Railroad Forums 

  • Sightseer Lounge Withdrawal At Hand?

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1601429  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Here's more regarding the incident noted by Mr. Carey:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... R-72-5.pdf

The incident is often noted as "Tonti" - an unincorporated community along the IC (CN) where such occurred. Salem is actually located along the C&EI (UP).

The incident occurred forty days after A-Day, or when Amtrak had contracted with the roads for "turnkey purchase of service arrangements". The train involved was "through and through" an IC and was single level throughout.
 #1601437  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Continuing with these immediate thoughts, and again with Col. Perkowski's caveat in mind, the IC did acquire some Domes "late in the game" from the MP. Why they did escapes me as they covered over both the front and rear windows as well as the top. The only single level cars they had with oversized windows were P-S Diners and Sleepers they had to the C&O design. I doubt if any of such were in the Tonti consist.

Maybe the Board will conclude that the A-I's are what's needed for passenger safety. It takes an impact arising to the level of Frankford to have them overturn and there were no reports of passenger ejection there. At Clarendon Hills, the passenger fatality was ejected from a car that had oversized windows - a METRA 8XXX Control Car.

Finally, also of interest, over at Airliners.net, there is discussion that both Airbus and Boeing are designing aircraft with no windows for passengers. That would not make this author a "happy camper".
 #1601450  by bostontrainguy
 
Mr Norman, isn't it the case that the A1's small windows were a serious obstacle in another derailment incident a long while back and therefore all windows must now be large enough to fit a stretcher with a person strapped on?

A little side comment . . . maybe escape hatches on the roof should be considered in future car design?
Last edited by bostontrainguy on Mon Jul 04, 2022 2:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 #1601451  by rohr turbo
 
The premise of this thread is fairly ridiculous: if there were fatalities in the Sightseer Lounge, they should be eliminated. Let's extend the logic: front cars of trains are the most dangerous in collisions..."Remove the front two cars from all trains!" The dump truck in this incident had 100% fatality rate..."Ban all dump trucks!!"

Of course I realize Mr. Norman is just projecting his well-documented hatred for LD trains and anything 'experiential.' I, OTOH, think the Diner and SS Lounge make western trains wonderful and hope they are retained and eventually replaced with equivalent cars. The fact that this train appears to have been almost full indicates the traveling public still sees value in LD experiential train travel.
 #1601459  by eolesen
 
I agree that the timing of this accident with the Clarendon Hills ejection could see oversize windows called out in a longer term recommendation from the NTSB.

Where I don't agree with Prof. Norman is withdrawing the Sightseer's as an imminent action. Long term, I still expect to see bi-level equipment to go away in favor of the Siemens/Viewliner single level profile. Superliners may look cool as train enthusiasts, but the operational complexity of a separate Western/Eastern long distance fleet is something that can't be ignored anymore. The number of LD trains won't be growing. Future LD equipment needs to be balanced out with what can be pooled with that used for the shorter corridors. That's single level, like it or not.
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 11:15 am Finally, also of interest, over at Airliners.net, there is discussion that both Airbus and Boeing are designing aircraft with no windows for passengers. That would not make this author a "happy camper".
I'm guessing carbon fiber fuselages don't like small holes being poked in them... and designers don't want another De Havilland Comet type point of weakness. Fortunately cabin technology has ways of overcoming design challenges like this. One of the larger cruise lines has begun installing "virtual balconies" on interior staterooms, which has been surprisingly well received and they've been able to gain higher revenue from those cabins than other interior staterooms.

it wouldn't surprise me to see a virtual window emerge at some point with both Boeing and Airbus. Maybe that evolves into something Amtrak can offer -- a live head end view, side view, rear view that you can pull up on your devices....
 #1601464  by Gilbert B Norman
 
rohr turbo wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 1:59 pm Of course I realize Mr. Norman is just projecting his well-documented hatred for LD trains and anything 'experiential.'
Mr. Rohr, it matters not what I think, but it does not appear that the One Mass C-Suite is concerned about an experiential product. They want to sell transportation; just as they did at the airlines they all seem to have as part of their CV's.

Now so far as myself, my likely final LD ride was on 52(the day Kobe Bryant was killed). "Everything worked", arrived LOR early, and the Attendant "excellent" (I sat in my Bedroom reading The Times with Dinner brought to me; the Lorton Mickey D was Breakfast). But there was nothing "experiential" about it. So it simply came down to "was it worth $945 to save 400 miles of driving - and no time whatever".

Now that $945 has easily become $1200, its lack of value to me is "doubled in spades". But if Amtrak can attract people who could save 800 miles of driving (what you save if final destination is in the Northeast and not Chicago) and willing to pay that or similar rate, "go for it".
Last edited by Gilbert B Norman on Tue Jul 05, 2022 6:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
 #1601467  by rohr turbo
 
Mr. Norman, respectfully, I think you are far more of an 'experiential' traveler than you let on. You are willing to fly business class, grab a window seat, or book a roomette on Autotrain. Clearly creature comforts matter to you, and you are willing to pay for them -- well beyond the minimum fare that gets you from point A to B. Most of us feel the same way.

So why shouldn't Amtrak offer and market an experiential product, including the dramatic and fun Sightseer Lounge? I expect and hope that the incremental revenue from offering such amenities covers the incremental cost. (though admittedly the incremental revenue is indirect and difficult to measure.)

Go to Amtrak.com and the second of 5 submenus is "Experience." Up there in importance with Schedules and Destinations. Clearly they are embracing the nature of passenger train travel as a unique experience.

There are lots of things we can fault about Amtrak. Eliminating SS Lounge will not make things better.
 #1601498  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Mr. Rohr, I appreciate your comments regarding experiential travel and me. In flight, I'm hardly buried in a movie. When flying overseas, my monitor is set to the route map; how else would have I known that a Westward flight I was on was vectored over Greenland (and where an Attendant "jumped me" for looking out at it).

May I be allowed to reference another site?

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtop ... &t=1463675

Now, to the rails and my apparent "anti-LD" bias; I admit it is there, as they were to have been gone 45 years ago; RPSA70 notwithstanding (unwritten but the "Basic System" was to provide a five year "ease the pain" transition). I was in railroad management on A-Day - "lower than whale s*it on the bottom of the ocean" as I was taught when a Frat Pledge - but there. The washroom walls heard "they'll be gone in five years" and when the Superliner order was announced "we're going to be stuck with those trains for the next thirty years" (never mind thirty is now fifty). All told, the industry made a "Faustian pact with the Devil" with regards to signing up. I'm sure there isn't a present day railroad manager who wished his predecessors had not simply said "thanks but no thanks".

Had the industry said "shove it" and ran the trains for another five years as RPSA70 called for, some roads would have gotten theirs off during that period. Whatever were left would have been gone, save those on "ward of the State" PC, upon enactment and implementation of Staggers during 80.

Who knows to what extent the Corridor would have received funding and the Local intercity services been established.

The discontinuances would not have been orderly, i.e. whacking NY-Chicago before Chicago-LA, but rather "every man for himself".

But now at A-Day+50, Amtrak is looking at having to reequip the LD's if they are to continue much longer. I think continued funding of Amtrak for "what counts", namely the Corridor as well as a national footprint to support localities that choose to fund passenger trains, is less dependent upon continuation of the LD's than it was in the days of Staggers, Mansfield, and Lott. So, before any equipment such as bi-level cars is ordered, it is time to consider an orderly discontinuance of the system replacing such with an "ease the pain" for the rural "can't drive won't fly" segment with a system of substitute busses.

Really, it's time.
 #1601505  by wigwagfan
 
Given "in the day" access to a Parlour car was an extra-fare on top of the regular railroad fare, how many of Amtrak's apologists would be willing to charge and/or pay a $50 upgrade for access to this otherwise non-revenue car?

And why should the federal government (yes, the federal government, the owner of Amtrak) be providing such an amenity, when it can't even be bothered to feed the steerage class aboard the train?

It seems that to those complaining about every little cut, the only thing that will make them happy are 50 car first class, gold-plated passenger trains running every 15 minutes on every single mainline in America, with $1.99 sleeping car fares and unlimited dining car buffets running 24/7...and I'm sure they'll still find a way to complain about something.
 #1601509  by John_Perkowski
 
Erik, one significant difference

Unlike the Pacific Par,our Car, parlor cars in the privately owned era were single, comfortable chairs. The patron was buying a revenue seat. Further, quite a few of these cars had a buffet in them, so passengers could have a drink enroute.

Who had access to lounge cars is a different story. Only during the Depression did coach passengers start having lounges on name trains.
 #1602311  by daybeers
 
"Now, to the rails and my apparent "anti-LD" bias; I admit it is there"

You don't say! Probably your most known quality on this forum.

Don't know why you started a thread on Sightseer Lounge discontinance and are now saying "it's time" to replace the system with buses. Outside the scope of this thread and already been beaten to death.

My belief is that if the NTSB's report doesn't take the SSLs out of service, the inevitable Superliner single-level replacements won't include them. Anyone who enjoys the lounges should ride them while they still can.
 #1602388  by Ken W2KB
 
John_Perkowski wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 9:55 am Unlike the Pacific Par,our Car, parlor cars in the privately owned era were single, comfortable chairs. The patron was buying a revenue seat. Further, quite a few of these cars had a buffet in them, so passengers could have a drink enroute.
I usually rode the Metroliner coach but did have the experience of a parlor car with individual single swivel chairs three or four times in the 1970's on the return portion of business trips from Washington, DC to Newark, NJ. At the time my employer would reimburse for first class "flights" if the flight time was over 3 hours. The Amtrak Metroliner departed DC at 4 p.m., but was under 3 hours to Newark so I always took coach. However, the Amtrak Merchants Limited departed at 4:10 p.m. and took about 15 or twenty minutes longer than three hours back to Newark. The passenger consist in order from the front was the parlor car, full diner and then the coaches. The dining car was often full for much of the trip as many coach passengers ate dinner there. Two lines formed, one at the coach end and the other at the parlor car end of the diner. We parlor car passengers were seated with the next available diner seat regardless of how long the coach passengers had been waiting.
 #1602408  by R36 Combine Coach
 
bostontrainguy wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 1:44 pm Mr Norman, isn't it the case that the A1's small windows were a serious obstacle in another
derailment incident a long while back and therefore all windows must now be large enough to fit a
stretcher with a person strapped on?
Evacuation has been noted as an issue on the Amfleets in both Chase and Frankford (188).