Railroad Forums 

  • Sleeper Slumbercoach - Open Discussion

  • 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

 #1552845  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Of interest but not fully researched, there were eighteen 24-8 Budd Slumbercoaches built "on spec". Four were sold immediately during '56 to the "Q" named (of course) "Silver--" followed by two to the B&O named "--land". That meant twelve were in "inventory".

During '59, Budd found the twelve "homes". Four to the NYC (numbered), Four to the NP named "Loch --" (alliterating to the "thrifty Scot"), three more to the B&O "--land" and one to the MP "Southland" as their contribution to a Wash-San Antonio line.

The twelve were leased from Budd. When those leases expired, the NYC and the B&O - MP cars were bought by the NP adding them to the secondary train as well as shops/protects.

All eighteen eventually found their way to Amtrak, but not without some "drama" on the two B&O owned cars. Details of course "sketchy", but some kind of "middleman" got in the act and those cars went to Amtrak at an inflated price - and who knows divvied up that loot.
 #1552864  by jhdeasy
 
J.D. Lang wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:49 am NYC called them "Sleeper Coaches". I've been on them when Amtrak had them on the Lake Shore. Not a bad economy roomette.
NYC had Budd rebuild 10 of their existing 10&6 sleepers into 16&10 Sleepercoaches. These were HARBOR series cars. Knowledgeable travelers were aware that 4 of the 16 single rooms in these NYC cars were the size of a double room, but with only one bed. Twice the space for the same price if you got room 2, 4, 6 or 8.

Mr. Norman: The High Iron Company acquired DREAMLAND and SLUMBERLAND from B&O circa 1969-1970. If they made a net profit selling the cars to Amtrak a decade later, then well done to them! Hopefully there was no conflict of interest for a certain Amtrak board member who was associated with High Iron Company.
 #1552873  by CarterB
 
I loved the slumbercoaches!! Rode them many times NYC to Chi and NYC to Charleston SC. Comfortable, roomy enough, and CHEAP!! Bring 'em back!!!
 #1552875  by STrRedWolf
 
Okay, you got me interested in the SlumberCoach... and pulling it into this day and age.

Current Viewliner Roomettes are 3' 6" by 6' 8" interior, with a bed that's 2' 4" by 6' 6" (6' 4" for upper berth) that's converted from the seat. Viewliner coach has a pitch of 39", while Superliner coach seating has a pitch of upwards of 54".

By comparison, a standard Twin mattress is 3' 3" by 6' 3".

So let me see... assuming a Viewliner II carriage with a rough 10' of usable interior room...
  • Keep the beds the same spec, even though they are folded into seats.
  • Use the Superliner seating pitch.
  • No toilets in the berths, FFS! Keep them separate (will need to encroach on them though)
... I can do a 24-6 SlumberCoach for max capacity of 36 people (attached -- Key: Grey - level seat/bed, Blue - step-up seat/high bed, Red - 2 person Viewliner-esque). I put in two shower/toilet combos where there wasn't much room for a pair of 2-person rooms.

Possible to do? Yes, but it would break on the modularity of the Viewliner II.
Attachments:
Rough concept.
(16.45 KiB) Downloaded 110 times
 #1552876  by mtuandrew
 
Call it 30-32 folks, one roomette-size block will be the attendant’s office and another one or two will be a shower, but otherwise yes. Shouldn’t break up the modularity of the V-II platform though, each passenger would still have a window whether upper or lower.
 #1552885  by electricron
 
mtuandrew wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:15 pm Call it 30-32 folks, one roomette-size block will be the attendant’s office and another one or two will be a shower, but otherwise yes. Shouldn’t break up the modularity of the V-II platform though, each passenger would still have a window whether upper or lower.
The existing Viewliner I design in use today has a capacity of 30, with full partitions for every cubicle. Why change the design to slumbercoaches just for gaining an additional 2 In capacity, which Amtrak can accomplish by moving the attendant to the combo car?
 #1552887  by STrRedWolf
 
electricron wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:32 pm The existing Viewliner I design in use today has a capacity of 30, with full partitions for every cubicle. Why change the design to slumbercoaches just for gaining an additional 2 In capacity, which Amtrak can accomplish by moving the attendant to the combo car?
Wasn't the idea of the Slumbercoach was to capture as many individual travelers as possible? How many individual passengers were there in comparison to couples (or parent-child pairs) traveling? Besides, you could book 24 individuals and 8 pairs VS 18 of ether single or pair. The likelyhood you hit 36 passengers increases when you can shove an individual in a dedicated berth.

But then... you have to look at booking data.
 #1552900  by John_Perkowski
 
The slumber coach begat the super liner economy bedroom, errrr, standard bedroom, errrr, roomette. They both have an unsatisfactory narrow berth.

There are only so many ways to arrange 18 sq ft. Give me an enclosed section with upper berth windows, please, with a Pullman mattress and Pullman wool blankets.
 #1615495  by Jeff Smith
 
https://ozarkmountainrailcar.com/railEq ... temId=3239 (User Registration Required - Free)

Ozark has a slumbercoach for sale ($15k). We've had a back and forth on whether these would be a fit for Amtrak, however Amtrak is disposed to them.

Here's my question: would a private operator, as Pullman did before, be pre-disposed to operating these as PV's on Amtrak? Could it work? We also talked about Amfleet conversion; would that work?
 #1615499  by STrRedWolf
 
Jeff Smith wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 10:01 am https://ozarkmountainrailcar.com/railEq ... temId=3239 (User Registration Required - Free)

Ozark has a slumbercoach for sale ($15k). We've had a back and forth on whether these would be a fit for Amtrak, however Amtrak is disposed to them.

Here's my question: would a private operator, as Pullman did before, be pre-disposed to operating these as PV's on Amtrak? Could it work? We also talked about Amfleet conversion; would that work?
If someone was enamored with it... maybe? I went through the photos and my first thought was "can I rebuild this into a proper PV or... nope, nope, nope, I'll build it from scratch."
 #1615514  by jhdeasy
 
Jeff Smith wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 10:01 am https://ozarkmountainrailcar.com/railEq ... temId=3239 (User Registration Required - Free)

Ozark has a slumbercoach for sale ($15k). We've had a back and forth on whether these would be a fit for Amtrak, however Amtrak is disposed to them.

Here's my question: would a private operator, as Pullman did before, be pre-disposed to operating these as PV's on Amtrak? Could it work? We also talked about Amfleet conversion; would that work?
My thoughts on the topic, based on owning and operating PV's on the mainline (Amtrak) since 1987.

A Slumbercoach is of little use to a car owner/operator in 2023. Those passengers wanting to enjoy overnight travel on a PV would prefer more spacious comfortable accommodations. I think most would prefer a section, roomette, bedroom, compartment, drawing room or master bedroom over a single/double Slumbercoach room. Perhaps the only exception would be hardcore rare mileage enthusiast passengers, who may be willing to sacrifice comfort to "get the mileage" at a lower fare.

IF you owned a Slumbercoach, with up to 32 beds, you would need a dining car and/or a lounge car to feed your passengers and to provide a space for them to socialize during non-sleeping hours.

Note that one of our wealthier PV owners (Webb Rail LLC), has left his Slumbercoach (former NP "LOCH NESS"), slumbering peacefully "as is" on the M&E in New Jersey, while investing in 4 other cars in his fleet.

An owner could completely rebuild the interior of a Slumbercoach into a completely different interior configuration, but then it would no longer be an authentic Slumbercoach. In addition, modifying the window line of duplex single rooms is a more difficult task on a Budd, compared to the same task on a Pullman.
 #1615541  by dgvrengineer
 
I think if you had the funds and the burning desire to own and operate a slumbercoach, your best bet would be to buy two and operate them daily on a one day turn LD train like the Lake Shore Ltd. The biggest problem would be how do you sell tickets? Strike a deal with Amtrak to use their confusing web site? Advertise heavily and try to sell on your own? You could run the cars only on heavy travel days (Friday thru Sunday). The cars would need to be completely rebuilt. Remove all the in room toilets and add two restrooms on one end. That would remove four rooms. Other than being used as regular low priced private room transportation, I agree with Jhdeasy, that they are not suitable for PV operation. One caveat: remember what happened to Mr. Ellis's operation behind the Amtrak Chicago to New Orleans train. Amtrak doesn't like competition even if it benefits them.
 #1615558  by Anthony
 
Remove if off topic, but here's an interesting, but purely theoretical use of a Slumbercoach in a way that is relevant to my current housing environment. As a college student railfan currently living in a traditional dorm, an exotic idea for a college or university to quickly and cheaply add a few dorm rooms to campus would be to buy a Slumbercoach and convert it into a dorm. The toilets in the single rooms would be removed and replaced by a dresser, while a desk would be added in front of the coach seat. The bed would stay and continue to work as it always has. The double rooms in the Slumbercoach would be converted into communal bathrooms, with men on one side and women on the other. In practice, however, this would be impractical, because the rooms would still be way too small even by traditional dorm room standards, and it would not have enough capacity to make the housing profitable for the university that uses it. However, it could work as a short-term housing capacity boost, or as a means of temporary student housing in the event a traditional dorm had to be taken out of service for an extended period of time (such as a fire or it being condemned by the local building department due to newly-discovered code violations). On the bright side, such student housing accommodations would certainly have the lowest room and board costs by far, compared to traditional permanent dorms.
 #1615566  by David Benton
 
Anthony wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:10 pm Remove if off topic, but here's an interesting, but purely theoretical use of a Slumbercoach in a way that is relevant to my current housing environment. As a college student railfan currently living in a traditional dorm, an exotic idea for a college or university to quickly and cheaply add a few dorm rooms to campus would be to buy a Slumbercoach and convert it into a dorm. The toilets in the single rooms would be removed and replaced by a dresser, while a desk would be added in front of the coach seat. The bed would stay and continue to work as it always has. The double rooms in the Slumbercoach would be converted into communal bathrooms, with men on one side and women on the other. In practice, however, this would be impractical, because the rooms would still be way too small even by traditional dorm room standards, and it would not have enough capacity to make the housing profitable for the university that uses it. However, it could work as a short-term housing capacity boost, or as a means of temporary student housing in the event a traditional dorm had to be taken out of service for an extended period of time (such as a fire or it being condemned by the local building department due to newly-discovered code violations). On the bright side, such student housing accommodations would certainly have the lowest room and board costs by far, compared to traditional permanent dorms.
They are not cheap , especially once transport and crane costs are added in . Caravans or 5th wheel trailer campers would be a lot cheaper. Be a nice novelty though .
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7