Ocean View Question(s)

[John_Perkowski]

Can I get a translation please?

CHARLIE:
No it didn't,
but ya gotta know the territory.
SALES MAN 3:
Gone, Gone
SALES MAN 1:
Gone with the hogshead, cask and demijohn. Gone with the sugar barrel, pickle barrel, milk pan,
gone with the tub and the pail and the till.
SALES MAN 5:
Ever meet a foamer Amtrak President by the name of Anderson?
SALES MAN 1:
Anderson?
CHARLIE:
Anderson!
SALESMAN 3:
Anderson?
SALES MAN 4:
Anderson?
NEWSPAPER READER 1:
Anderson?
NEWSPAPER READER 2:
Anderson?
NEWSPAPER READER 3:
Anderson?
SALES MAN 5:
Anderson!
ALL:
No!
CHARLIE:
Just a minute, just a minute, just a minute
SALES MAN 4:
Never heard of any foamer Anderson.
SALES MAN 5:
Now he doesn't know the territory.


Read more: Music Man - Rock Island Lyrics | MetroLyrics

I trust you get the point...

[Rockingham Racer]

Uh volks, somebody should give the Times-Union's Cub Reporter a few lessons in Dome Car history, or refer him to the Late Dan Ainsworth's "Dome Main" site still hosted at Trainweb.

Reviewing the Photo Gallery at the article, all too many of the photos are "experiential". Lest we forget the "new hand at the throttle" is now the "new hand at the controls" and wearing a Pilot's hat. Lest we further forget, he did "not exactly" sanction DC-6B's with "no boys allowed" Attendants called "Stews" and dressed in uniforms contemporary to the delivery of the Great Domes.

Can I get a translation please?

"new hand at the throttle" and "new hand at the controls" refer to Richard Anderson running a railroad vs. running an airline. DC-6s were the latest in passenger aircraft in the middle of the last century. "Stews" is airline jargon for stewardesses, which, of course is a feminine noun. That term doesn't "fly" anymore. As an aside: just yesterday, I was on an American Eagle flight, and the female flight attendant was training a male flight attendant.

[rohr turbo]

Uh volks, somebody should give the Times-Union's Cub Reporter a few lessons in Dome Car history, or refer him to the Late Dan Ainsworth's "Dome Main" site still hosted at Trainweb.

Reviewing the Photo Gallery at the article, all too many of the photos are "experiential". Lest we forget the "new hand at the throttle" is now the "new hand at the controls" and wearing a Pilot's hat. Lest we further forget, he did "not exactly" sanction DC-6B's with "no boys allowed" Attendants called "Stews" and dressed in uniforms contemporary to the delivery of the Great Domes.

Can I get a translation please?

Along with my Sudoku and NYT crossword, figuring out what GBN is saying is a fun daily puzzle.

I, too, am at a loss with this one...

-- GBN implies there are errors or holes in the "cub" reporting, yet I cannot find them.
-- Easy to agree that a dome car offers an "experiential" experience. Why are there too many photos?
-- Yes we know Anderson has airline career background. Bit of a leap to understand what long obsolete DC-6s or flight attendant gender/uniforms has to do with current Amtrak operations including retirement of Ocean View?

[mtuandrew]

Maybe he’s saying that Stewie from Family Guy is hiding in the Great Dome?

It’s a tough sell for Amtrak to keep a 60 year old car in regular service, though it’s unfair to compare the durability of an unpowered stainless steel body-on-frame railcar to an aluminum monocoque airliner coping with resonant vibration from four R-2800s driving Hamilton-Standard propellers through heavy turbulence.

It is pretty obvious though that a one-off, heavy, non-ADA-compliant observation car isn’t really a good investment for Amtrak. The larger question is, does Amtrak have the business to roster an experiential fleet? If so, what would that fleet look like and from where would Amtrak get it?

[Gilbert B Norman]

The two-level passenger car with a glassed-in upper level stretching the length of the car was the last of a fleet of six originally built for the Great Northern Railway's Empire Builder between Chicago and Seattle in the mid-1950s.

The Milwaukee Road operated its own fleet of 10 "Super Dome" cars that were similar in appearance, with the glassed-in upper level also stretching the full length of the railroad car. They were used on the railroad's Hiawatha passenger trains and later on such trains as the City of Denver. Those dome cars ended up with cruise lines or scenic railroads.

Five "Great Domes" were ordered by the GN; one, River View" was ordered by the CB&Q but was liveried same as the GN cars.

Yes, "my" MILW Super Domes were similar, but far more were the ATSF Big Domes. To my knowledge, Super Domes were not assigned to "City of Denver", but I will not rule out that one got into a consist for mileage equalization (normally a MILW single lrvel was used for such). Those cars started to migrate Northward during '65, or five years before I hired on.

But let it be known. I would give the Cub a "C", because he did not research far enough to find Mr. Ainsworth's site. Those points would have been addressed there.

[rohr turbo]

I fully understand and accept that maintenance costs on the Great Dome do not justify its further use in revenue service. Sad, but that's life. Glad I rode in it back in San Diegan days.

But I bristle at the notion that "experiential'' is a bad word. In fact, consider airline business/first class -- customers pay very big $$ for the comfort and pleasant experience of sitting up front. They get the same *transportation* as those back in Basic Economy. I've read the airlines derive most of their profits from the premium classes. So a good business/capitalist viewpoint would be to enhance the experiential aspects of rail passenger service (within reason) to benefit the bottom line.

[mtuandrew]

I fully understand and accept that maintenance costs on the Great Dome do not justify its further use in revenue service. Sad, but that's life. Glad I rode in it back in San Diegan days.

But I bristle at the notion that "experiential'' is a bad word. In fact, consider airline business/first class -- customers pay very big $$ for the comfort and pleasant experience of sitting up front. They get the same *transportation* as those back in Basic Economy. I've read the airlines derive most of their profits from the premium classes. So a good business/capitalist viewpoint would be to enhance the experiential aspects of rail passenger service (within reason) to benefit the bottom line.

Agreed with you there, and further that even uninspired scenery (Southern yellow pine forests, NEC warehouses, Midwestern soybean fields, California suburbs) is more beautiful through large windows than through small ones. Even Amfleet windows beat airline windows, but Amtrak can do far better.

The Viewliner platform would be perfect as an east coast cafe/lounge. The V-II diners are being vastly underused as glorified break rooms; they could be so much more. That would be a worthwhile experiential aspect to any single-level train.

[rohr turbo]

SuperdomeCODad.jpg (547.24 KiB) Viewed 1701 times

Apparently used regularly for only one year. https://streamlinermemories.info/?p=1847

[Gilbert B Norman]

Mr. Rohr, considering that #15-16, Olympian, was not whacked until.'61, they would need five Super Dome cars assigned there. There were two cars assigned for both the #5-6, Morning and #2-3, Afternoon Hiawathas, leaving one car as protect.

In order to protect #111-112, City of Denver, a car arriving on #6, Morning, would have to be cut and placed same day in consist of #111, and v.v. except that the car arriving on #112 would go out same day on #3, Afternoon.

Of course, as Streamliner Memories notes, when #111-112 were discontinued and #105-106, City of Portland, was rerouted through Denver, the assignment cessed.

The Super Domes remained assigned to #5-6 until "The End".

[eolesen]

Government funded and operated services probably shouldn't be focused on being experiential...

[Tadman]

Government funded and operated services probably shouldn't be focused on being experiential...

Agreed, but honest question: where do we draw the line? In a recent discussion of New Haven Line commuter trains, a rather prolific grumpy former engineer has asserted that bar cars will never run again because the government isn't in the business of providing perks or luxuries.

I'll accept that, but define perks and luxuries. Is it 2+2 seating versus 2+3? Is it padded seating? Is it anything above and beyond the bare minimum that the FRA requires for safe operation? Focusing on Amtrak corridor service, what passes for "coach" on Amtrak is really pretty luxurious compared with competing bus travel or similar British/EU accommodations. I recently spent a few hours on DMU's across Scotland and Wales in 2nd class and the width and pitch of the seats is quite small compared to Amtrak corridor coach.

I just got off a GWR first class coach on the new Hitachi IET/800-class. I'd rather ride in coach on a Horizon than first on an IET. I couldn't get a wink of sleep in those seats.

I think we can all agree that the dome car is above and beyond a perk, with it's high maintenance requirements, age, and non-revenue status.

[Gilbert B Norman]

But I bristle at the notion that "experiential'' is a bad word. In fact, consider airline business/first class -- customers pay very big $$ for the comfort and pleasant experience of sitting up front. They get the same *transportation* as those back in Basic Economy. I've read the airlines derive most of their profits from the premium classes. So a good business/capitalist viewpoint would be to enhance the experiential aspects of rail passenger service (within reason) to benefit the bottom line.

Mr. Rohr et al, allow me to expand my thoughts regarding "experiential".

Richard Anderson is the CEO of Amtrak; in that position, he stands accountable to the Board of Directors who hired him. He further has a phalanx of lesserling "disciples" to spread his dictums "down the chain".

I fully understand where the railfan/train riding community is coming from. The journey is simply part of the entire experience and in the case of the railfan, it is THE experience. But the Board, say what you wish regarding their background or experience to be qualified to hold the appointment, clearly is not interested in developing Amtrak to provide "experiences" but rather to develop in markets where there is a need for passenger rail. "One a day @ 0 dark 30" simply does not meet any need. "Well, why not "more a day?" says the advocacy community. These trains by and large operate over investor owned railroads and simply represent interference to their operations, which as Precision Railroading (PSR) becomes the industry standard will more resemble a funicular railroad, and in which a passenger train going "against the flow" will be more intrusive.

Now my comments regarding "experiential" air travel are simply that the air transport industry is no longer interested in such. The days of unmarried all girl Cabin Crews subject to "weigh ins", "men only" Executive flights, piano bars, and whatever else are gone. "Luxotrains" have had a good "try out" in North America; only one, Rocky Mountaineer, seems to be profitable (how, tying up at night, I know not). The only other, Canadian, "feeds at the public trough", and I don't think is long for this world.

[rohr turbo]

Government funded and operated services probably shouldn't be focused on being experiential...

You realize of course that you are saying all National Parks be closed, all public museums closed. Should we further close airports to first class travelers? Close the highways to people going on a pleasure trip?

I argue there is nothing wrong with providing amenities and comforts to make a publicly-funded transportation service more enjoyable, within reason. That might even mean a lounge car, wine tasting, entertainment systems, wifi, etc. The improvements to customer satisfaction may actually build ridership, justify modest price increases, and reduce the operating loss.

[Gilbert B Norman]

I argue there is nothing wrong with providing amenities and comforts to make a publicly-funded transportation service more enjoyable, within reason. That might even mean a lounge car, wine tasting, entertainment systems, wifi, etc. The improvements to customer satisfaction may actually build ridership, justify modest price increases, and reduce the operating loss.

I go along with "reasonable", such as working wifi, Mr. Rohr.

But with the other amenities you note, that is getting Amtrak away from what the present Board wants - and that is A to B trsnsportation.

The airline industry understands that - as does Mr. Anderson. The Board could have found someone with credentials, such as Mr. Reistrup or Mr. Watts brought to the table, if they envisioned any "experiential" need to Amtrak.

But they have not.

[rohr turbo]

Here's the big question beyond Ocean View: Will Anderson axe the Sightseer Lounges?

Some on this thread likely think Sightseers are too 'experiential', too frivolous for the strict mission of transporting bodies from A to B.

I however think axing them would be misguided. Many like me find the lounges to enhance the overall experience of traveling by Superliner in the West and that eliminating them would drive away customers. And possibly drive them away at a rate where the lost revenue exceeds the incremental cost of running the cars.

As with wifi (which Mr. Norman appears to like even though it is beyond the strict scope of transportation) a careful accounting must be done as to which amenities boost satisfaction, comfort, revenue at a rate higher than their cost. It is often hard to measure, admittedly.