urinal in the roomette.

I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer here. Just as with the toilet located in the roomette there will always be a split opinion.

I don't disagree about the toilet. I never said or even implied I did. My posting quoted what I was commenting on from this quote:

Unfortunately I think you may be correct. Keeping the sinks but getting rid of the toilets is a questionable move. Should have been all or nothing.

And that I was trying to point out, the sink is a separate issue and not overstated. The Superliners have more than twice the proportion of bathrooms for the roomettes. Now, I don't like not having a sink and wouldn't mind having the toilet in the room if there were one outside other than walking to coach but with two people in a roomette, it's as much of a problem having the in-room toilet as having the availability of a couple down the hall - but each has its advantages.

Not "all or nothing". The toilet issue stands on its own. - Well, okay, it stands on the floor!

 

[Mailliw]

I assume you always stay in a hotel, where there is a common shared bathroom down the hall. For me, I think my grandparents did.

Yea, I suspect that Hilton or Marriott would save a lot of money, if they could get away with building hotels without private bathrooms in their rooms.

I actually have stayed in a hotel (Pod 51 in NYC) as recently as this January that had shared bathrooms in the hall. Everything was clean, the room was small (even by Manhattan standards), but I paid less than $80 a night. I've stayed in any kind of accommodation that came with a private unenclosed toilet in the room. Other than Viewliners the only other modern accommodations set up like that are prison cells. I've stayed in other micro hotels that bathrooms, but the toilet & shower were still in an enclosed cubical.

Sleeping cars are an extremely tight squeeze and shared facilities make more sense when trying to fit as many revenue spaces in as you can and still give everyone a bed. And the Viewliner II's still have options for passengers who want en-suite facilities. Even on airlines with First Class "suites" passengers still share bathrooms.

 

[PVD]

In this particular case, the removal of the toilet results in loss of revenue space.

 

[railiner]

Why not have some roomettes with toilets and some without and let them be requested/assigned on a fcfs basis

That's the way it was prior to Amtrak...section sleepers had no private facilities, but a large restroom/dressing room for men and for women. The only accommodation that had a toilet in a room for two, but not in a separate annex, was a double slumbercoach. But IIRC, even that had a public restroom down the hall.

 

[Ferroequinologist]

I actually have stayed in a hotel (Pod 51 in NYC) as recently as this January that had shared bathrooms in the hall. Everything was clean, the room was small (even by Manhattan standards), but I paid less than $80 a night. I've stayed in any kind of accommodation that came with a private unenclosed toilet in the room. Other than Viewliners the only other modern accommodations set up like that are prison cells. I've stayed in other micro hotels that bathrooms, but the toilet & shower were still in an enclosed cubical.

Sleeping cars are an extremely tight squeeze and shared facilities make more sense when trying to fit as many revenue spaces in as you can and still give everyone a bed. And the Viewliner II's still have options for passengers who want en-suite facilities. Even on airlines with First Class "suites" passengers still share bathrooms.

As I said, those passengers who do not want to use the toilet in their rooms could use public bathrooms. Amtrak is providing a public service and should be properly funded, not obsessed with making as much money as they can at public expense. The whole concept of long distance travel has gravitated toward the cruise concept. That means reasonable standards and service. The Pod hotels are for the most budget minded travellers. Amtrak is charging very high fares. You cannot equate the two.

 

[Ferroequinologist]

That's the way it was prior to Amtrak...section sleepers had no private facilities, but a large restroom/dressing room for men and for women. The only accommodation that had a toilet in a room for two, but not in a separate annex, was a double slumbercoach. But IIRC, even that had a public restroom down the hall.

Section sleepers have not been around for many decades in the US. I think a few have managed to survive in Canada. The public were only too happy to abandon them when railways introduced private room sleepers. At that time the country was PROGRESSING, not REGRESSING. Slumbercoaches or sleepercoaches (they went by both names) had a toilet and sink. By charging low fares, they were an attempt to attract passengers at a time that revenues were declining.

 

[Ferroequinologist]

In this particular case, the removal of the toilet results in loss of revenue space.

True and that should not be Amtrak's main concern. I know that Amtrak is under great pressure from Congress and that long distance trains may not even survive but I very much doubt that the money earned from one or two more sleeping car rooms compared to having more bathrooms is worth the passenger discomfort involved and the poor image it gives Amtrak. Are sleepers even sold out most of the time? The Superliners are in poor shape and have to be replaced before too long IF Amtrak is going to continue long distance service. The design of sleeping-car accommodations needs to be reconsidered in light of present day standards/expectations and health concerns.