back in the early days of air flights they would routinely have nurses on board due to ear issues, etc....so perhaps they got that moniker from the early airlines?
by the late 50s traveling by train cross country was starting to die out and perhaps it was a way to make people feel 'safer' about traveling cross country on a train and to boost travel by train???
Emergencies can happen anywhere, anytime. I once took Amtrak from Portland to Chicago and somewhere in Washington state at about 2 a.m. the train had to stop at a crossing to put a passenger on an ambulance. We appeared to be in the middle of nowhere because I didn't see lights from a town anywhere. No telling how long the passenger had to wait before we met the ambulance. That's the time when having someone with medical training on staff would come in handy.
Now companies provide first aid training to employees and I would think that long distance trains would have things like AEDs on board. I would hope so, anyway, especially with the number of seniors that like to take the train.
Actually, early airline stewardesses (there were stewards, previously, but no stewardesses until Ellen Church, in 1930) — in the United States — were required to be nurses as well. This is likely a carryover from that.
Modern-day commuter trains in the US are a travesty ... try them almost anywhere else in the developed world. Americans forgot how to do trains sometime in the 60s.
This is pretty interesting - showing the incredible growth in air travel: http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/conc3en/evolairtransport.html
Also, air travel was much, much more expensive comparatively speaking: http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/conc3en/airfarenylondon.html
Air travel is now *cheaper* than rail travel; and hardly anyone is inclined to spend more money to take a week to get from one coast to the other when they could do it with one eight hour burst of badness.
My family has always worked for various airlines (TWA, AA, PanAm, Continental, etc.), so we flew in the 60s and 70s for comparatively little money. So I was lucky to be able to fly when we couldn't have afforded it otherwise.
Even in the 80s when I worked for American, it was more civilized than it is now.
If trains were less expensive and better maintained, I would totally take the train over an airplane. You can't fall 30,000 feet out of the Coast Starlight.
Well the day is coming; peak oil pretty much guarantees that. People simply won't be able to afford to commute 90 minutes each way in a single-occupancy vehicle, so commuter rail will be the only option in many cases. And the cost of air travel will have to go up rather sharply too.
We did take one train, from DC to NYC, that was everything you could want from a commuter trip - quiet, clean, comfortable, on time. http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=AM_Route_C&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241245664867 But there again, it just costs more. You can't get around it, one of the reasons travel is the way it is now, is the demand for lower fares; and that necessarily means worse service.
Bending over incessantly for many hours to serve and tend passengers would make one wish, I'm guessin', for a practical awareness of levels in the coach design. When the going gets tough, the trough gets gratifying.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-24 07:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-24 07:55 pm (UTC)my best guess is that they hired people (OK, "girls") who had an RN
no subject
Date: 2011-06-25 12:20 am (UTC)by the late 50s traveling by train cross country was starting to die out and perhaps it was a way to make people feel 'safer' about traveling cross country on a train and to boost travel by train???
that's all i can think of....
no subject
Date: 2011-06-26 11:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-25 02:32 pm (UTC)Now companies provide first aid training to employees and I would think that long distance trains would have things like AEDs on board. I would hope so, anyway, especially with the number of seniors that like to take the train.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-24 08:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-24 08:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-24 10:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-25 03:45 am (UTC)but I can handle the metro. probably because the ride is shorter.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-24 08:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-24 11:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-25 12:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-24 10:53 pm (UTC)I bet it was hot as hell in those vista domes.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-24 11:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-24 11:17 pm (UTC)I am a crone.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-24 11:29 pm (UTC)http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/conc3en/evolairtransport.html
Also, air travel was much, much more expensive comparatively speaking:
http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/conc3en/airfarenylondon.html
Air travel is now *cheaper* than rail travel; and hardly anyone is inclined to spend more money to take a week to get from one coast to the other when they could do it with one eight hour burst of badness.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-24 11:41 pm (UTC)Even in the 80s when I worked for American, it was more civilized than it is now.
If trains were less expensive and better maintained, I would totally take the train over an airplane. You can't fall 30,000 feet out of the Coast Starlight.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-25 12:02 am (UTC)We did take one train, from DC to NYC, that was everything you could want from a commuter trip - quiet, clean, comfortable, on time.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=AM_Route_C&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241245664867
But there again, it just costs more. You can't get around it, one of the reasons travel is the way it is now, is the demand for lower fares; and that necessarily means worse service.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-25 01:21 am (UTC)I think we are going to get a lot more local in our lifetimes.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-26 02:23 pm (UTC)You may be interested in the essay, "Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crisis"
http://www.npg.org/specialreports/bartlett_index.htm
no subject
Date: 2011-06-25 03:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-25 03:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-25 04:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-26 03:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-28 04:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-28 04:17 pm (UTC)my inital thought was the seats needed to be higher so people could see out the dome windows.