BRHSLIST
[Top] [All Lists]

[CBQ] Arrangement of slumbercoaches on the DZ

To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [CBQ] Arrangement of slumbercoaches on the DZ
From: "Stephen J. Levine" <sjl@prodigy.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 04:05:23 -0000
Delivered-to: archives@nauer.org
Delivered-to: mailing list CBQ@yahoogroups.com
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Mailing-list: list CBQ@yahoogroups.com; contact CBQ-owner@yahoogroups.com
Reply-to: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
User-agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
In the summer of 1965, the Denver summer and holiday slumbercoach on 
the Denver Zephyr, which had been, from the inception of the 1956 
train, located in front of the Colorado Springs section of the train 
with the coaches, was moved to behind the dining car, still retaining 
its SC19 car number that it had since 1962.  With the summer 1966 
consist the car was placed in the same position, but was given the 
number SC7.  On January 1, 1967, the Colorado Springs section of the 
train was replaced by bus service and, with the Summer 1967 consist, 
the former Colorado Springs slumbercoach and 10-6 sleeper were placed 
behind the diner with positions reversed so that the slumbercoaches 
were together.  At that time the slumbercoaches were renumbered SC8 
and SC9.  The former Colorado Springs sleeper still retained the 
number DZ10.

At the time, as a teenager, I thought it was interesting but did not 
think anything more of it.  Soon after, as a Medical Student and a 
Pathologist, I learned to look for reasons behind things.  

Thus I am now wondering if the reason for moving the Denver 
slumbercoach to the sleeper section of the train, and later, leaving 
a sleeper in front of the former Springs slumbercoach was to allow a 
single porter to service a sleeper (22 passengers) and a slumbercoach 
(40 passengers).  If a single porter had to service the two 
slumbercoaches, he would have been responsible for up to 80 
passengers instead of the 62 in a sleeper and slumbercoach.   Also, 
supposedly, the services by a porter in a slumbercoach would have 
been limited to changing the bed linens in the morning and, in some 
cases, letting down the beds, which would have only been during 
morning and the evening before, whereas the service requirements in 
the sleepers would have been more continuous.

Unfortunately, I did not think to ask the porters about the 
arrangement at the time.  Can someone tell me if I am correct about 
the reason for arranging the slumbercoaches so that they were always 
paired with a sleeper being so that one porter could service both?

sjl



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>