Would a Slumbercoach work again?

[the_traveler]

If it would look like that - put me on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th train! (I'd say more, but I don't want to over stay my welcome! :lol: )

 

[GG-1]

If it would look like that - put me on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th train! (I'd say more, but I don't want to over stay my welcome! :lol: )

Aloha Traveler

Isnt that picture above the Penthouse you described in another post on this board? :lol: :huh:

 

[the_traveler]

No, that's the floor above the penthouse. :lol: (At least that's what I've heard - you need a special key for that transporter! I never got one! :angry: )

 

[Bill Haithcoat]

During the day sit in a regular coach, at night a flat bed.

But then, you would have to carry 2 separate cars!

The coach car could look like this:

This is not a coach. It was not a sleeper by night.

This is an old fashioned parlor car. Parlor cars were recently in discussion here. I do not remember the title of the topic. These were the old version of the various business class,type cars we have today. Used to be very common on the PRR.

This is a luxury daytime accomodation. Meant to be nicer than a coach.

As to the kind of sleeper referred to several posts above the poster probably meant section sleepers (upper and lower berths). The space was the same, seats during the day, converted to beds at night. Closed green curtains, not doors. Just plain old heavyweight non streamliined section sleeper like used to be all over the country and are featured,along with steam engines in old,old old movies.

 

[profwebs]

This is not a coach. It was not a sleeper by night.
This is an old fashioned parlor car. Parlor cars were recently in discussion here. I do not remember the title of the topic. These were the old version of the various business class,type cars we have today. Used to be very common on the PRR.

This is a luxury daytime accomodation. Meant to be nicer than a coach.

As to the kind of sleeper referred to several posts above the poster probably meant section sleepers (upper and lower berths). The space was the same, seats during the day, converted to beds at night. Closed green curtains, not doors. Just plain old heavyweight non streamliined section sleeper like used to be all over the country and are featured,along with steam engines in old,old old movies.

Yeah, I knew this was a parlor car that those with coat tails and top hats used to have access to.

I just happened to be looking for info on old B&O trains and schedules and was looking at this picture when i read the post about separate cars...

 

[sunchaser]

During the day sit in a regular coach, at night a flat bed.

But then, you would have to carry 2 separate cars!

The coach car could look like this:

This is not a coach. It was not a sleeper by night.

This is an old fashioned parlor car. Parlor cars were recently in discussion here. I do not remember the title of the topic. These were the old version of the various business class,type cars we have today. Used to be very common on the PRR.

This is a luxury daytime accomodation. Meant to be nicer than a coach.

As to the kind of sleeper referred to several posts above the poster probably meant section sleepers (upper and lower berths). The space was the same, seats during the day, converted to beds at night. Closed green curtains, not doors. Just plain old heavyweight non streamliined section sleeper like used to be all over the country and are featured,along with steam engines in old,old old movies.

That is one beautiful car! I can almost see the ladies & gents all dressed up in their Sunday best!

I know another time, but still beautiful.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

As a frequent solo traveller I find that the slumbercoach is enticing.
As a man with a decent belly I find the idea disagreeable.

As a man with a bigger belly then you, I tell you it wasn't too bad.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

As a frequent solo traveller I find that the slumbercoach is enticing.
As a man with a decent belly I find the idea disagreeable.

As a man with a bigger belly then you, I tell you it wasn't too bad.

You would know my waist size... how?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I dunno, I don't figure you for having a 58" waist.

 

[DET63]

I dunno, I don't figure you for having a 58" waist.

So, GML, what did you eat to get that 58" waist—a wildebeest or a zebra? (You gnu I was going to ask that, right?)

What do I not like about this picture?

Unless the chairs can be rotated, it appears they all face in, not out. It's nice to have conversations with others on an LD train, but I would also like to be able to look out the window without having to crane my neck or look across the car through the windows (and the people between them and me) on the other side.

 

[Neil_M]

So, GML, what did you eat to get that 58" waist—

Everything?! :lol:

 

[Bill Haithcoat]

I dunno, I don't figure you for having a 58" waist.

So, GML, what did you eat to get that 58" waist—a wildebeest or a zebra? (You gnu I was going to ask that, right?)

What do I not like about this picture?

Unless the chairs can be rotated, it appears they all face in, not out. It's nice to have conversations with others on an LD train, but I would also like to be able to look out the window without having to crane my neck or look across the car through the windows (and the people between them and me) on the other side.

Parlor cars such as ran in the 40's and beyond usually swiveled in all directions. Not sure about these, I would gather this car was built in the late 1800's--I am old , but I am not that old, so I am not sure.

Keep in mind this is a parlor car, not a coach.

You mention long distance, most of them went such distances as Washington to New York. Yes, they operated all over the country, but still mostly in what we know as the N.E. corrider.

It could be that way in the back on the right hand side we are looking at a chair back,facing forward at least....even if not toward the window.Parlor car floor plans did vary as did whether they had any food facilities. Some of them also had private rooms.

 

[had8ley]

The slumbercoach rooms were tiny, and much smaller than Superliner roomettes. Legroom was minimal, and the rooms were staggered so with the bed lowered your legs could extend into a pocket in the adjoining room- take a look at the promo pictures in the article Jachoochoo linked to above. The hallways were very claustrophobic- here's a picture I found:http://www.flickr.com/photos/briancm/3834893415/

and the rooms weren't much better. Charmless, sterile and spartan are all terms that come to mind BUT at the price it was much better than a night in coach, but a little weird because you were so isolated and surrounded by linoleum and steel.

From your pix of the hallway it doesn't look like it would muster up to ADA standards today. It kinda reminds me of "Fat Man's Squeeze" at Rock City in Chattanooga.

 

[cpamtfan]

As a man with a bigger belly then you, I tell you it wasn't too bad.

Yeah, but when was the last time you rode in one, tew, fifteen years ago? I sure hope you didn't have a '58 waste back then ! Now fend off, no more fat jokes, some people are bigger than others.

 

[zoltan]

Why bother with slumbercoaches? The rest of the world has it figured out, its called a couchette car.

I love couchettes, mainly because they cost virtually the same as coach, but are far more satisfactory for a night's sleep. I find that small bad in a shared compartment is immensely better than the alternative for me - no bed at all.

The slumbercoach rooms were tiny, and much smaller than Superliner roomettes. Legroom was minimal, and the rooms were staggered so with the bed lowered your legs could extend into a pocket in the adjoining room- take a look at the promo pictures in the article Jachoochoo linked to above. The hallways were very claustrophobic- here's a picture I found:http://www.flickr.com/photos/briancm/3834893415/

and the rooms weren't much better. Charmless, sterile and spartan are all terms that come to mind BUT at the price it was much better than a night in coach, but a little weird because you were so isolated and surrounded by linoleum and steel.

And for people like me, the fact the price is good is the only consideration - they may, as has been pointed out, not have been that great compared to other sleepers, but that doesn't matter to someone who can't afford any other sort of accommodation.

To me, a productive night's sleep on a train is far superior to spending useful time during the day flying from place to place, so if you could provide the former for a reasonable price that was competitive with air - not THAT difficult as domestic flying is more expensive in the states than in Europe - a lot of people would do it.

Even the London to Scotland sleepers, on which the fare is considerably more expensive than flying but considerably cheaper than an Amtrak roomette, manage to sell out 10-15 carriages of very basic sleepers each night, which makes it evident that I'm not the only one to feel that way about traveling overnight.

 

[henryj]

The slumbercoach singles were definitely smaller than roomettes. There was little legroom, and the seat wasn't very comfortable. The bed was very narrow too. But they did have a sink and toilet and you didn't have to lift the bed at night to use it. The window was a lot smaller too. Still for a one night run they were fine and the prices were very reasonable.
Like most of the Heritage cars the Slumbercoaches were pretty run down near the end of their use.

I rode a slumbercoach in 1964 on the Eagle. The rooms were very small. A slumbercoach would sleep 40 or in the ones the NYC rebuilt from heritage sleepers 36. A viewliner will sleep 34 and is much better designed and the rooms are much bigger. Yes if you single occupy a roomette you waste a bed, but the room is so much better. The superliners are even more efficient, sleeping a possible 44. Forget slumbercoaches. Overnight and long distance trains attract people looking for comfort, not efficiency. If they wanted efficiency they would have flown coach and gotten to their destination in a couple of hours. The European concept of sharing rooms overnight with strangers on couchettes will never catch on here. With the constantly expanding high speed network in Europe, overnight trains are disapearing anyway. In the US, coach passengers have it better than couchettes in Europe with the large reclining seats with leg rests and such. Lets fix what we have, not try and reinvent the wheel again.

 

[volkris]

I rode a slumbercoach in 1964 on the Eagle. The rooms were very small. A slumbercoach would sleep 40 or in the ones the NYC rebuilt from heritage sleepers 36. A viewliner will sleep 34 and is much better designed and the rooms are much bigger. Yes if you single occupy a roomette you waste a bed, but the room is so much better. The superliners are even more efficient, sleeping a possible 44. Forget slumbercoaches. Overnight and long distance trains attract people looking for comfort, not efficiency. If they wanted efficiency they would have flown coach and gotten to their destination in a couple of hours. The European concept of sharing rooms overnight with strangers on couchettes will never catch on here. With the constantly expanding high speed network in Europe, overnight trains are disapearing anyway. In the US, coach passengers have it better than couchettes in Europe with the large reclining seats with leg rests and such. Lets fix what we have, not try and reinvent the wheel again.

Overnight and long distance trains attract, very simply, people looking for an additional option to their travel. Sometimes that's due to consideration of comfort, but often enough it's due to various other considerations ranging from price to time efficiency (the "wake up at your destination" idea). Tiny, bare bones bedrooms fit the needs of many types of traveler.

So yes: let's fix what we have. The current offerings don't include an option between the "luxurious" roomette with its first class travel and coach. Bringing in slumbercoaches would fix this, filling the gap.

 

[henryj]

I rode a slumbercoach in 1964 on the Eagle. The rooms were very small. A slumbercoach would sleep 40 or in the ones the NYC rebuilt from heritage sleepers 36. A viewliner will sleep 34 and is much better designed and the rooms are much bigger. Yes if you single occupy a roomette you waste a bed, but the room is so much better. The superliners are even more efficient, sleeping a possible 44. Forget slumbercoaches. Overnight and long distance trains attract people looking for comfort, not efficiency. If they wanted efficiency they would have flown coach and gotten to their destination in a couple of hours. The European concept of sharing rooms overnight with strangers on couchettes will never catch on here. With the constantly expanding high speed network in Europe, overnight trains are disapearing anyway. In the US, coach passengers have it better than couchettes in Europe with the large reclining seats with leg rests and such. Lets fix what we have, not try and reinvent the wheel again.

Overnight and long distance trains attract, very simply, people looking for an additional option to their travel. Sometimes that's due to consideration of comfort, but often enough it's due to various other considerations ranging from price to time efficiency (the "wake up at your destination" idea). Tiny, bare bones bedrooms fit the needs of many types of traveler.

So yes: let's fix what we have. The current offerings don't include an option between the "luxurious" roomette with its first class travel and coach. Bringing in slumbercoaches would fix this, filling the gap.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that the viewliner and the superliner represent evolutionary designs building off the experiences with slumbercoaches and traditional heritage sleepers. They are compromises designed to please everyone. The traditional heritage sleeper such as a 10-6, 10 roomettes and 6 double bedrooms, slept only 22 people because all the roomettes had only one bed and had toilette facilities. A slumber coach slept 36-40, a viewliner sleeps 34. Very close to being the same. What the Amtrak designers tried to do is offer economy accomodations in the upper and lower style roomettes which are basicaly enclosed sections with toilette facilities down the hall(the viewliner still has a toilet enclosed). They continued to offer luxury accomodations in the form of the bedrooms which have their own toilettes and showers. You might be able to gain a little more space by eliminating the toilet in the viewliner roomettes, less maintenance might bring lower fares, but bye and large Amtrak is already offering you the best of both worlds. I don't see how they can improve on this. If you want a bed, you have to pay a premium for it. That's always going to be the case. If you want to go 'European' then share your roometter with a stranger. A slumbercoach that only adds 2-6 more people isn't going to lower fares and the claustraphobic rooms would not be popular and slumbercoaches did not have SHOWERS. Adding those would take away a couple of rooms making them the same capacity as a viewliner.

 

[nferr]

I rode a slumbercoach in 1964 on the Eagle. The rooms were very small. A slumbercoach would sleep 40 or in the ones the NYC rebuilt from heritage sleepers 36. A viewliner will sleep 34 and is much better designed and the rooms are much bigger. Yes if you single occupy a roomette you waste a bed, but the room is so much better. The superliners are even more efficient, sleeping a possible 44. Forget slumbercoaches. Overnight and long distance trains attract people looking for comfort, not efficiency. If they wanted efficiency they would have flown coach and gotten to their destination in a couple of hours. The European concept of sharing rooms overnight with strangers on couchettes will never catch on here. With the constantly expanding high speed network in Europe, overnight trains are disapearing anyway. In the US, coach passengers have it better than couchettes in Europe with the large reclining seats with leg rests and such. Lets fix what we have, not try and reinvent the wheel again.

Overnight and long distance trains attract, very simply, people looking for an additional option to their travel. Sometimes that's due to consideration of comfort, but often enough it's due to various other considerations ranging from price to time efficiency (the "wake up at your destination" idea). Tiny, bare bones bedrooms fit the needs of many types of traveler.

So yes: let's fix what we have. The current offerings don't include an option between the "luxurious" roomette with its first class travel and coach. Bringing in slumbercoaches would fix this, filling the gap.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that the viewliner and the superliner represent evolutionary designs building off the experiences with slumbercoaches and traditional heritage sleepers. They are compromises designed to please everyone. The traditional heritage sleeper such as a 10-6, 10 roomettes and 6 double bedrooms, slept only 22 people because all the roomettes had only one bed and had toilette facilities. A slumber coach slept 36-40, a viewliner sleeps 34. Very close to being the same. What the Amtrak designers tried to do is offer economy accomodations in the upper and lower style roomettes which are basicaly enclosed sections with toilette facilities down the hall(the viewliner still has a toilet enclosed). They continued to offer luxury accomodations in the form of the bedrooms which have their own toilettes and showers. You might be able to gain a little more space by eliminating the toilet in the viewliner roomettes, less maintenance might bring lower fares, but bye and large Amtrak is already offering you the best of both worlds. I don't see how they can improve on this. If you want a bed, you have to pay a premium for it. That's always going to be the case. If you want to go 'European' then share your roometter with a stranger. A slumbercoach that only adds 2-6 more people isn't going to lower fares and the claustraphobic rooms would not be popular and slumbercoaches did not have SHOWERS. Adding those would take away a couple of rooms making them the same capacity as a viewliner.

I basically agree with you. The only real flaw in your argument is in the capacity. Your 34 passenger Viewliner assumes all rooms have 2 occupants. There is actually only 17 rooms. The slumbercoaches have many more rooms. So in theory you could carry a lot more single passengers. And of course those singles are not being forced to pay for a double room wit double meals, etc.

BUT Amtrak might very well lose revenue doing this since most single passengers would probably opt for the cheaper slumbercoach room. In fact I bet a lot of passengers traveling in pairs would book two slumbercoach rooms over a Superliner or Viewliner roomette just to get the added space. Depending on price of course.

 

[henryj]

I rode a slumbercoach in 1964 on the Eagle. The rooms were very small. A slumbercoach would sleep 40 or in the ones the NYC rebuilt from heritage sleepers 36. A viewliner will sleep 34 and is much better designed and the rooms are much bigger. Yes if you single occupy a roomette you waste a bed, but the room is so much better. The superliners are even more efficient, sleeping a possible 44. Forget slumbercoaches. Overnight and long distance trains attract people looking for comfort, not efficiency. If they wanted efficiency they would have flown coach and gotten to their destination in a couple of hours. The European concept of sharing rooms overnight with strangers on couchettes will never catch on here. With the constantly expanding high speed network in Europe, overnight trains are disapearing anyway. In the US, coach passengers have it better than couchettes in Europe with the large reclining seats with leg rests and such. Lets fix what we have, not try and reinvent the wheel again.

Overnight and long distance trains attract, very simply, people looking for an additional option to their travel. Sometimes that's due to consideration of comfort, but often enough it's due to various other considerations ranging from price to time efficiency (the "wake up at your destination" idea). Tiny, bare bones bedrooms fit the needs of many types of traveler.

So yes: let's fix what we have. The current offerings don't include an option between the "luxurious" roomette with its first class travel and coach. Bringing in slumbercoaches would fix this, filling the gap.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that the viewliner and the superliner represent evolutionary designs building off the experiences with slumbercoaches and traditional heritage sleepers. They are compromises designed to please everyone. The traditional heritage sleeper such as a 10-6, 10 roomettes and 6 double bedrooms, slept only 22 people because all the roomettes had only one bed and had toilette facilities. A slumber coach slept 36-40, a viewliner sleeps 34. Very close to being the same. What the Amtrak designers tried to do is offer economy accomodations in the upper and lower style roomettes which are basicaly enclosed sections with toilette facilities down the hall(the viewliner still has a toilet enclosed). They continued to offer luxury accomodations in the form of the bedrooms which have their own toilettes and showers. You might be able to gain a little more space by eliminating the toilet in the viewliner roomettes, less maintenance might bring lower fares, but bye and large Amtrak is already offering you the best of both worlds. I don't see how they can improve on this. If you want a bed, you have to pay a premium for it. That's always going to be the case. If you want to go 'European' then share your roometter with a stranger. A slumbercoach that only adds 2-6 more people isn't going to lower fares and the claustraphobic rooms would not be popular and slumbercoaches did not have SHOWERS. Adding those would take away a couple of rooms making them the same capacity as a viewliner.

I basically agree with you. The only real flaw in your argument is in the capacity. Your 34 passenger Viewliner assumes all rooms have 2 occupants. There is actually only 17 rooms. The slumbercoaches have many more rooms. So in theory you could carry a lot more single passengers. And of course those singles are not being forced to pay for a double room wit double meals, etc.

BUT Amtrak might very well lose revenue doing this since most single passengers would probably opt for the cheaper slumbercoach room. In fact I bet a lot of passengers traveling in pairs would book two slumbercoach rooms over a Superliner or Viewliner roomette just to get the added space. Depending on price of course.

The problem of high prices is really a factor of too much demand and too few cars. Once Amtrak increases their capacity on the overnight trains fares could come down. They could also offer fares that did not include meals and such as Via does now. They could also institute room sharing arangements if the passenger wanted a cheaper fare. There are a lot of options short of designing a totally new car.

 

[volkris]

Like you said, what we currently have is a compromise design. Why? Because Amtrak was facing a situation with inadequate funding for operations, so it had to make due with as few capital resources as possible. There was no room to please "everybody", so they split the riders between luxury first class with sleepers and everyone else. Anyone who didn't find either accommodation workable was out of luck: Amtrak simply couldn't afford to serve them.

Obviously when we talk about bringing back slumbercoaches we talk about a time when Amtrak has the resources to invest in new coaches... or else it would be a pretty pointless exercise. At that point Amtrak can consider branching out and capturing more ridership by serving more people. By diversifying its offerings, Amtrak can appeal to markets that it simply doesn't have the resources to serve at the moment.

The slumbercoach would let Amtrak charge less for a bedroom (since it can move those people more cost-effectively), which will both bring people up from coach and bring on new riders who would have taken the plane instead. Yes, some people will downgrade from expensive 1st class accommodations, but managing overlapping products such that one does not cannibalize another is no rare exercise in the business world.

And don't forget, just as important as passenger revenue is political strategy. Since Amtrak relies on political good will it stands to benefit from serving as much of a cross section of the public as possible even when that's not a clear financial winner in itself.