Sleeping on sleeper trains

I've taken long distance trains from Vancouver to Regina—back when it was Canadian Pacific, before CP and CN passenger trains were merged into VIA—but those trips were while trying to sleep in coach. In more recent years, I've taken a roomette from NYC to Spokane and back, to Kansas City and back, and last year, to the Bay Area and back. Retired, can afford the far higher cost than flying.

Attached is a photo of the interior of my roomette on one trip. I found that having ear plugs is a big plus. I slept comfortably. All my trips were during the summer. There's a feet first versus head first question which I've never fully explored.

On the Penn Station NYC to Chicago Union Station portion, there's a wash basin and toilet in the room. On the Zephyr and Empire Builder out of Chicago, the bathroom is down the hall. I understand that new roomettes will NOT have a toilet in them. 

The photo shows the Lake Shore Limited roomette, with washcloth on the fold-out sink. The toilet is out of sight at bottom left. The bottom of the upper bunk—which I didn't use—is just visible at top.

A couple of thoughts on the ride quality of passenger cars:

• Part of it is track.  You can't get a good ride when the track is rough.  We went from Los Angeles to Minneapolis on a through Pullman over Union Pacific to Omaha, and on the CMStP&O (Omaha Road) across Iowa and Minnesota.  The ride was not as smooth on the Omaha Road, but I can understand why.  I drove the highway that parallels the route, and it was still 90-110 lb rail on light ballast.  Same car, two different ride qualities in the same trip, due to track quality.
• Part of it is trucks.  Many improvements in the design of passenger car trucks occurred over the 1937-1965 period, which coincides with the production of lightweight, streamlined North American passenger cars.  Some railroads upgraded the trucks on their passenger cars and some did not.  Thus, the Coast Daylight, rolling along on the original 1937 Pullman-Standard "Challenger" trucks was very dependent on the condition of the track, whereas Union Pacific and Santa Fe cars, riding on late-design trucks, were more forgiving of irregularities in the track.

The wife and I always slept very well on AMTRAK.  Yes, that upper mattress is thin, but if I'm asleep I'm not aware of it.  The train rocks me to sleep as in a cradle.

Joe, Are you taking the Meteor this winter. We are taking it from NY to Ft. Lauderdale in February. We'll see how Anderson screwed it up this time.

I liked the Budd Slumbercoach layout.  And one did not have to tear up the bed to get to the toilet!

In a word, overrated, without medication!  😐

Number 90 posted:

• Part of it is track...

AMEN!

Back when we were running the 765 on a lot of different railroads, it was interesting to observe the differing track construction philosophies on the various "Heritage" railroads. Here are two examples...

1. Running on ex-PRR and ex-NYC lines on the same day...
   In the early 80s we deadheaded west from Orrville, Ohio, which is on the ex-PRR Fort Wayne Line, to Cincinnati. On the PRR between Orrville and Crestline, the road is a roller coaster profile. The PRR didn't spend a lot of money cutting and filling to smooth out small grades. As a result, I was constantly adjusting the throttle or taking a tiny bite of air to keep our speed on the mark and the train stretched. The track itself was fairly smooth, there were just a lot of little ups and downs that can cause slack action back in the train if the engineer doesn't keep everything properly stretched.
   
   At Crestline, Ohio we went around the connection to the ex-Big Four, a former New York Central line, and headed south. The difference in track construction philosophy was instant and amazing. Where I had been constantly adjusting the throttle and air on the ex-PRR, on the Big Four line I got the train up to our authorized speed of 50 mph and didn't have to touch anything for almost 50 miles! I watched the surrounding terrain go up and down a little as we went through countless small cuts where the NYC had graded the line to be smooth by eliminating many small grades caused by the topography of the land.
   

   ---

2. Switches and Crossovers
   Negotiating switches and crossovers provided another glimpse into the track construction philosophies and maintenance practices of different railroads.
   
   Switches and crossovers on ex-NKP, PRR and NYC lines were a non-event. As long as you hit them at the right speed, typically 30 mph, the 765 would ride through them very smoothly. All we would feel in the cab was a slight lateral g-force as the engine hit the diverging route of the switch. But those forces were light and gentle.
   
   The first time we ran the New River Trains on the ex-C&O between Huntington and Hinton, West Virginia, we quickly found out that going through a crossover on the old C&O was an event! The C&O (and now CSX) evidently use some different standards when it comes to laying out a crossover and maintaining them. Going through crossovers on the C&O was always a very rough ride with powerful lateral g-forces, even at the required "Medium Speed" of 30 mph. I can't imagine sleeping through one of these crossovers. Some of them were so rough you could have been tossed out of bed! We ultimately started slowing to 22-25 mph to go through crossovers on this line. It was a bit smoother at those slower speeds.

As Tom said, track conditions play a HUGE role in overall passenger comfort, whether you're sitting in a coach seat or trying to sleep in a bed.

Rich:

TRAINS many years ago ran an article about the T&P 2-10-4's.  These engines did run on SP trackage rights in Western Texas.  The article stated the Texans felt different on the SP, because the track profile of the SP was different than that of the T&P.  Of course the T&P engines were set up for their track.  Could the difference on the CSX/C&O be simular?

Dominic Mazoch posted:

Rich:

TRAINS many years ago ran an article about the T&P 2-10-4's.  These engines did run on SP trackage rights in Western Texas.  The article stated the Texans felt different on the SP, because the track profile of the SP was different than that of the T&P.  Of course the T&P engines were set up for their track.

How would a steam locomotive be "set up" for any specific track geometry? Was the track gauge different on the T&P?

  Could the difference on the CSX/C&O be simular?

A year and a half ago I took the train from Omaha to Rockville, MD to go to the O Scale 2 rail National. On the way out I took the sleeper I did fine. One the way back I took coach just to see the difference as I knew there would be. Sleep wasn't too bad except for the clown that snored worse than I do. The ride was really fun, though.

Dick

CBQer posted:

A year and a half ago I took the train from Omaha to Rockville, MD to go to the O Scale 2 rail National. On the way out I took the sleeper I did fine. One the way back I took coach just to see the difference as I knew there would be. Sleep wasn't too bad except for the clown that snored worse than I do.

You mean that you slept with a clown, in the same room?????

The ride was really fun, though.

Dick

Rich Melvin posted:

Number 90 posted:

• Part of it is track...

AMEN!

Back when we were running the 765 on a lot of different railroads, it was interesting to observe the differing track construction philosophies on the various "Heritage" railroads. Here are two examples...

1. Running on ex-PRR and ex-NYC lines on the same day...
   In the early 80s we deadheaded west from Orrville, Ohio, which is on the ex-PRR Fort Wayne Line, to Cincinnati. On the PRR between Orrville and Crestline, the road is a roller coaster profile. The PRR didn't spend a lot of money cutting and filling to smooth out small grades. As a result, I was constantly adjusting the throttle or taking a tiny bite of air to keep our speed on the mark and the train stretched. The track itself was fairly smooth, there were just a lot of little ups and downs that can cause slack action back in the train if the engineer doesn't keep everything properly stretched.
   
   At Crestline, Ohio we went around the connection to the ex-Big Four, a former New York Central line, and headed south. The difference in track construction philosophy was instant and amazing. Where I had been constantly adjusting the throttle and air on the ex-PRR, on the Big Four line I got the train up to our authorized speed of 50 mph and didn't have to touch anything for almost 50 miles! I watched the surrounding terrain go up and down a little as we went through countless small cuts where the NYC had graded the line to be smooth by eliminating many small grades caused by the topography of the land.
   

   ---

If you examine maps of Ohio, you can see that the difference in profile had nothing to do with the PRR building differently from the NYC.  IT was a question of terrain.  The NYC's flat track profile west of Crestline to Bellefontaine and beyond was a result of the land being flat farmland.  East of Crestline and Mansfield, the PRR was crossing  a series of notrh-south ridges and river valleys, necessary for a route to Pittsburgh.  If you examine the PRR west of Crestline, you'll see it was similar to the NYC.

We're talking here about the PRR high speed main line between Pittsburgh and Chicago.  No way was that built on the cheap.

It's interesting to note that although the PRR line to Chicago, was 50 miles shorter than the NYC, the train time was about the same as a result in the differences in terrain.  The NYC was literally a water level route all the way while the PRR was going through hills and Mountains between Crestline and Harrisburg.

Rich Melvin posted:

Number 90 posted:

• Part of it is track..
  

  ---

1. Switches and Crossovers
   Negotiating switches and crossovers provided another glimpse into the track construction philosophies and maintenance practices of different railroads.
   
   Switches and crossovers on ex-NKP, PRR and NYC lines were a non-event. As long as you hit them at the right speed, typically 30 mph, the 765 would ride through them very smoothly. All we would feel in the cab was a slight lateral g-force as the engine hit the diverging route of the switch. But those forces were light and gentle.
   
   The first time we ran the New River Trains on the ex-C&O between Huntington and Hinton, West Virginia, we quickly found out that going through a crossover on the old C&O was an event! The C&O (and now CSX) evidently use some different standards when it comes to laying out a crossover and maintaining them. Going through crossovers on the C&O was always a very rough ride with powerful lateral g-forces, even at the required "Medium Speed" of 30 mph. I can't imagine sleeping through one of these crossovers. Some of them were so rough you could have been tossed out of bed! We ultimately started slowing to 22-25 mph to go through crossovers on this line. It was a bit smoother at those slower speeds.

That shows a large difference in maintenance practices but not in track laying philosophies.  I rode across the C&O in a sleeper in 1963, and it was a much better experience than on the PRR or NYC.  The C&O had more money to spend on maintenance and by more frequent line and surface work, it was more comfortable.

Most of these crossovers were built before the depression using a nation-wide standard.  That was a #15 switch frog with 30 mph speed limits for diverging routes while any part of the train was within interlocking limits.  If you were to look at the layout of crossovers on many different railraods, you would see little difference.

Each time a heavy train passes through a switch on a diverging route, the switch is thrown a tiny distance to the side.  Over several years these can add up to a quarter or half inch out of line and be felt by passengers.  The time interval for maintaining track alignment had a lot to do with maintence cost and ride quality.  Brings back vivid memories of a a smooth sleep at 100 mph on the ACL and no sleep on the L&N in the mid 60's.

I used to ride the sleepers in the 60's back and forth to school ( Southern Crescent) . Around 1990 my wife and I took my kids on the Broadway Limited to Chicago so they could experience it, because who knew how long they would be in operation?  The four of us in two berths. Me and my son, head to foot in the upper. Didn't sleep that well on that trip as I got kicked a lot. Ha, ha. 

I do like sleepers. There is something very romantic about them. I like the swaying of the car and the rhythmic clickety clack and opening the shade to watch the nighttime, Edward Hopper world slide by. Trains run through peoples back yards, not like roads, which run through the front, so you get an uncensored view of American life.

I couldn’t have put that last, better myself. 

eddie g posted:

Joe, Are you taking the Meteor this winter. We are taking it from NY to Ft. Lauderdale in February. We'll see how Anderson screwed it up this time.

I'm thinking I may take the Star this time. It leaves Philadelphia around 12:30 compared to the Meteor at 4:45. That will allow me to see some VA scenery vs it being dark by Baltimore. Although it does not have a regular dining car, the roomette will only "cost" me 14,559 Amtrak points vs 21,942 for the Meteor. Yes, the trip is 4 hours longer, but I get to see more Florida scenery. Both trains arrive in Ft. Lauderdale around the same time of 5:30 pm. We will be going early March for 3 weeks. My wife will likely fly down with her sister, and the 3 of us will fly home. If she and her sister took the train (like they did last year), we'd go on the Meteor.

My wife liked our train trips earlier this year to Florida, New Orleans, and Phoenix...but enough is enough. In a few days, we are flying to Brazil to spend the holiday's with our son's family.

Childhood memory: Age 10 years (barely)

Month & Year:  March (not positive) 1954 (positive!)

Overnight train from Toronto, ON to Montreal, QC.

My father and I had a compartment. My recollection was awaking with very sore eyes. A fresh air vent had been blowing in my face all night. Despite sleeping (perfectly well as I recall!), the vent seemed to dry my eyes out. 

After we awoke, we left our compartment and sat in a day coach. Although I was already a train buff at that early age, I have no other recollection. Hard to believe I would not have dragged dad up to the head of the train before boarding to look at the locomotive but, if I did, I do not recall. I have since read that CPR 3101, a 4-8-4 was used on that overnight run so I like to think I have ridden behind 3101, but I can't verify that and don't know the odds. No idea how many other locos may have pulled that train in those days?

As for the "quality" of the experience . . . what did I know? I was a kid on the cusp of his 10th birthday and could sleep through a trainwreck!

Joe Hohmann posted:

eddie g posted:

Joe, Are you taking the Meteor this winter. We are taking it from NY to Ft. Lauderdale in February. We'll see how Anderson screwed it up this time.

I'm thinking I may take the Star this time. ...snip...

When I lived in FTL and rode to either BAL or PHL, I would usually take the Star (full-service diner back then) both ways mainly because it gave me four more hours of train-riding time and another meal for the same fare as the Meteor.