Sharing Room / Roommate

[Devil's Advocate]

I hate to tell you but NOBODY schedules shower time in sleepers!

Yes, I'm well aware of that. Obviously this would change under my proposal.

It's first come - first served. Most times I get right in - even at "rush hour" - 7 or 8 AM! I think the longest "line" I had was 1 person - who was just getting out!

You might have to wait a little longer if my plan ever came to fruition. But since you apparently remember a time when trains hardly had any showers I'd imagine you'd find a way to deal with a few extra minutes of wait time.

Remember that in the 1960's and prior, there was only 1 shower on the train - and that was in the MOST EXPENSIVE ROOM for use by that room only! No other sleeper passenger or coach passenger has use of a shower for days on end - and they still survived!

All throughout my life showers have never been more than maybe 15 hours away at most. Except when traveling in coach on Amtrak where they can suddenly be forty hours away or more. My suggestion aims to address that. Also, I can read you just fine with normal text so please stop with all the bolding and capitalizing and exclaiming.

>>>THANKS IN ADVANCE!<<<

 

[lthanlon]

The times I've been unable to travel in a sleeper, I've brought a small package of baby-wipe type of towlettes. Being able to freshen up this way has made all the difference.

 

[Ryan]

This sounds like another "solution in search of a problem" to me...

I've done my share of overnights in coach, and haven't had any problem waiting to get a shower until I get to my destination.

 

[haolerider]

Amtrak can take the additional revenue from shower service fees and pay their staff to actually CLEAN the showers when they get dirty.

So you're saying that Amtrak should hire a ShA (Shower Attendant) whose ONLY job is to sit by the shower and clean it after EVERY coach passenger using the shower?

There would be no exclusive shower cleaner sitting around waiting for something to do. The attendant already staffing the car would handle the on-board cleanings with station based maintenance staff handling the water/effluent and heavy duty cleanings.

BTW - It is in the CA (car attendant) duties to clean the bathrooms when he/she finds time. But with 70+ passengers per car, he/she may not find time as often as you like. (And I admit, some may be lazy and not do it anyway)

Dirty showers and toilets should result in vouchers. Vouchers should result in disciplinary action. Repeated failures to perform to job expectations should result in additional training or reassignment to remedial work details.

And would it also be the ShA's duty to collect the fee and distribute the towels to those that pay?

I envision something like a shower pass sold in the lounge. Presumably they'd have a list of available time slots. It would also be a free option for sleeper passengers to choose their preferred times while booking their room. Something like that.

All your arguements and statements notwithstanding, I still see this as a definite "no-go".

As Traveler mentioned, the current procedure finds the SCA not always cleaning the showers as often as needed, and I have no idea who is going to issue the "vouchers" you mention. The Conductor? His/her job is to run the train safely and they are not supervisors of the on-board crew.

Also, I don't know who you mean when you mention the station maintenance staff, who you envision handling the watering of the train. Most stations do not have maintenance staff and most are staffed to a minimal level, sometimes barely able to handle ticketing, boarding, baggage, etc.

I am not about to calculate the potential revenue from your proposal, but in my opinion it would not be sufficient to cover the potential extra work.

Open access showers is still a "no-go". I believe there are far more serious issues to tackle for Amtrak than showers for everyone.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

This sounds like another "solution in search of a problem" to me. I've done my share of overnights in coach, and haven't had any problem waiting to get a shower until I get to my destination.

That depends on what you consider the problem to be. For me it's easy access to shower facilities. It's possible I'm the only potential coach passenger who would be swayed toward more train travel with improved access to showers, but I doubt it. For Amtrak the problem is filling every available seat and collecting as much revenue as possible to improve their bottom line and to help make the case for continued or expanded government support. I'd be fine with additional sleeper compartments from an order of brand new world class sleeper cars, but since that seems to be a rather difficult order to procure under the current circumstances I have proposed an alternative.

As Traveler mentioned, the current procedure finds the SCA not always cleaning the showers as often as needed, and I have no idea who is going to issue the "vouchers" you mention. The Conductor? His/her job is to run the train safely and they are not supervisors of the on-board crew.

Vouchers would be provided by the same people who currently provide vouchers, not the on-board crew.

Also, I don't know who you mean when you mention the station maintenance staff, who you envision handling the watering of the train. Most stations do not have maintenance staff and most are staffed to a minimal level, sometimes barely able to handle ticketing, boarding, baggage, etc.

It's quite possible that additional staff would be needed at a few midpoint stations, either to handle in-station shower cleaning at longer stops or to maintain onboard showers at midpoints in a long distance journey. It's also possible that some of this could be mitigated by other options, such as showers that control water usage or by adding additional shower facilities to coach and/or lounge cars.

I am not about to calculate the potential revenue from your proposal, but in my opinion it would not be sufficient to cover the potential extra work. Open access showers is still a "no-go". I believe there are far more serious issues to tackle for Amtrak than showers for everyone.

I would agree that this proposal will never see the light of day. Amtrak has already said as much. I would also agree that any additional revenue would take time to build up and would start out at as a loss. I would even agree that Amtrak has far more serious issues to tackle than showers on long-distance routes. Which should not be surprising in the least considering that I never once claimed otherwise.

 

[anir dendroica]

I wonder if Couch Surfing has space for people wishing to share a bedroom on a train... Couch Surfing tends to be more reliable & safer then Craigs List. (especially over seas, where they are less paranoid then us.)

peter

CouchSurfing (http://www.couchsurfing.org/) would probably be a good place to look for a roomette-mate, especially if you are leaving from one of the larger cities. I've hosted about 50 'surfers at my place over the past three years and haven't run into any bad apples.

We in America seem to have an irrational fear of strangers, buoyed by transportation systems (in particular private automobiles) that allow us to avoid casual contact with strangers and sensational reporting of the (statistically very rare) occurrence of Craigslist attacks. Personally I feel we are worse off for it. I've ridden trains in Sweden where strangers share compartments as a matter of course, with no fear of foul play.

 

[Trogdor]

I hate to tell you but NOBODY schedules shower time in sleepers!

Yes, I'm well aware of that. Obviously this would change under my proposal.

So, you want to fix something that isn't broken? I can only see that as being a negative.

That depends on what you consider the problem to be. For me it's easy access to shower facilities. It's possible I'm the only potential coach passenger who would be swayed toward more train travel with improved access to showers, but I doubt it. For Amtrak the problem is filling every available seat and collecting as much revenue as possible to improve their bottom line and to help make the case for continued or expanded government support. I'd be fine with additional sleeper compartments from an order of brand new world class sleeper cars, but since that seems to be a rather difficult order to procure under the current circumstances I have proposed an alternative.

An alternative that would add more cost than revenue (see below).

It's quite possible that additional staff would be needed at a few midpoint stations, either to handle in-station shower cleaning at longer stops or to maintain onboard showers at midpoints in a long distance journey. It's also possible that some of this could be mitigated by other options, such as showers that control water usage or by adding additional shower facilities to coach and/or lounge cars.

First off, for the in-station shower idea, since Amtrak owns very few stations, it wouldn't really be up to Amtrak to decide whether or not to provide shower facilities in most cases. As for adding staff to clean/maintain the showers, that's a pretty steep cost to cover, and it would be extremely difficult to pay for it with whatever shower fees you charge. Putting additional showers on the trains is a non-starter. Installing showers costs money (and takes up space that could be used for other things). Plumbing costs money. Plumbing maintenance costs money. Watering the cars perhaps doesn't cost money (at least, not all that much), but it takes time, which either adds to station dwells (which costs money) or increases the time required to service the train in the yard (which...you get the idea).

Adding showers to lounge cars? Easily the worst idea of the bunch.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I hate to tell you but NOBODY schedules shower time in sleepers!

Yes, I'm well aware of that. Obviously this would change under my proposal.

So, you want to fix something that isn't broken? I can only see that as being a negative.

I happen to believe that lack of shower access for coach passengers is a pretty big knock for long trips. The resident sleeper passengers strongly disagree with me. No surprises there.

An alternative that would add more cost than revenue (see below).

Initially yes. Over time that's hard to say since I'm not aware of any previous example to compare it to.

First off, for the in-station shower idea, since Amtrak owns very few stations, it wouldn't really be up to Amtrak to decide whether or not to provide shower facilities in most cases.

It's true that Amtrak would not be able to unilaterally decide which stations got showers and which did not, but I don't believe that's enough to rule it out completely.

As for adding staff to clean/maintain the showers, that's a pretty steep cost to cover, and it would be extremely difficult to pay for it with whatever shower fees you charge.

Ideally revenue from direct shower fees and increased ticket sales from folks like me would be enough to eventually cover the expense. Even if it wasn't enough how would that be any different from the rest of Amtrak's partially-recovered expenses? It's amazing (and amusing) how AU members tend to set surprisingly high bars for suggestions about improving a company that has never once turned a profit and in all likelihood never will.

Putting additional showers on the trains is a non-starter. Installing showers costs money (and takes up space that could be used for other things). Plumbing costs money. Plumbing maintenance costs money. Watering the cars perhaps doesn't cost money (at least, not all that much), but it takes time, which either adds to station dwells (which costs money) or increases the time required to service the train in the yard (which...you get the idea). Adding showers to lounge cars? Easily the worst idea of the bunch.

No, the worst idea of the bunch was trying to suggest a solution for coach passengers on a forum devoted exclusively to sleeper royalty. :lol:

 

[Ryan]

I happen to believe that lack of shower access for coach passengers is a pretty big knock for long trips. The resident sleeper passengers strongly disagree with me. No surprises there.

No, the worst idea of the bunch was trying to suggest a solution for coach passengers on a forum devoted exclusively to sleeper royalty. :lol:

I disagree with your assessment of folks on the forum. Sure there are some people here that wouldn't dare spend the night in coach, but there are plenty of us that do.

 

[haolerider]

I hate to tell you but NOBODY schedules shower time in sleepers!

Yes, I'm well aware of that. Obviously this would change under my proposal.

So, you want to fix something that isn't broken? I can only see that as being a negative.

I happen to believe that lack of shower access for coach passengers is a pretty big knock for long trips. The resident sleeper passengers strongly disagree with me. No surprises there.

An alternative that would add more cost than revenue (see below).

Initially yes. Over time that's hard to say since I'm not aware of any previous example to compare it to.

First off, for the in-station shower idea, since Amtrak owns very few stations, it wouldn't really be up to Amtrak to decide whether or not to provide shower facilities in most cases.

It's true that Amtrak would not be able to unilaterally decide which stations got showers and which did not, but I don't believe that's enough to rule it out completely.

As for adding staff to clean/maintain the showers, that's a pretty steep cost to cover, and it would be extremely difficult to pay for it with whatever shower fees you charge.

Ideally revenue from direct shower fees and increased ticket sales from folks like me would be enough to eventually cover the expense. Even if it wasn't enough how would that be any different from the rest of Amtrak's partially-recovered expenses? It's amazing (and amusing) how AU members tend to set surprisingly high bars for suggestions about improving a company that has never once turned a profit and in all likelihood never will.

Putting additional showers on the trains is a non-starter. Installing showers costs money (and takes up space that could be used for other things). Plumbing costs money. Plumbing maintenance costs money. Watering the cars perhaps doesn't cost money (at least, not all that much), but it takes time, which either adds to station dwells (which costs money) or increases the time required to service the train in the yard (which...you get the idea). Adding showers to lounge cars? Easily the worst idea of the bunch.

No, the worst idea of the bunch was trying to suggest a solution for coach passengers on a forum devoted exclusively to sleeper royalty. :lol:

I happen to think you are way off base with this comment, but given the fact that many members of this forum are heavy Amtrak travelers, they are more than likely to earn AGR points and use them to access the sleepers. I would be curious to know how many members of this forum you have met and really know. My take is that there is a pretty good mix of coach and sleeping car passengers participating and that the financial considerations dictate where people ride - along with the AGR situations. If you want to call anyone "royalty", you might go the sites that are concerned with owners of private cars - there is the Royalty!

 

[the_traveler]

Or they could add bring showers back to the stations.

I can just read the headlines in a few years!

The California Zephyr was delayed for 2 hours in Omaha, NB due to the line of 50 coach passengers waiting to use the shower at the station. It was the delayed 3 hours more at Grand Junction, CO due to the 75 coach passengers waiting for the station's shower!

I wonder how many taxpayers will write their congressman/women and say "cut Amtrak funding if we have 5 hour late trains every day"!

And if you add a shower to the coaches, which bathroom do you remove?

And if (as you said) it's in just one car, if you think it's hard to walk (for most people) with 2 hands available, how hard is it going to be to walk with your dirty clothes in one hand?

And do you want to be carrying your (not so) "tidy whities" thru 3-5 cars - maybe even the Dining Car at meal time?

Please let's agree to disagree!

(I didn't even use any bold letters!)

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I disagree with your assessment of folks on the forum. Sure there are some people here that wouldn't dare spend the night in coach, but there are plenty of us that do.

That last line wasn't an assessment so much as a bit of a joke.

If you stick around long enough you indeed find that most everyone here has traveled by coach on the LD network at some point. And yet if you bring up issues and concerns that are exclusive to coach travel you'll get so many anti-coach diatribes you'd think only fools would ever set food in a coach car for more than a few hours. It's a paradox I can't fully explain and probably wouldn't even attempt to, but that's not really my concern anyway. What I'm more interested in is improving the coach class experience for those who either can't afford sleeper tickets or who simply aren't able to reserve them far enough in advance to get a sleeper at any cost.

I happen to think you are way off base with this comment, but given the fact that many members of this forum are heavy Amtrak travelers, they are more than likely to earn AGR points and use them to access the sleepers. I would be curious to know how many members of this forum you have met and really know. My take is that there is a pretty good mix of coach and sleeping car passengers participating and that the financial considerations dictate where people ride - along with the AGR situations. If you want to call anyone "royalty", you might go the sites that are concerned with owners of private cars - there is the Royalty!

Of course I'm off base. Thankfully it was just a joke. They way you can tell is that it had one of those little smiley face things. That's not to say all my jokes are funny or in good taste, but that's probably a different discussion for another time. -_-

Please let's agree to disagree!

Not a problem. I'm more than willing to bury the hatchet, so to speak.

 

[Shawn Ryu]

I dont think SWEATING is much of a problem since Amtrak blasts AC all day and all night during summer. Unless AC is broken of course.

 

[AlanB]

A few random thoughts on the shower idea.

1) In my experience, maybe half those traveling in a sleeper even bother to use the shower. So I'm not sure that demand in coach would be much higher.

2) The train cars can't carry enough water to allow for more or less continuous showering.

3) Even far more limited than the total water suply is the hot water supply. Three or four showers in a row in the public shower, plus one in one of the bedrooms is enough to kill hot water for a good half hour or more.

4) I'm not sure if the dirty water tanks have the capacity for that increased showering either. They might, I'm just not sure. And please keep in mind that in coach, where one might be tempted to say that without a shower now they'd have room, you have to remember that you have double the number of people washing in sinks and flushing the toilets.

5) An attendant who is actually doing their job well on a full sleeper doesn't really have a lot of extra time to be cleaning, much less checking off on a list who is coming to use the shower. It's not a matter of money for that person.

6) You're increasing the through traffic in the dining car, which isn't exactly a good thing.

7) As a sleeping car passenger, I wouldn't know a day or two in advance exactly what time I'd want to take a shower. So advance registration IMHO would not be a good idea, if we could even overcome some of the other issues.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

A bit off the rail, and on the road.

As an OTR truck driver I spend more time on the road than at my house.

Truckstops/Travel centers/Service plaza are where I get my Hot water fix. Most showers cost $10.00 usd, or require 50 to 75 gals of fuel for an shower credit. Most truckstops now have an self service machine, you put in your $10 or swipped your rewards card. Then the computer gives you an shower receipt with an Pin# on it. An TV screen then show what shower your assigned. You head for your assigned door, punch in your pin #, door unlocks, and in you go.

The shower are clean after each use. Quickly sometimes an bit too quickly, but are detailed once an day, or more.

Most Truckstops chains take pride in there showers, certain one not so much.

One chain is try to keep the time the truckdriver is in the shower down by checking on the driver after one hour. The computer show the time it been in used. I personal get my door knock on, ever once in a while. The shower rooms contain an shower, sink, toliet. Full service bathroom.

I found it intresting that at first the superliner did not have a public shower, but were sent back to be refitted.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Interesting responses Alan. Here's my take.

In my experience, maybe half those traveling in a sleeper even bother to use the shower. So I'm not sure that demand in coach would be much higher.

If half of the coach passengers used the shower that still sounds like quite an untapped demand to me.

The train cars can't carry enough water to allow for more or less continuous showering.

They would need to have water added more frequently and/or have additional water storage added.

Even far more limited than the total water suply is the hot water supply. Three or four showers in a row in the public shower, plus one in one of the bedrooms is enough to kill hot water for a good half hour or more.

Perhaps solar heaters could be installed on top of the car that would hold and heat substantially more water than is currently available. Not the big and bulky designs of years past but the much thinner designs of today. Or, if that's too ground breaking, maybe we could simply add instant-on water heaters like the kind they the use in Asia. I'm not sure what the specific answer is to this, but there have been several major advancements in water heater technology in more recent years.

I'm not sure if the dirty water tanks have the capacity for that increased showering either. They might, I'm just not sure.

Perhaps sink and shower water would be eligible for an exception to allow for immediate or at-speed disposal depending on how the regulations are written.

Or rewritten.

And please keep in mind that in coach, where one might be tempted to say that without a shower now they'd have room, you have to remember that you have double the number of people washing in sinks and flushing the toilets.

I wasn't quite able to follow this part. :blink:

An attendant who is actually doing their job well on a full sleeper doesn't really have a lot of extra time to be cleaning, much less checking off on a list who is coming to use the shower. It's not a matter of money for that person.

If the SCA's can't do it then maybe we should let the CCA's handle it instead. If they can't get in there after every single use then that's unfortunate but so be it. It's not like the SCA's are actually cleaning the showers after every use either. I don't believe it has to be completely spotless to be a useful service. I've already seen some pretty poorly maintained showers as it is so I'm not too worried about it only being cleaned after every two or three users or whatever.

You're increasing the through traffic in the dining car, which isn't exactly a good thing.

I'm guessing only one or two people at a time would be moving through. That seems rather reasonable to me. The only time I've ever had trouble passing through a diner was when it came in the form of those oddball CCC cars with their built-in choke point design. And frankly I'm not sure what to say about those except to put them on the end of the train. :lol:

As a sleeping car passenger, I wouldn't know a day or two in advance exactly what time I'd want to take a shower. So advance registration IMHO would not be a good idea, if we could even overcome some of the other issues.

I envision sleeper passengers being given first dibs on scheduling but also having access during any time that was not already scheduled beforehand. In addition some times could be blocked off just for sleeper pax to show up unannounced.

 

[Shawn Ryu]

Maybe it would be a better idea to install showers at Union Station in Chicago and New Orleans Passenger Terminal (2 stations where passengers has to transfer to get from East Coast to West Coast by Amtrak). Give passengers who has to travel 4 or 5 days without taking a shower a chance to do so during layover.

I think many of us can go without shower for 3 days.

 

[the_traveler]

I think many of us can go without shower for 3 days.

I agree!

Somehow people in "the good old days" of railroading did, and we still got born!

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Maybe it would be a better idea to install showers at Union Station in Chicago and New Orleans Passenger Terminal (2 stations where passengers has to transfer to get from East Coast to West Coast by Amtrak). Give passengers who has to travel 4 or 5 days without taking a shower a chance to do so during layover.

I think many of us can go without shower for 3 days.

There were at one point showers for hire at Chicago Union station. I do recall see them in the 90's.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I think many of us can go without shower for 3 days.

I agree! Somehow people in "the good old days" of railroading did, and we still got born!

So who was using the shower services we see listed in "good old days" photos if nobody cared about stinking it up with their own funk?

There were at one point showers for hire at Chicago Union station. I do recall see them in the 90's.

Do you remember where in the station they were located?

 

[rrdude]

Maybe it would be a better idea to install showers at Union Station in Chicago and New Orleans Passenger Terminal (2 stations where passengers has to transfer to get from East Coast to West Coast by Amtrak). Give passengers who has to travel 4 or 5 days without taking a shower a chance to do so during layover.

I think many of us can go without shower for 3 days.

Ewwwwwww. Granted we "can" and sometimes "do".

But the only times I do it are usually if I'm working from home, or (obviously) hiking or backpacking. NOT sharing close quarters with someone on a train, for hours and hours. It's bad enuff that most sleeper patrons don't use the shower, and one can usually tell at the breakfast table in the AM!

 

[AlanB]

Interesting responses Alan. Here's my take.

In my experience, maybe half those traveling in a sleeper even bother to use the shower. So I'm not sure that demand in coach would be much higher.

If half of the coach passengers used the shower that still sounds like quite an untapped demand to me.

But is it enough to make it worth while? I honestly don't know. It may well be worth it, I just don't have any data or info to say one way or another.

The train cars can't carry enough water to allow for more or less continuous showering.

They would need to have water added more frequently and/or have additional water storage added.

That means adding water supplies at many more stations, which I suspect would be a considerable expense, especially in northern climes where you have to protect against freezing in the winter.

Even far more limited than the total water suply is the hot water supply. Three or four showers in a row in the public shower, plus one in one of the bedrooms is enough to kill hot water for a good half hour or more.

Perhaps solar heaters could be installed on top of the car that would hold and heat substantially more water than is currently available. Not the big and bulky designs of years past but the much thinner designs of today. Or, if that's too ground breaking, maybe we could simply add instant-on water heaters like the kind they the use in Asia. I'm not sure what the specific answer is to this, but there have been several major advancements in water heater technology in more recent years.

The first sounds extravagant and extremely expensive. The later I suspect might just overwhelm the HEP, forcing shorter trains.

I'm not sure if the dirty water tanks have the capacity for that increased showering either. They might, I'm just not sure.

Perhaps sink and shower water would be eligible for an exception to allow for immediate or at-speed disposal depending on how the regulations are written.

Or rewritten.

While I agree that it's probably unnecessary to retain that water, I suspect that we've got a better chance that pigs will learn to fly in the near future. :lol:

 

[AlanB]

And please keep in mind that in coach, where one might be tempted to say that without a shower now they'd have room, you have to remember that you have double the number of people washing in sinks and flushing the toilets.

I wasn't quite able to follow this part. :blink:

What I was trying to say, albeit badly, is that one could argue that since there are currently no showers in the coaches, they therefore should have plenty of capacity to hold the water from an installed shower. However, since you have double the amount of passengers in a coach, as compared to a sleeper, you have twice as much water be produced in a coach from the other various activities as you would have produced in a sleeper.

You're increasing the through traffic in the dining car, which isn't exactly a good thing.

I'm guessing only one or two people at a time would be moving through. That seems rather reasonable to me. The only time I've ever had trouble passing through a diner was when it came in the form of those oddball CCC cars with their built-in choke point design. And frankly I'm not sure what to say about those except to put them on the end of the train. :lol:

You're correct, it would only be a couple more people at any given time. But still, it's a few more people that they just don't need walking through the car and it just ups the chances of an accident.

Finally, let me just add that I'm not exactly trying to shoot this idea down, it is intriguing to say the least. However, I'm also not sure that it isn't a solution looking for a problem; at least with regard to the existing cars. On the other hand, I do think that it might be something that Amtrak should take a serious look at if/when they get the funds to buy new long distance coaches.

 

[the_traveler]

I'm not sure if the dirty water tanks have the capacity for that increased showering either. They might, I'm just not sure.

Perhaps sink and shower water would be eligible for an exception to allow for immediate or at-speed disposal depending on how the regulations are written.

Or rewritten.

While I agree that it's probably unnecessary to retain that water, I suspect that we've got a better chance that pigs will learn to fly in the near future. :lol:

Actually shower and sink waste water is expelled directly. Only "brown" water (from the toilets) is pumped in the retention tanks.

This I was told by a crew member at a stop (IIRC ABQ) when I reported water leaking from the sleeper at the stop. He said it was from someone probably using the shower.

And pigs do fly on planes - if they are "service animals"!

 

[Cristobal]

I'm not sure if the dirty water tanks have the capacity for that increased showering either. They might, I'm just not sure.

Perhaps sink and shower water would be eligible for an exception to allow for immediate or at-speed disposal depending on how the regulations are written.

Or rewritten.

While I agree that it's probably unnecessary to retain that water, I suspect that we've got a better chance that pigs will learn to fly in the near future. :lol:

Actually shower and sink waste water is expelled directly. Only "brown" water (from the toilets) is pumped in the retention tanks.

This I was told by a crew member at a stop (IIRC ABQ) when I reported water leaking from the sleeper at the stop. He said it was from someone probably using the shower.

And pigs do fly on planes - if they are "service animals"!

In the RV world it is defined as either 'gray' (sinks, shower) or 'black' (toilets) water and RVs actually have separate holding tanks for both. I was wondering if that was true for trains as well (the separate tank part).