# Amtrak Pacific Parlor Car vs. Via Rail Park Car



## jmbgeg (Sep 13, 2009)

Positive comments about Via Rail on AU prompted me to go to the Via Rail site to see what they offer. I see on the long distance trains they have a Park Car, which may be similar to a PPC.

http://www.viarail.ca/en/resources/stainless-steel-park-car

For those who have traveled both the CS and Via Rail, how does the Park Car compare? Are there any ideas Amtrak should garner from Via Rail's Park Car?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Sep 13, 2009)

jmbgeg said:


> Positive comments about Via Rail on AU prompted me to go to the Via Rail site to see what they offer. I see on the long distance trains they have a Park Car, which may be similar to a PPC.
> http://www.viarail.ca/en/resources/stainless-steel-park-car
> 
> For those who have traveled both the CS and Via Rail, how does the Park Car compare? Are there any ideas Amtrak should garner from Via Rail's Park Car?


Besides refurbishing whole sets of vintage 1950s Budd cars, not really. Amtrak ran cars like that, very similar in configuration, many years ago. Silver Horizon, Silver Penthouse, Silver Lookout, and I am blanking on the fourth cars name, but there was a fourth. Built by Budd for the California Zephyr. And there were other round-end observations that didn't have sleeping accommodations, or that didn't have domes, or both. They were generally always first class lounges due to their location on the train.

What it boils down to is that in their formation, Amtrak and VIA both made a choice. Amtrak made a choice to be a serious transportation provider. They ordered more spartan but high-capacity equipment. They cut service positions to the point of efficiency, and perhaps past that. They made them selves unbelievably cost efficient given the various restrictions placed on them. The cost of a cross country trip on Amtrak for two people is in the area of $600 at low bucket.

VIA chose to be a rail cruise, to maintain its standards of service from a by-gone era. The Windsor-Ottawa routes notwithstanding, VIA is a joke. It has about half a dozen long distance routes that generally go nowhere and get there slowly. They run tri-weekly, for the most part. I don't think VIA has a single daily overnight train. VIA is hilariously cost inefficient. A cross country trip on VIA will cost you about $2k for two people, and that is when you get a good deal off season, in section berths. And they lose more money than Amtrak does, per passenger.

The effect of this is that Amtrak, while being a punching bag politically, has managed to justify itself such that they operate 14 overnight trains, and about that many long distance day trains. All but 2 of them operate daily, and they are working on those. Amtrak exists with almost its entire original network intact. Actually, the only two notable losses are CHI-MIA, and NYP-KCS. Honorable mention to the stretch of track between OKC and Newton.

VIA, on the other hand, operates less than half of its original network.


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 13, 2009)

Basically agree with all of Green Maned Lion's points, with the small caveat that Via really didn't make the rail cruise decision until about 1990 (also when the biggest single service contraction took place), some years after their formation in 1978. Up until then it was much like Amtrak (and a whole bunch cheaper. Before 1990, it was usually cheaper than Amtrak for equivalent distances).

But as to the cars, and I've ridden on both.

The Park car is round-end Budd short dome/obs. The short dome is widely considered to be the finest in sightseeing, with a great 360 degree view. It is also a round-end. classic obs, giving the train a clean, finished look. The car is staffed as a standard lounge car. Further, while the car has been mechanically modernized, the basic decor is original (they replaced the murals in the "Mural Lounge" with photo reproductions to save the original artwork). In most respects, it represents the penultimate moment of rail comfort in the "streamliner" era. And it is still running in the service is was purchased for and designed for by CP, first class lounge on the cross-country Canadian (despite the fact it is now running over CN, not CP).

The Pacific Parlour Car has only viewing to both sides, although with similar top wrapping as a Sightseer Lounge. The car is a Budd Hi-Level Lounge car built for Santa Fe's delux coach streamliner, the El Capitan. They were, in fact, the model for the Superliner Sightseer Lounge. The interior design is completely an Amtrak creation, at least the second since Amtrak's acquisition of the cars, that has nothing to do with the original decor and layout of the car as the "Top of the Cap" lounge" (upstairs) and "Katchina Coffee Shop" (downstairs where the movie theater is). The original was a Southwest Indian motif. Note the awful, standard Amtrak booths in the front end of the car. The car is likewise staffed as a lounge, although the last time I rode it, the lounge attendant was absent for extended periods (and not at meal times). So pretty much standard Amtrak "you take what you get" service. Sometimes great, sometimes awful, mostly mediocre.

The PPC is nice, and it is nice to have a sleeper only lounge (well, almost). However, in design, comfort, viewing it doesn't hold a candle to the Park car.

The lesson for Amtrak are:

1- that they should not have gotten rid of their fleet of Budd domes. Too late now.

2 - A first class lounge should be made available on the major LD trains. They actually have inadvertantly prepared for this, because they could use the CCCs for that, if not for much else.

3 - Improve staff professionalism.

Annoying nitpicking: A "Parlor Car" is first class seating for day trains. Acela First Class is the modern equivalent of parlor service. And the British spelling, "Parlour" of this inaccuracy is just plain affected. And yes, yes, I know almost no one knows that. But it isn't a parlor or a "parlour" car. It is a first class lounge.


----------



## jmbgeg (Sep 13, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> jmbgeg said:
> 
> 
> > Positive comments about Via Rail on AU prompted me to go to the Via Rail site to see what they offer. I see on the long distance trains they have a Park Car, which may be similar to a PPC.
> ...


Excellent analysis. I am a train traveler of only 3-4 years I lack the historical perspective that you and others bring to the table. I get the distinction between an efficient (cost and operations) transportation system and a rail cruise. That really helps me with some of my "if only" aspirations for the long distance Amtrak trains.


----------



## Tim_Metra (Sep 13, 2009)

I am glad that Amtrak has maintained themselves as a "spartan" but cost effect mode of transportation. I do alot of work in Saudi Arabia and we in the US are going to be very glad that we maintained a passenger rail service when crude oil is $300 / barrel. The "crude" truth is that the Saudis are at peak oil. In ten years passenger rail travel is going to make a huge come back. The states that preserved their rail stations are going to be happy that they did. The states that did not will be "crying" for a "rail bailout".


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Sep 13, 2009)

zephyr17 said:


> Basically agree with all of Green Maned Lion's points, with the small caveat that Via really didn't make the rail cruise decision until about 1990 (also when the biggest single service contraction took place), some years after their formation in 1978. Up until then it was much like Amtrak (and a whole bunch cheaper. Before 1990, it was usually cheaper than Amtrak for equivalent distances).
> But as to the cars, and I've ridden on both.
> 
> The Park car is round-end Budd short dome/obs. The short dome is widely considered to be the finest in sightseeing, with a great 360 degree view. It is also a round-end. classic obs, giving the train a clean, finished look. The car is staffed as a standard lounge car. Further, while the car has been mechanically modernized, the basic decor is original (they replaced the murals in the "Mural Lounge" with photo reproductions to save the original artwork). In most respects, it represents the penultimate moment of rail comfort in the "streamliner" era. And it is still running in the service is was purchased for and designed for by CP, first class lounge on the cross-country Canadian (despite the fact it is now running over CN, not CP).
> ...


Zephyr17 you and I must have similar railfan backgrounds. I second the above with special note on the terminology issues in your last paragraph. Another usage which disturbs me is for people to call the sightseer lounge an observation car. I mean, I fully, fully understand that......but what I also understand is that the word already got gobbled up years ago by the heavyweight open platform.And a generation or two more recently for the tapered rear as on the Canadian.

One thing you gotta say about the name PPC though, it gets the alliteration award and that makes it easy to remember so maybe all is not lost.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Sep 13, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> jmbgeg said:
> 
> 
> > Positive comments about Via Rail on AU prompted me to go to the Via Rail site to see what they offer. I see on the long distance trains they have a Park Car, which may be similar to a PPC.
> ...


Silver Solarium was the fourth and I fondly remember that car being a regular vistitor to Norman on the *Lone Star *in the late 70s. It is now thriving in private hands, back in her California Zephyr livery.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Sep 13, 2009)

The CCC when used as a full Lounge, as it was on my last 2 *Texas Eagle *trips where the Sightseer was gone, actually makes a decent Lounge if you do not mind "standard" windows. But if you plan to keep any in full Lounge service, I would tear out the booths on one end and put more "loungy" type seating and make the lower level into some kind of lounging area since the full kitchen would not be needed. Though that involves spending funds Amtrak could better use elsewhere.


----------



## railiner (Sep 13, 2009)

OlympianHiawatha said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > jmbgeg said:
> ...


And the remaining three from the original CZ are the Silver Planet, Silver Crescent, and Silver Sky.


----------



## NS VIA FAN (Sep 13, 2009)

The “Park Car” on the Canadian is the social hub of the train. A round-end observation + 360 deg view from the dome. There’s a complementary Champagne Reception upon departure along with hors d’oeuvres, wine tasting at other times and always snacks out on a counter to help yourself. On the other hand, once when riding the Pacific Parlour Car there was a charge for the Wine Tasting (fair ball) but what I found troubling.....even other sleeping cars passengers who were not participating, but just there to enjoy the view were asked (told) to leave and in no uncertain terms by the Attendant.....something you just wouldn’t find on VIA.



Green Maned Lion said:


> VIA chose to be a rail cruise, to maintain its standards of service from a by-gone era. The Windsor-Ottawa routes notwithstanding, VIA is a joke. It has about half a dozen long distance routes that generally go nowhere and get there slowly. They run tri-weekly, for the most part. I don't think VIA has a single daily overnight train. VIA is hilariously cost inefficient. A cross country trip on VIA will cost you about $2k for two people, and that is when you get a good deal off season, in section berths. And they lose more money than Amtrak does, per passenger.


For someone who has never been on VIA, you seam to know a lot but can’t even get the corridor route correct. It’s not Windsor-Ottawa but Windsor-Quebec City (nearly 275 miles further east)

Other than the “Canadian” which is a “Rail Cruise” VIA’s other trains provide basic transportation. Tell someone flagging down the Saguenay in northern Quebec or even the Canadian across northern Ontario they are boarding a Rail Cruise......this is their only link to the outside world......there are no roads in the area. The Ocean which operates six days a week (Ottawa dictates the schedule...not VIA) has a Rail Cruises option during the summer but other than that is actually used as basic transportation: a corridor route through the Maritimes then over-night to Montreal. Stand on the station platforms at Moncton, Bathurst or Campbellton any evening.....these are Not Japanese or European tourist boarding the train and they are filling 4 coaches and 5 or 6 sleepers!

Sleeper fares on the Canadian are expensive (which VIA has no problem selling when they can fill 20 to 30 car trains) and deals are available at different times. But most other fares are reasonable for the cost of providing a service across a county larger than the US but with 1/10 the population.

Sure Amtrak has several routes coast to coast but no need for that here (other than possibly the CP route from Winnipeg, through Banff to Vancouver) when the majority of the population is in a narrow band across the southern portion of the county (It’s nearly 6300 km from Halifax to Vancouver. Too bad the Newfie Bullet wasn't still operating.....you could go an additional 1500 km further east )



Green Maned Lion said:


> Amtrak exists with almost its entire original network intact. Actually, the only two notable losses are CHI-MIA, and NYP-KCS. Honorable mention to the stretch of track between OKC and Newton. VIA, on the other hand, operates less than half of its original network.


Yes, but.....when Amtrak was created in 1971, their route structure was cut in an instant to a fraction of what existed prior to the May 1 start-up. VIA on the other hand maintained most of the former CN and CP routes for a number of years before any significant cut-backs.


----------



## goodnightjohnwayne (Sep 13, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> jmbgeg said:
> 
> 
> > Positive comments about Via Rail on AU prompted me to go to the Via Rail site to see what they offer. I see on the long distance trains they have a Park Car, which may be similar to a PPC.
> ...


1. VIA Rail inherited a substantial fleet of Budd built equipment from the CP, including the Park cars. As it turned out, the CP had ordered the Park cars toward the end of the lightweight era, and retained them intact after many railroads had converted such cars with full end vestibules for midtrain use, or discarded their observation cars.

2. Amtrak inherited a number of round and square tailed observation cars, but the fleet was far from homogeneous, and many had been converted to coaches or coach/lounge cars. Many predecessor railroads had removed their round ended sleeper-lounge observation cars before the formation of Amtrak. The bottom line is that Amtrak didn't inherit a fleet of cars equivalent to VIA's ex-CP Park cars.

3. Many of VIA's remaining routes are invaluable transportation links to remote areas, although western trains such as the Skeena, and to a less extent, the current, truncated, Canadian have lost much of their transportation functionality. Actually, the post 1990 CN route of the current Canadian isn't especially scenic or very well situated, but they still manage to fill huge consists in the peak season. Go figure.

4. It seems likely in hindsight that if VIA funding hadn't been cut in 1990, VIA might have joined Amtrak's Superliner II order to replace a number of ex-CN cars, many of which were original purchased second hand from American railroads. In the end, the money wasn't there, and with the route cuts, there wasn't any need for new equipment either.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 13, 2009)

OlympianHiawatha said:


> The CCC when used as a full Lounge, as it was on my last 2 *Texas Eagle *trips where the Sightseer was gone, actually makes a decent Lounge if you do not mind "standard" windows. But if you plan to keep any in full Lounge service, I would tear out the booths on one end and put more "loungy" type seating and make the lower level into some kind of lounging area since the full kitchen would not be needed. Though that involves spending funds Amtrak could better use elsewhere.


Yeah,now that fall/winter is coming the poor Eagle once again gets shorted on equipment! (of course the CONO got the same raw deal!) I really dislike the CCCs, most of the trains I have to ride to get out of Texas use them so perhaps Im biased, but you are correct that with a reworking they would make a fairly decent lounge! Still wish Amtrak could buy the old Santa Fe cars in Kansas from the previous post!!!  (Imagine, all LD trains with a PPC like car!Yes!!!!!)


----------



## railiner (Sep 13, 2009)

I recall that VIA 'borrowed' a few Superliner cars one winter to test on the Skeena. I don't remember more details, or the results of that test. It was in the early nineties, I believe.


----------



## railiner (Sep 13, 2009)

With the PPC, Amtrak has redefined what a 'parlor car' is. Originally it was first class REVENUE seating on mainly day trains. Now it is first class non-revenue lounge seating.


----------



## NS VIA FAN (Sep 13, 2009)

railiner said:


> I recall that VIA 'borrowed' a few Superliner cars one winter to test on the Skeena. I don't remember more details, or the results of that test. It was in the early nineties, I believe.


It was the Panorama that operated with the leased Amtrak “Superliners” between Winnipeg and Edmonton from September to December 1, 1984 and January 1 to Easter 1985. Consist included an Amtrak F40 + Superliner Baggage/Coach, Coach, Diner and Sleeper.


----------



## jis (Sep 13, 2009)

Tim_Metra said:


> I am glad that Amtrak has maintained themselves as a "spartan" but cost effect mode of transportation. I do alot of work in Saudi Arabia and we in the US are going to be very glad that we maintained a passenger rail service when crude oil is $300 / barrel. The "crude" truth is that the Saudis are at peak oil. In ten years passenger rail travel is going to make a huge come back. The states that preserved their rail stations are going to be happy that they did. The states that did not will be "crying" for a "rail bailout".


And meanwhile Louisiana, from the looks of it, will probably work diligently to get rid of whatever little they have


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 13, 2009)

jis said:


> Tim_Metra said:
> 
> 
> > I am glad that Amtrak has maintained themselves as a "spartan" but cost effect mode of transportation. I do alot of work in Saudi Arabia and we in the US are going to be very glad that we maintained a passenger rail service when crude oil is $300 / barrel. The "crude" truth is that the Saudis are at peak oil. In ten years passenger rail travel is going to make a huge come back. The states that preserved their rail stations are going to be happy that they did. The states that did not will be "crying" for a "rail bailout".
> ...


Considering the quality of the leadership in some cities and states,including my own, this is not surprising!We are fixing to lose our Senator that was a strong supporter of Amtrak,she saved the Eagle several times!Im happy DFW and Houston seem to be doing a good job with their metro systems,

Austin lags so much its unreal! (see "The Red Line", the little train that couldnt!) Hope we hear something soon about the the Sunset and the Eagle,but probably will not change until next springs schedule!Keep the heat on the guys in office, thats where the money and the power is!


----------



## jmbgeg (Sep 13, 2009)

jimhudson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Tim_Metra said:
> ...


Since you raised politics, who do you think will follow Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson in office?


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 13, 2009)

railiner said:


> With the PPC, Amtrak has redefined what a 'parlor car' is. Originally it was first class REVENUE seating on mainly day trains. Now it is first class non-revenue lounge seating.


Had Amtrak invented the concept of a first class lounge car, they could call their new concept what they liked, and I might have agreed with you. They didn't. First class only lounge space has existed for a long time on many pre-Amtrak trains, the Empire Builder, the original CZ, the Lark following the addition of coaches, just to name a few.

Amtrak just took a nice old "railroady" sounding term and misused it. Whoever did it probably did not even know what it meant.

Misuse is not redefinition.

On the other hand, I can't think of a catchy marketing name for it, and the RRs came up with their own catchy names for their unique signature services, like Great Northern Empire Builder's "Great Dome" or CP's "SCENIC DOME" (the Park car) and/or simple noted something like "Buffet-Lounge-Obs (Pullman Passengers Only)" in public timetables. "Pacific Parlour Car" does work as a marketing name, I acknowledge that. It doesn't keep it from grating on me, though.

PS - Bill, calling the Sightseer an "Observation" car or a "Dome" car grates on me, too. But I think I've only heard that in news reports or comments by other passengers (I don't play the annoying railfan and correct them, though). I don't think Amtrak uses those terms officially in their marketing material, though, which is what annoys me about the PPC.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 13, 2009)

jmbgeg said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Dont really know, shes supposed to resign sometime this fall. lots of people want the job, just like in Mass! Our Governor would appoint a temporary Senator, then there would be a Special Election when he called it, open to all comers! I just hope someone with some common sense and not a kooky, far out birther/no-nothing turn back the clock to 1950 type wins!It will probably be a republican, a democrat hasnt carried Texas since the late Ann Richards! This is not so much political as a remionder that the government is behind all transportation matters, rail and otherwise since thats where the money is! I just hope a reasonable supporter of Amtrak and rail wins, not a highway and airplane are the only way type!


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 13, 2009)

railiner said:


> I recall that VIA 'borrowed' a few Superliner cars one winter to test on the Skeena. I don't remember more details, or the results of that test. It was in the early nineties, I believe.


Late '80s shortly before the big 1990 contraction. They were determining whether to re-equip their long distance services with Superliners, or rebuild their Budd fleet. They decided on the latter, obviously. The decision was primarily based on cost, IIRC, but passenger reaction counted some, too. The rebuild was cheaper, and they thought the service life would be equivalent. They could get away with the rebuild if they got rid of the less corrosion-resistant ex-CN CCF "Blue" fleet, which they largely did in the contraction.


----------



## AlanB (Sep 13, 2009)

jimhudson said:


> jmbgeg said:
> 
> 
> > Since you raised politics, who do you think will follow Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson in office?
> ...


Why is Kay resigning?


----------



## railiner (Sep 13, 2009)

NS VIA FAN said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > I recall that VIA 'borrowed' a few Superliner cars one winter to test on the Skeena. I don't remember more details, or the results of that test. It was in the early nineties, I believe.
> ...


Okay, thanks for that correction. I knew it was on some train out of Edmonton, and I forgot about the Panorama.


----------



## jmbgeg (Sep 13, 2009)

AlanB said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > jmbgeg said:
> ...


I don't think she is resigning, but just not running for reelection. I believe she plans to run for Texas Governor.

Edit: http://texans.forkay.com/


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 13, 2009)

jmbgeg said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > jimhudson said:
> ...


No, she has announced she will resign sometime this fall, and IS running for governor against the incumbent Rick Perry in a blood bath primary next spring, no-one knows why she is resigning,she doesnt have to, I think it has to do with campaign finance law, in Texas you can raise and spend all the money you want on campaigns, federal officers like Senators are limited! Its going to be a very expensive election season!I hope she wins, our governor has served 10 years, already the longest serving in our history (he suceeded a guy name Bush who used to be the gov)! Time for a new,fresh approach to governing this huge,growing, confused state! Maybe she could help us get more trains and MAKE CapMetro get the Red Line running! :lol:


----------



## AlanB (Sep 14, 2009)

Thanks.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Sep 14, 2009)

I'm just going to ignore NS VIA FAN's comments, since fleshing out what we already know about each others opinion on this subject would be a waste of time. My points of view stand.



goodnightjohnwayne said:


> 1. VIA Rail inherited a substantial fleet of Budd built equipment from the CP, including the Park cars. As it turned out, the CP had ordered the Park cars toward the end of the lightweight era, and retained them intact after many railroads had converted such cars with full end vestibules for midtrain use, or discarded their observation cars.
> 2. Amtrak inherited a number of round and square tailed observation cars, but the fleet was far from homogeneous, and many had been converted to coaches or coach/lounge cars. Many predecessor railroads had removed their round ended sleeper-lounge observation cars before the formation of Amtrak. The bottom line is that Amtrak didn't inherit a fleet of cars equivalent to VIA's ex-CP Park cars.


Having a full book of diagrams of every Amtrak car in service in 1976, I assure you this is simply not true. Amtrak had a fleet of about 45 round end cars. Amtrak inherited quite a solid fleet of sleeper round-ends, sleeper domes, and so on. None of them made it past head-end-power conversion. There were a total of 12 round-end domes, which could have allowed two trains to run with them. The only observation car on Amtrak's roster past '82 was Beech Grove.



goodnightjohnwayne said:


> 3. Many of VIA's remaining routes are invaluable transportation links to remote areas, although western trains such as the Skeena, and to a less extent, the current, truncated, Canadian have lost much of their transportation functionality. Actually, the post 1990 CN route of the current Canadian isn't especially scenic or very well situated, but they still manage to fill huge consists in the peak season. Go figure.


If they were so invaluble, they'd have decent ridership. They'd run more than a handful of times a week. And they would cost a hell of a lot less.



goodnightjohnwayne said:


> 4. It seems likely in hindsight that if VIA funding hadn't been cut in 1990, VIA might have joined Amtrak's Superliner II order to replace a number of ex-CN cars, many of which were original purchased second hand from American railroads. In the end, the money wasn't there, and with the route cuts, there wasn't any need for new equipment either.


Its possible, but the main reason VIA gets clouted around on funding issues is they were an inefficient system on almost every count. It didn't have the popular support to justify its existence. While Amtrak runs a hell of a popular and well patronized system, Via doesn't. Most Amtrak riders are Americans, and most Amtrak riders are business people. Even on its long-distance trains, Amtrak gets a good portion of its riders from the business sector.

VIA's main ridership on the long distance trains are tourists. On a few of them, most of them aren't even Canadians. The Canadian government is not particularly interested in funding expansion of a system that attracts tourists and the few people stupid enough to live in the middle of nowhere. I, for one, understand their position. Long live the Canadian. I want to ride it some day. But if I was a Canadian tax payer, I'd still stand here as a rail fan and ask what god forsaken reason my money is going to fund a tourist train that doesn't really have much economic benefit to Canada or her people.

When you include the economic stimulus Amtrak's routes produce, and the resultant taxes collected, Amtrak's system is most likely profitable. There is no way on god's green earth you can say the same about VIA's LD train network.


----------



## Neil_M (Sep 14, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> My points of view stand.


Of course they do, they are points of view.... If they have any grip on reality or fact is another matter.


----------



## Neil_M (Sep 14, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Even on its long-distance trains, Amtrak gets a good portion of its riders from the business sector.


I find that hard to believe. Very hard to believe. My observations of the passengers on LD trains is young people, students probably, older people with loads of time on their hands visiting family or taking a vacation, people with no airports nearby who can't be bothered to drive, tourists, geeky railfans and oddballs that live in caves and think flying steals your soul.... There might be the odd one or two widget salesmen from Ohio about, but I would think most of the passengers on LD train would fall into the 'leisure' bracket rather than the 'business' one.

Not convinced.


----------



## NS VIA FAN (Sep 14, 2009)

Again....you really don't know what you are talking about!



Green Maned Lion said:


> VIA's main ridership on the long distance trains are tourists. On a few of them, most of them aren't even Canadians. The Canadian government is not particularly interested in funding expansion of a system that attracts tourists and the few people stupid enough to live in the middle of nowhere. I, for one, understand their position. Long live the Canadian. I want to ride it some day. But if I was a Canadian tax payer, I'd still stand here as a rail fan and ask what god forsaken reason my money is going to fund a tourist train that doesn't really have much economic benefit to Canada or her people


 The Canadian is the only VIA train I would consider catering specifically to a tourist market and only during the peak season. And you still didn’t get my point that the touring class on the Ocean is a seasonal add-on to what otherwise is a train heavy with coaches and sleeper catering to individuals, student and even business people looking for a quick overnight journey into Montreal. If VIA can provide a “touring class” on a train they’re running anyway with amenities and an upscale service people are willing to pay big-bucks for…..more power to them. They must be doing something right by filling 20 to 30 car trains. And no economic benefit to Canada?? Take one town for instance….Jasper, Alberta in the National Park. Lots of turnover here with passengers staying a couple of days before continuing on the next Canadian. Think of the money dropped for hotels and meals by the passengers on these 20 to 30 car trains.



Green Maned Lion said:


> While Amtrak runs a hell of a popular and well patronized system, Via doesn't. Most Amtrak riders are Americans, and most Amtrak riders are business people. Even on its long-distance trains, Amtrak gets a good portion of its riders from the business sector


VIA carried 4.2 million passengers in 2007 (the last year figures are available for) and like Amtrak these would be mostly Canadians: individuals, students and business people actually using the trains for basic transportation. VIA is actually benifitting more Canadians than Amtrak does Americans......On a per capita basis (the US has about 10 times the population of Canada) Amtrak would have had to carry over 40 million passengers……they carried 25.8 million. (and 28.7 million in 2008……VIA would have had a similar % increase last year prior to the economic slowdown)


----------



## cpamtfan (Sep 14, 2009)

NS VIA FAN said:


> ……VIA would have had a similar % increase last year prior to the economic slowdown)



Why do you think that? Amtrak made more pax because it was cheap when it needed to be cheap, VIA was still expensive with little to no lower fares (And they had that horrible site that was very hard to understand, it took me a while how to figure it out).


----------



## wayman (Sep 14, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> goodnightjohnwayne said:
> 
> 
> > 3. Many of VIA's remaining routes are invaluable transportation links to remote areas, although western trains such as the Skeena, and to a less extent, the current, truncated, Canadian have lost much of their transportation functionality. Actually, the post 1990 CN route of the current Canadian isn't especially scenic or very well situated, but they still manage to fill huge consists in the peak season. Go figure.
> ...


The train doesn't have to have decent ridership to be invaluable. Those are totally different. The Hudson Bay (excuse me, the "Winnipeg-Churchill") is invaluable to the residents of Tidal, Digges, Bylot, Lamprey, Chesnaye, Cromarty, Belcher, M'Clintock, Back, Oday, Kellett, ... you get the idea. 81 communities! A few, like Churchill, have other transportation options (Churchill has a local airport with flights only to Winnipeg... or further north to Nunavut). Most have nothing else. Most of the 81 communities appear to be flag stops on the schedule. For those people, having a connection to the outside world, a way to travel when they need it, is invaluable.



> Its possible, but the main reason VIA gets clouted around on funding issues is they were an inefficient system on almost every count. It didn't have the popular support to justify its existence. While Amtrak runs a hell of a popular and well patronized system, Via doesn't. Most Amtrak riders are Americans, and most Amtrak riders are business people. Even on its long-distance trains, Amtrak gets a good portion of its riders from the business sector.


I'll give you that Amtrak has more business riders than non-business riders on Corridor trains (not just the NEC, but also the other seven or eight corridors). And I'll give you that Amtrak has more non-tourist riders than tourist riders on LD trains. But I'd even dispute that "a good portion" of LD riders are business, unless you think 20% is a good portion. In my experience, business ridership on LD trains doesn't pass that. But tourist ridership also doesn't pass 20%. I'd say fully 60% of the ridership is American families visiting each other, students going to and from school, and in general travelers who prefer the train over the car or plane for any reason. They're not heading to business meetings. They're traveling for other reasons.


----------



## guest (Sep 14, 2009)

I’ve been following the ongoing debate between NS Via Fan and Green Maned Lion with some interest , but mostly amusement at the lack of basic knowledge about geography, operating environments and the economics of passenger trains. NS Via Fan is about 99% right in his analysis of the situation in Canada. But still a head-to-head comparison of the two systems doesn’t make much sense, because the contexts are some different. As Green Maned lion suggest Via and Amtrak have made different strategic choices because they operate in different environments.

Here are some facts:

Via's passenger count increased by 10% in 2008. On an equivalent basis Amtrak would have to carry 46 million passengers per year, or more than a third more than it does to equal the density of passenger train usage in Canada. That is despite the fact that Canada is a much less densely populated country, and therefore is inherently a more challenging place to operate passenger trains. Passenger rail thrives where there are lots of people in a small area, e.g., Japan. It is very expensive to operate over large distances in small markets. Remember Amtrak’s “Hilltopper?” Or consider today’s Cardinal

Various people asked why passenger trains lose more money per passenger in Canada than in the US. Thus the answer lies in the geography, and specifically the lack of population density over much of the Canadian landmass. The Canadian government supports intercity passenger rail at a level that would be equivalent to Amtrak having an annual subsidy of about $2 billion, again roughly a third higher than the actual levels.

The Canadian intercity passenger train network works out to about 75-80 trains per day, the latter including some non-Via services like Ontario Northland and Algoma Central, which also receive federal government support., That is proportionately higher than in the US, but also much lower than it was before the 1990 cutbacks. The count includes several remote services, for which there is no US equivalent in the lower 48 states. Yet these are clearly socially-necessary services, as there are not other transport options.

Green Maned Lion asked why ridership is low on these remote services. It is low because they are remote services, serving rural areas where few people live.

But where there is a population density in urban areas, specifically the Quebec City to Windsor Corridor, the trains are also used proportionately more in Canada than in equivalent US situations. The corridor supports a daily train service equivalent to the three California corridors, but with population base of about 12 million versus 30million plus in California.

While it is inherently more costly to operate passenger rail in Canada than in the US because of distance a thin population base, focus on efficiency has paid off. Specifically, according to its 2008 annual report

“Since 1990, VIA has:

• Reduced reliance on government operating funding by 48%

• Increased revenues by 110%

• Increased passengers by 33%

• Increased cost recovery by 100%”

This improvement in financial performance has no doubt occurred because the Canadian federal government keeps Via under the financial gun, investing in capital but keeping the annual operating subsidy flat. Even so, the latter is relatively more generous in its funding than is the US government for Amtrak. That said, high margin tourism markets on the he Canadian (and the Ocean) have helped keep subsidies down and service up. And the dependency on government is much less than it was in the pre 1990 days, when Canada was supporting a passenger train network that was close to 50% of the size of the network of the US with only a tenth of the population. Clearly that was not sustainable; hence the draconian cuts at that time.


----------



## goodnightjohnwayne (Sep 14, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I'm just going to ignore NS VIA FAN's comments, since fleshing out what we already know about each others opinion on this subject would be a waste of time. My points of view stand.
> 
> 
> goodnightjohnwayne said:
> ...


What you fail to grasp is that Amtrak didn't have a uniformly well maintained, homogenous fleet of cars like the former CP Park cars. Those ex-CP cars were some of the last of their type ever ordered, so they not only newer than the cars Amtrak had on hand, but were in very good condition.

Of course, VIA Rail didn't have the height restrictions that Amtrak had to deal with, and the original Superliner order made all of the dome cars, whether coach sleeper or observation, largely incompatible with the future western trains. Dome cars could never run out of Penn Station, or Grand Central, and they wouldn't run on the Superliner trains.

The original concept of the observation car had disappeared by Amtrak's time, along with overnight business travel on limited trains. The entire purpose of these cars had been the sale of alcoholic beverages to Pullman passengers, and the heaviest drinkers were affluent businessmen traveling alone. When business travel shifted to the airlines, these cars lost their purpose, and that's why they disappeared from most American name trains before Amtrak.


----------



## wayman (Sep 14, 2009)

goodnightjohnwayne said:


> Of course, VIA Rail didn't have the height restrictions that Amtrak had to deal with, and the original Superliner order made all of the dome cars, whether coach sleeper or observation, largely incompatible with the future western trains. Dome cars could run out of Penn Station, or Grand Central, and they wouldn't run on the Superliner trains.


I'm not sure dome cars could run out of Penn Station either, in either direction--tunnel clearances. They put the dome on the Adirondack at Albany for that reason, and I believe the reason the Seaboard made those single-level solarium cars for the Silver Meteor was because domes wouldn't fit on the NEC and this allowed a "sightseeing" solution that didn't require an extra switching move. Southern at one point ran actual dome cars on the Crescent and other trains on that route, but those were added at or south of Washington.

A dome on the Silvers or Crescent would have to be added south of Baltimore (and maybe even south of Washington--I don't know what the clearance of that tunnel between WAS and ALX is). At WAS there are facilities to do it fairly easily, and a bit of time in the schedule, but if you can't run a dome south out of WAS you'd have to do it at, say, CVS (on the Cardinal/Crescent) or RVR (on a Silver). Then you'd need an engine crew for the switching operation and a cleaning crew to prepare the car for its next trip. And if it's a dome-observation, you have to turn it around too!

The one other place on the system where it would be easy to add a dome car is the Pennsylvanian--you have to change power at Philadelphia (or Harrisburg), so you could do the same thing you do at Albany. If Amtrak had more non-observation dome cars, they could consider this. But they don't.

Oh, and Boston to Chicago. But from Albany to Chicago is basically a night train, so there's not much point in a dome car....


----------



## sunchaser (Sep 14, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Having a full book of diagrams of every Amtrak car in service in 1976, I assure you this is simply not true. Amtrak had a fleet of about 45 round end cars. Amtrak inherited quite a solid fleet of sleeper round-ends, sleeper domes, and so on. None of them made it past head-end-power conversion. There were a total of 12 round-end domes, which could have allowed two trains to run with them. The only observation car on Amtrak's roster past '82 was Beech Grove.



I'm trying not to go too far off thread, but where are all these old cars?

Are the sleeper domes single level, hi-level/bilevel, or both?

Please explain the Head End Power Conversion issue. (I am assuming they would they have to be rewired?)

Do you think these will ever be refurbished and put back into use? (assuming they would need baggage cars of cash to do it?)

Does Amtrak seem to have any plans to order any LD cars?

Sorry for all the questions-I appreciate the info.

IMHO, the 'Parlor' Car involks a feeling of a real parlor from the turn of the Century. The house we live in has a Parlor, no livingroom. I felt very comfortable in it, so did hubby.


----------



## goodnightjohnwayne (Sep 14, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> If they were so invaluble, they'd have decent ridership. They'd run more than a handful of times a week. And they would cost a hell of a lot less.


Unsurprisingly, people who live in areas without any road access are willing to wait for a train that only runs 3 days a week in each direction.

In some parts of Canada, the decision was made to subsidize a subsistence level of passenger train service instead of building highways. In other areas, passenger train service was abandoned as soon as highways, and publicly subsidized buses, were available to take their place.



Green Maned Lion said:


> Its possible, but the main reason VIA gets clouted around on funding issues is they were an inefficient system on almost every count. It didn't have the popular support to justify its existence. While Amtrak runs a hell of a popular and well patronized system, Via doesn't.


From what I've seen, VIA's corridor trains are well patronized, keep to schedule and are broadly similar to those run by Amtrak on similar corridors. There are some striking differences, especially in terms of boarding procedures in major stations and in terms of food service. However, I don't really think that the idiosyncrasies make VIA any more "inefficient" than Amtrak. From what I've seen, I like Amtrak's approach a little better, but I can also understand VIA's approach, and I could point to one area where VIA is far more efficient - and others where they seem to be less so.

VIA's long distance services are far more varied than Amtrak's. The Skeena was saved about 10 years ago by a shift to daylight sightseeing from a conventional night train. Right or wrong, VIA emulated the Rocky Mountaineer and preserved train service on this route. Other routes, such as Sudbury to White River, are entirely focused on local tranportation needs, often in areas without road access. Then you have the eastern services, where there is peak season tourism, and sustained local transportation needs during the winter.

Overall, VIA is just as vital as Amtrak. I can point to areas where Amtrak is more efficient and to areas where VIA is more efficient and deficiencies that are shared by both.



Green Maned Lion said:


> Most Amtrak riders are Americans, and most Amtrak riders are business people. Even on its long-distance trains, Amtrak gets a good portion of its riders from the business sector.
> VIA's main ridership on the long distance trains are tourists. On a few of them, most of them aren't even Canadians. The Canadian government is not particularly interested in funding expansion of a system that attracts tourists and the few people stupid enough to live in the middle of nowhere. I, for one, understand their position. Long live the Canadian. I want to ride it some day. But if I was a Canadian tax payer, I'd still stand here as a rail fan and ask what god forsaken reason my money is going to fund a tourist train that doesn't really have much economic benefit to Canada or her people.
> 
> When you include the economic stimulus Amtrak's routes produce, and the resultant taxes collected, Amtrak's system is most likely profitable. There is no way on god's green earth you can say the same about VIA's LD train network.


I find this last series of statements to be entirely inaccurate, and one statement in particular to be offensive.

For a person who likes to sleep with the homeless on the floor at Penn Station, I'm surprised you would make such a derogatory statement.

I can assure you that the people who "live in the middle of nowhere" have many admirable qualities.

I can also assure you that anyone who can survive in the wilderness, beyond any roads, paved or otherwise, is most likely very clever, ambitious and resourceful.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 14, 2009)

Up until now Ive abstained on this thread, I love Amtrak and VIA, I think both of you have valid points, however GML I must say that since we are Americans we dont have the same feelings about governments role via (no pun intneded) taxes and subsidies! The Canadian and Ocean are tourist trains, just like our Western tains and the Adirondack and other NE corridor trains (@ least some of the states help pay the freight!),we are, as rail fans all the better for this!

The OP is correct about the need for transportation out in the boondocks of Canada, its a huge country, sparesly populated and I, for one, have always enjoyed my trips on VIA! I just wish it didnt cost so much but if I choose to ride the tourist trains I have to pay what the fare is, and all things considered its worth it, just like we think the EB/CZ/CS are!

I think we should move on to the joy of both systems and leave the politics to the politicians, as for me, Ill take the politicians stand:

I feel strongly both ways! LOL


----------



## wayman (Sep 14, 2009)

sunchaser said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Having a full book of diagrams of every Amtrak car in service in 1976, I assure you this is simply not true. Amtrak had a fleet of about 45 round end cars. Amtrak inherited quite a solid fleet of sleeper round-ends, sleeper domes, and so on. None of them made it past head-end-power conversion. There were a total of 12 round-end domes, which could have allowed two trains to run with them. The only observation car on Amtrak's roster past '82 was Beech Grove.
> ...


Some dome cars never went to Amtrak to begin with. Some were retained for use as business cars, others were sold or given to museums. Others Amtrak acquired and subsequently got rid of. I suspect far more dome cars were sold off than scrapped, and I imagine the percentage of dome-observation cars that escaped the scrapyards is even higher. (And there weren't that many of them to begin with.) The California Zephyr had six dome-observation cars, all of which still exist somewhere:

Silver Penthouse: acquired by Amtrak, later sold off. Now owned by BNSF and used as a business car.

Silver Solarium: acquired by Amtrak, later sold off. Now owned privately and available for charter.

Silver Lookout: acquired by Amtrak, later sold off. Now owned privately and not available for charter (so far as I know).

Silver Sky: remained with the D&RGW (which didn't join Amtrak in 1971), and after a few sales is now owned by VIA Rail. May enter service for VIA as a Park Car.

Silver Crescent: went straight to the Gold Coast Railroad Museum.

Silver Planet: wound up on the Mexican national railway for a while, now privately owned and not available for charter.



> Are the sleeper domes single level, hi-level/bilevel, or both?


Well, single-level in that they would be compatible with single-level coaches and not with Superliners, but the part of the car that has a dome has two levels.







Outside, they looked like this:








> Please explain the Head End Power Conversion issue. (I am assuming they would they have to be rewired?)


Basically, yes. Cars used to have independent generators for power. It was deemed much more efficient to have the locomotive provide power and send it back through the whole train in a conduit that passes from car to car, and let each car draw power from that. But with that system, every car has to be converted--a non-converted car won't have a conduit to pass power on to cars behind it. And the conversion isn't cheap. So Amtrak decided to convert many cars, but not others, as best suited their needs and their budget, and they sold or scrapped the cars they would never be able to use again.



> Do you think these will ever be refurbished and put back into use? (assuming they would need baggage cars of cash to do it?)


Many of the ones that were sold off to private owners are in use--most private owners paid to convert their own cars to head-end power once they'd bought them. After all, half the fun of owning a private car is being able to ask Amtrak to put it on a train! And that's how many private car owners cover the costs of purchasing and refurbishing their car--they rent it out.



> Does Amtrak seem to have any plans to order any LD cars?


Amtrak has a large order of single-level long-distance cars prepared, and many of the hurdles necessary to give Amtrak the money and go-ahead have been cleared. Just a few remain, and the order may well be placed by sometime in 2010. Then it will take another few years for the cars to be built and enter service. But none of these will be domes or parlor cars or anything of that sort.

It's unlikely Amtrak will ever place an order for new dome cars in the old model, since there are so few places they could use such a car. These dome cars were primarily a western thing, where tunnels are taller and sights are grander, and they came about because two, three, sometimes even four railroads competed on each of the major western transcontinental routes, and dome cars were a strong selling point back when competition was fierce. Dome cars were pretty rare in the East and Southeast.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 14, 2009)

Great post! Thanks for the info, my best old train mem ory was riding in a dome/sleeper on the MOPAC from Texas to STL on the way to Bootcamp! Sure wish these private cars werent so expensive to ride, perhaps one of the secret billionaires on this forum will charter on of the luxury trains and let the traveler cash in a few million points to give us all a trip of a lifetime! LOL (this is play on the commercial running where the office mates of the guy trying to win a golfing trip to exotic places try to be on his leaderboard! Put me on traveler! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Sep 14, 2009)

wayman said:


> goodnightjohnwayne said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, VIA Rail didn't have the height restrictions that Amtrak had to deal with, and the original Superliner order made all of the dome cars, whether coach sleeper or observation, largely incompatible with the future western trains. Dome cars could run out of Penn Station, or Grand Central, and they wouldn't run on the Superliner trains.
> ...



I have always read that dome cars cannot run in Penn Station. And I never remember any doing so.

Southern at one time ran a dome on the Southern Crescent from ATL to NOL and from Salisbury to Asheville on the Asheville Special and also from Savannah to ATL on the Nancy Hanks (former Central of Georgia, taken over by Southern RR in it's latter years).

Atlantic Coast Line sometimes ran a dome from Richmond to Miami on the Florida Special during the winter I think Amtrak continued that practice for one or two winters.


----------



## cpamtfan (Sep 14, 2009)

The tallest cars that go into Penn NY now are the LIRR bi-levels. But they can only go through the East River Tunnels. The other bi-levels that go into Penn (for NJT) can fit both tunnels. i believe that car is about 14'6, but I'm not certain. Nothing taller can go into NYP, simple fact.


----------



## railiner (Sep 15, 2009)

Wayman, don't forget the Silver Horizon...(wherever it is). It was one of the original six CZ dome-sleeper-obs. The Silver Lookout was actually added about three years later than the others.


----------



## railiner (Sep 15, 2009)

There were domes (of a sort) running out of NYP for a while....the power dome coaches on the United Aircraft Turbo Train which ran to Boston. These domes had true 'look up, look down, look all around' visibility. And you could sit behind the engineer in the front row and watch him operate. A railfans delight, to be sure.


----------



## railiner (Sep 15, 2009)

The next best thing to dome cars today are the glass topped cars on the Alaska RR, which do have front and rear windows, however since they are all full-legnth, unless you are behind a single level car, your forward visibilty is restricted a lot.


----------



## wayman (Sep 15, 2009)

railiner said:


> Wayman, don't forget the Silver Horizon...(wherever it is). It was one of the original six CZ dome-sleeper-obs. The Silver Lookout was actually added about three years later than the others.


Good catch, thanks! And ... you'll never believe where it is--*apparently Amtrak still used it until 2005!* Just not how you'd expect.

From the Amtrak Route Guide for the Sunset Limited... "Maricopa: This is the stop for those who are traveling to Phoenix/Tempe/Scottsdale. The Maricopa Station is actually a classic dome-observation passenger car, named Silver Horizon, which operated on the pre-Amtrak California Zephyr between Chicago and Oakland/San Francisco."

Silver Horizon ran in revenue service until 1985, when it was retired from Amtrak. Then, according to the Texas Eagle official website, the car was sold by Amtrak to private owners who mismanaged a restoration job. In 1999, the car was moved to Maricopa where it became the station. It's not clear whether as station it was owned by Amtrak, by the town of Maricopa, or by a private owner, but Amtrak was using it as the actual station office until 2005, when a new station was "built"... insofar as a permanent-temporary trailer structure can be built. The current station is "the former Tucson, Arizona station building... a double-wide modular trailer coach that was rolled on to the site after the original historic Tucson Union Station structure restoration was completed in 2005." (Wikipedia) Silver Horizon is still on display at the Maricopa station, but not being used for anything.

Here's a 1978 photo of Silver Horizon from a railpixs page which has dozens of great old Amtrak photos. There are also great photos of Silver Penthouse and Silver Lookout in Amtrak livery in the late 1970s on this page; I didn't spot one of Silver Solarium, though I haven't gone through the other pages of photos at this site so there's probably one somewhere.






And here are plenty of photos, in 2002 (as station) and 2008 (on display) of Silver Horizon in Maricopa. I assume one of its private owners repainted the car into California Zephyr original livery, but it's possible Hollywood did that--apparently the car made a cameo in the movie _Pearl Harbor_ in 2001. Great idea, guys, but no marks for historical authenticity: the California Zephyr wasn't built until 1948, so it doesn't really belong in 1941!

This has to be the one and only time I've ever come across an actual reason to step off the train in Maricopa :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2009)

Wonderful pics and info of the old days of Amtrak in Texas, thanks!!


----------



## jphjaxfl (Sep 15, 2009)

zephyr17 said:


> Basically agree with all of Green Maned Lion's points, with the small caveat that Via really didn't make the rail cruise decision until about 1990 (also when the biggest single service contraction took place), some years after their formation in 1978. Up until then it was much like Amtrak (and a whole bunch cheaper. Before 1990, it was usually cheaper than Amtrak for equivalent distances).
> But as to the cars, and I've ridden on both.
> 
> The Park car is round-end Budd short dome/obs. The short dome is widely considered to be the finest in sightseeing, with a great 360 degree view. It is also a round-end. classic obs, giving the train a clean, finished look. The car is staffed as a standard lounge car. Further, while the car has been mechanically modernized, the basic decor is original (they replaced the murals in the "Mural Lounge" with photo reproductions to save the original artwork). In most respects, it represents the penultimate moment of rail comfort in the "streamliner" era. And it is still running in the service is was purchased for and designed for by CP, first class lounge on the cross-country Canadian (despite the fact it is now running over CN, not CP).
> ...


 The Southern Pacific ran real Parlor Observation Cars on the Coast Daylight between Los Angeles and San Francisco. I last rode the Parlor Car in the summer of 1970 and had a compfy swival chair "oceanside" near the observation end so I could look behind. The Parlor Car attendant would get food from the automat car or cocktails from the lounge car and bring them to passengers. Espee also ran a Parlor Observation Car on the Shasta Daylight from Portland to Oakland until it was discontinued a couple years prior to Amtrak. The Santa Fe High Level Lounge built for a coach train which is what the PPC is would have been considered a downgrade by regular patrons of Espee's Parlor Observation Cars.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Sep 15, 2009)

railiner said:


> There were domes (of a sort) running out of NYP for a while....the power dome coaches on the United Aircraft Turbo Train which ran to Boston. These domes had true 'look up, look down, look all around' visibility. And you could sit behind the engineer in the front row and watch him operate. A railfans delight, to be sure.


That is right,in fact I rode it once. I did not realize until getting into it that there was seating space upstairs.I do not recall it being advertised or promoted as a dome, though it really was a "low" dome,but you did get to look all around.


----------



## sunchaser (Sep 15, 2009)

Here are some photos of the Solarium then  and  now  (The first link has lots of pics of the dome cars, you have to scroll down to find the Solarium).

I misunderstood the answer about the dome cars.

I understood it as maybe Amtrak still had more of them stashed somewhere. It's too bad they didn't hang on to some of them to upgrade them at some point. They could have been used on the Western Routes/wherever they can go & draw more passengers in that way.

Does anyone know if Amtrak has any plans to have built any Superliner LD cars?

If they plan on adding the Pioneer Route back on, or expanding existing service won't they need more rolling stock?


----------



## NS VIA FAN (Sep 15, 2009)

Bill Haithcoat said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > There were domes (of a sort) running out of NYP for a while....the power dome coaches on the United Aircraft Turbo Train which ran to Boston. These domes had true 'look up, look down, look all around' visibility. And you could sit behind the engineer in the front row and watch him operate. A railfans delight, to be sure.
> ...


Here's the Turbo Dome at Boston in 1975 and a view from the Dome between New Haven and New York:


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Sep 15, 2009)

jphjaxfl said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> > Basically agree with all of Green Maned Lion's points, with the small caveat that Via really didn't make the rail cruise decision until about 1990 (also when the biggest single service contraction took place), some years after their formation in 1978. Up until then it was much like Amtrak (and a whole bunch cheaper. Before 1990, it was usually cheaper than Amtrak for equivalent distances).
> ...



Do you happen to know the exact date? I was on that parlor obs from SF to LA on 7/22/70.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Sep 16, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> I find that hard to believe. Very hard to believe. My observations of the passengers on LD trains is young people, students probably, older people with loads of time on their hands visiting family or taking a vacation, people with no airports nearby who can't be bothered to drive, tourists, geeky railfans and oddballs that live in caves and think flying steals your soul.... There might be the odd one or two widget salesmen from Ohio about, but I would think most of the passengers on LD train would fall into the 'leisure' bracket rather than the 'business' one.Not convinced.


I would agree that most LD passengers are not business passengers, over all. But I would say that the percentage of Business travellers on Amtrak's LD trains are higher than on VIA's. I'd also say that certain city pairs have higher percentages of business travelers than leisure travelers. WAS-CHI, WAS-ATL, ALB-CHI, CHI-DEN, and CHI-STP come to mind off-hand.



NS VIA FAN said:


> Again....you really don't know what you are talking about!
> 
> 
> Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Of course, the U.S. also has more, and more effective, commuter/regional rail operators, such as NJ Transit, Metro-North, and LIRR- which operate trains 7-days a week and most of the day. That keeps Amtrak's numbers down. For example, there would be millions of additional Amtrak passengers if Metro-North didn't run NYC-NHV (Including cafe car service on some trains, in fact), or NY-PHL wasn't possible via NJT-Septa.

Further, I was pointful in exempting the Quebec City-Toronto-Windsor corridor, which while not as effective as Amtrak's NEC, is a pretty useful system. I think you will find that a higher percentage of VIA ridership comes from its corridors than its long distance system.



wayman said:


> The train doesn't have to have decent ridership to be invaluable. Those are totally different. The Hudson Bay (excuse me, the "Winnipeg-Churchill") is invaluable to the residents of Tidal, Digges, Bylot, Lamprey, Chesnaye, Cromarty, Belcher, M'Clintock, Back, Oday, Kellett, ... you get the idea. 81 communities! A few, like Churchill, have other transportation options (Churchill has a local airport with flights only to Winnipeg... or further north to Nunavut). Most have nothing else. Most of the 81 communities appear to be flag stops on the schedule. For those people, having a connection to the outside world, a way to travel when they need it, is invaluable.


Alright, I concede the Hudson Bay is a valuable train.



wayman said:


> I'll give you that Amtrak has more business riders than non-business riders on Corridor trains (not just the NEC, but also the other seven or eight corridors). And I'll give you that Amtrak has more non-tourist riders than tourist riders on LD trains. But I'd even dispute that "a good portion" of LD riders are business, unless you think 20% is a good portion. In my experience, business ridership on LD trains doesn't pass that. But tourist ridership also doesn't pass 20%. I'd say fully 60% of the ridership is American families visiting each other, students going to and from school, and in general travelers who prefer the train over the car or plane for any reason. They're not heading to business meetings. They're traveling for other reasons.


I'd say you're wrong- and Amtrak's statistics agree with me. The East Coast-Midwest trains, and the Crescent, carry about 35-40% business passengers, rather than pleasure. The Florida trains carry less, more about 20%. The CONO carries about 25% business passengers. The Western trains, overall, carry about 15%- but if you consider specific city pairs, the numbers are much higher, such as CHI-DEN, DEN-SLC, and SLC-EMY for the California Zephyr. CHI-DEN sleeper travel is something like 75% business. I don't think there is an overnight train in the VIA system that has a city pair approaching that number remotely.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 16, 2009)

Guys,guys! Both of yall have valid points! The age old question of "am I my brothers keeper?" applies here! (I am of this mindset but lots arent!) If trains are the only way for tiny villages in the middle of nowhere to get somewhere, then someone has to pay for it! Its never going to be cost effective, NO transportation system is! GML is correct about the biz travelers, Id also say that Canada has a very effective GO train and subway system for Toronto and Vancouver isnt bad either for commuters, not sure about Montreal or Calgary or Edmonton, I would think they are similar?

Its beensaid before, theres three kinds of lies: lies,damn lies and statistics! National pride enters into lots of these debates and its only my opinion but I think that both these grand lands have much to be proud about, I dont care how many bullet trains and all that that Europe and Japan has, Id still rather live here! Lets enjoy VIA and Amtrak, do our best to improve what we got, and try to prevent bean counters and political charaltans (are you listening John McCain,Bill Clinton,Jimmy Carter,George Bush) from gutting or disappering Amtrak or VIA! (Its quicker there, Parliment can move faster than our system!)


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Sep 16, 2009)

guest said:


> Various people asked why passenger trains lose more money per passenger in Canada than in the US. Thus the answer lies in the geography, and specifically the lack of population density over much of the Canadian landmass. The Canadian government supports intercity passenger rail at a level that would be equivalent to Amtrak having an annual subsidy of about $2 billion, again roughly a third higher than the actual levels.


Simply not true. Amtrak runs their trains, CS excluded, with somewhere between 1 service car for every 4 cars or so, with the Diners staffed with 3 people and the lounge cars staffed with one.

VIA, on the other hand...

Latest Canadian Consist via YouTube:

2 Bag, 4 Coach, Dome, 2 Sleeper, Diner, 5 sleeper, dome, diner, 3 sleeper, observation

21 cars: 4 coaches. 10 sleepers. 2 diners. 3 lounge cars. 2 baggage cars.

14 revenue cars, 5 service cars, 2 support cars.

Coaches hold 60, sleepers hold 20. Max: 240 coach passengers, 200 sleeper passengers. 440 people.

Now, if I remember correctly, VIA puts 5 people into each of their diners, and 2 people into each of their lounge cars, and one person into the park car, a coach attendant per 2 coach cars, and a sleeper attendant per car. 39 personnel total for 440 passengers (I'm including the 2 people in the locomotives). 11.3 passengers per employee. Also, their diner holds 40 people, I believe, so they have 80 dining seats. And a total of 88 passengers per service car, 2.8 cars per service car.

Now, take the Empire Builder

Bag, dorm, 2 sleepers, diner, 3 coaches, lounge, 2 coaches, sleeper

1.5 support cars, 9 revenue cars, 2 service cars.

140 sleeper berths, 375 coach seats, 515 total passengers. 4.5 cars per service car, 257.5 passengers per service car.

Now, the Amtrak train has 3 coach attendants, 3 sleeper attendants, 2 chefs, 3 SAs, 2 LSAs. 13 service perople, a conductor, 2 ACs, 2 engineers. 18 employees, 28 employees per passenger. And 70 dining car seats.

When you get down to it, that is why the Canadian loses money. The level of over-service.



goodnightjohnwayne said:


> From what I've seen, VIA's corridor trains are well patronized, keep to schedule and are broadly similar to those run by Amtrak on similar corridors. There are some striking differences, especially in terms of boarding procedures in major stations and in terms of food service. However, I don't really think that the idiosyncrasies make VIA any more "inefficient" than Amtrak. From what I've seen, I like Amtrak's approach a little better, but I can also understand VIA's approach, and I could point to one area where VIA is far more efficient - and others where they seem to be less so.


I said as much, that the big corridor makes sense.



goodnightjohnwayne said:


> I find this last series of statements to be entirely inaccurate, and one statement in particular to be offensive.
> For a person who likes to sleep with the homeless on the floor at Penn Station, I'm surprised you would make such a derogatory statement.
> 
> I can assure you that the people who "live in the middle of nowhere" have many admirable qualities.
> ...


Most people who know me in person would agree than I am a pretty bright person. Tests put me in the top 1%, actually. That being what it is, I still make stupid decisions. I do dumb things, and so does anyone else. When I do dumb things, I am required to live with the effects of said stupid act. I think that is perfectly reasonable concept.

If I, for instance, attempt to buy a house on credit that I can't afford to pay for, it is reasonable that I lose my home and wreck my credit. It clearly was my mistake. I deserve the consequences for it.

If I chose to buy a home in the middle of nowhere, I have some transportation issues that I should have been aware of when I made the decision. They are my responsibility to take care of.



jimhudson said:


> The Canadian and Ocean are tourist trains, just like our Western tains and the Adirondack and other NE corridor trains (@ least some of the states help pay the freight!),we are, as rail fans all the better for this!


Simply not true. Almost all of Amtrak's trains are cost competitive with the alternatives, such as Greyhound and airplanes. The NE Regionals are not, but they are primarily business transport, and certainly are used enough to justify their presence. They aren't tourist trains. VIAs trains are priced such that only a tourist is likely to ride them, outside of the specified corridor.

I would ride the Canadian for tourist purposes. I'd love to. But if I had some valid reason to go from Toronto to Vancouver, I'd be riding Amtrak (Maple Leaf -> Lake Shore Limited -> Empire Builder -> Thruway). It is both a lot cheaper and a little faster, despite the dogleg down into the US, and back up again, as well as an insanely long layover in Chicago. Regardless of everything else I said, this is demonstrative that VIA is a tourist road.



sunchaser said:


> Does anyone know if Amtrak has any plans to have built any Superliner LD cars?If they plan on adding the Pioneer Route back on, or expanding existing service won't they need more rolling stock?


Definitely need them.

From what I heard, thats about six on the priority list:

1) Electric power

2) Viewliner Sleepers, Diners, Dorms, Baggage

3) Midwest Bi-levels

4) Additional Viewliner sleepers, diners, dorms, baggage.

5) Viewliner Lounge and Coach cars.

6) Additional bi-level long distance cars, probably based on the Midwest bi-levels.


----------



## wayman (Sep 16, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> If I chose to buy a home in the middle of nowhere, I have some transportation issues that I should have been aware of when I made the decision. They are my responsibility to take care of.


Many folks who live in the middle of nowhere didn't move there. They grew up there, their parents grew up there, and their parents grew up there. How did their ancestors get to the middle of nowhere in the first place, and why did they go? In many, many cases, they got there by heavily-government-subsidized railroads and they went because they got free land and encouragement from the government. Generations have passed, times have changed, and in many parts of the US highways now connect these small midwestern and western towns (some of which are still the "middle of nowhere" and others of which have become decent urban centers of their own right). But roads don't go everywhere, and they go fewer places in Canada than in the US--for some of these towns, rail is all they've ever had.

So for many of these folks, you're either faulting them for living in the community they were born into, and in which their family has lived for generations; or else you're faulting them for a decision their ancestors made generations ago in a different world. And you're asking a government which brought them out there in the first place to abandon them. That doesn't wash.


----------



## NS VIA FAN (Sep 16, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Most people who know me in person would agree than I am a pretty bright person. Tests put me in the top 1%, actually. That being what it is, I still make stupid decisions. I do dumb things, and so does anyone else. When I do dumb things, I am required to live with the effects of said stupid act. I think that is perfectly reasonable concept.
> If I, for instance, attempt to buy a house on credit that I can't afford to pay for, it is reasonable that I lose my home and wreck my credit. It clearly was my mistake. I deserve the consequences for it.
> 
> If I chose to buy a home in the middle of nowhere, I have some transportation issues that I should have been aware of when I made the decision. They are my responsibility to take care of.


You are certainly unaware of the demographics of Canadian society and the responsibility in providing access to these isolated areas......It has nothing to do with me (or you) buying a house there and expecting someone to provide transportation because I made a poor choice of location.

A lot of these are First Nation communities that have been there for hundreds of years. VIA once operated a train between The Pas and Pukatawagan, Manitoba. This operation has now been turned over to the First Nations owned Keewatin Railway but there are still numerous communities along the Churchill line that rely on VIA .

And the passenger service on the Quebec, North Shore & Labrador Railway (never operated by VIA) has also been turned over to a First Nation company: Tshiuetin Rail Transportation:

http://www.tshiuetin.net/index_an.html

http://www.tshiuetin.net/an_informations.html


----------



## jphjaxfl (Sep 16, 2009)

Bill Haithcoat said:


> jphjaxfl said:
> 
> 
> > zephyr17 said:
> ...


 Bill, Yes I was northbound on the Coast Daylight from LA to SF on Sat 8/29/1970 with parlor seat 24. Two officials from Espee were on their way to a function in SF. I guess the train had been running late quite a bit recently. These guys kept telling the conductor they needed to arrive at 3rd and Townsend on time so we arrived right on time. We were late at San Jose, but we flew up the Peninsula...there might have been 1 stop to discharge. It was a great trip.


----------



## Neil_M (Sep 16, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I would agree that most LD passengers are not business passengers, over all. But I would say that the percentage of Business travellers on Amtrak's LD trains are higher than on VIA's. I'd also say that certain city pairs have higher percentages of business travelers than leisure travelers. WAS-CHI, WAS-ATL, ALB-CHI, CHI-DEN, and CHI-STP come to mind off-hand.


Sorry, just don't buy it. Granted, on routes to and from Chicago, for example, there well may be more business travellers than on the Coast Starlight, but more business than leisure?

I doubt it.


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 16, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > I would agree that most LD passengers are not business passengers, over all. But I would say that the percentage of Business travellers on Amtrak's LD trains are higher than on VIA's. I'd also say that certain city pairs have higher percentages of business travelers than leisure travelers. WAS-CHI, WAS-ATL, ALB-CHI, CHI-DEN, and CHI-STP come to mind off-hand.
> ...


I think the number of corporate business travelers on overnight LD services are probably pretty darn low. Airfare is usually much cheaper than sleepers, most corporate travel departments have policies against first class travel, which is how sleepers show, and they also have problems generally with the accomodation charge breakouts. It can be a real hassle trying to deal with overnight rail with corporate travel policies -- I've tried. Was actually successful once. Would have been successful more often had I been willing to eat the accomodation charge myself.


----------



## Ispolkom (Sep 16, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> Sorry, just don't buy it. Granted, on routes to and from Chicago, for example, there well may be more business travellers than on the Coast Starlight, but more business than leisure?I doubt it.


And you'd be right to doubt it. I've never noticed any large business clientele on the Washington-Chicago run or the Chicago-St. Paul run (I assume that Chicago-Clearwater, FL isn't meant). The Empire Builder is poorly timed for the Chicago-Twin Cities market, and basically wastes a day's travel each way, when United, Delta, and Southwest have hourly departures to Chicago airports. The Empire Builder *is* perfectly timed for a businessman who needs to travel between St. Paul and Minot, No. Dak., but that's hardly a major market, much as I personally find the timing useful.

Chicago to Denver is also very well served by United, Frontier, Southwest and I'm not sure who else, so why would a business waste 18 hours of an employee's time on the California Zephyr when United will get you there in 2.5 hours and cost only a little more than Amtrak coach fare? And let's not forget the generally high sleeper charges on that train.

Here's an anecdote: I can remember that several years ago a friend offered to take the train from Chicago to St. Paul for a convention to save her company money. This was greeted with about as much amazement as if she offered to hitch-hike.

I won't comment on other routes, as I have little personal experience on them, but I'd need to see hard numbers to believe that business travel is an important part of Amtrak's passenger load in any long-distance market.

Now if there was a "high-speed" line from St. Paul to Chicago that restored running times to those possible in, say, 1939, business travel might increase...


----------



## jmbgeg (Sep 16, 2009)

Ispolkom said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, just don't buy it. Granted, on routes to and from Chicago, for example, there well may be more business travellers than on the Coast Starlight, but more business than leisure?I doubt it.
> ...


LOL because I get the same reception when I travel long distance by Amtrak on business. Only distinction is that my business colleagues don't compare it to hitchhiking, but to taking Greyhound. I pay more than first class airfare on most trips when I get a deluxe bedroom, but only expense a coach airfare equivalent with the company. These trips are often 8 hours to 1.5 days and I get a lot of work done on the train in the quiet of my sleeper, and my Blackberry gets a good workout.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 17, 2009)

:lol:



jmbgeg said:


> Ispolkom said:
> 
> 
> > Neil_M said:
> ...


In the old days in WAS when I would take the Metroliner to Philadelphia,NYC or Boston instead of riding the old Eastern Shuttle (first time I ever saw a stewardess with a credit card machine! :lol: ) the crew I worked with thought I was nuts, a couple said stuff like: why not just walk?what the hell can you do on the train for 4 or 5 or 6 hours? I never told them the joke was on them, it was win/win, I got to ride trains and got away from the office longer!

(before cell phones and lap tops, Im ancient to you youngsters!


----------



## Ispolkom (Sep 17, 2009)

jimhudson said:


> In the old days in WAS when I would take the Metroliner to Philadelphia,NYC or Boston instead of riding the old Eastern Shuttle (first time I ever saw a stewardess with a credit card machine! :lol: ) the crew I worked with thought I was nuts, a couple said stuff like: why not just walk?what the hell can you do on the train for 4 or 5 or 6 hours? I never told them the joke was on them, it was win/win, I got to ride trains and got away from the office longer!(before cell phones and lap tops, Im ancient to you youngsters!


When I worked in Washington a decade ago, I occasionally had to travel to New York. Our organization's travel office (which in all fairness was very good at getting airline tickets to places like Ashgabat, Turkmenistan or booking a hotel in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso) could not handle Amtrak. I always had to fly.


----------



## nferr (Sep 17, 2009)

Today, of course, business travel on the Northeast Corridor is robust and accepted by companies as legitimate travel expense because it compares favorably with air travel. Both speed and cost wise. I used to travel a lot to DC on business and it was easiest to take the Nightowl out of New Haven to arrive in DC in the morning with a decent amount of rest. This was of course when the Nightowl (and Twilight Shoreliner) had sleepers. Otherwise I had to get up in the middle of the night to drive to NYC to catch the air shuttle. The cost came out less with the Nightowl, especially when you factored in airport parking, etc. There was always a lot of business people in the sleeper on this train. Amtrak needs to bring sleeper service back to trains 66/67.

However it is one of the few trains that work well for business travel when you factor in time. Other than the Acelas and NE regionals.


----------



## railiner (Sep 18, 2009)

NS VIA FAN said:


> Bill Haithcoat said:
> 
> 
> > railiner said:
> ...


Thanks for those photos! The view out is from the 'rear' window, looking out over the length of the train to the other end, which also had a power dome coach. The train could be run from either end, so no need to wye the train. I don't recall if the seats were reversed, or simply had half facing each direction.


----------



## jis (Sep 25, 2009)

Here are some of the sticking points that I have faced in vouchering an overnight sleeper travel at my company. The easier problem is in educating the accounting department that "Accommodation Charge" == "Lodging + Food" charge, or even just "Lodging" charge. The harder problem is that Amtrak makes the charge to the corporate credit card for the entire amount as a transportation charge. Fortunately, the web based electronic vouchering system that the company I work for uses allows you to force itemize such a charge, but then requires that the original bill be attached with the voucher. So then you have to convince accounting next that the ticket stub is the original paid up bill. After I have jumped through these hoops I have been able to voucher reasonable overnight trips say Newark to Jacksonville via 91. But it took a bit of footwork. I also had to document that the charge was less the best available fare EWR -JAX by air + one night in the hotel in JAX. Unless you have the lowest bucket fare on Amtrak this condition is almost impossible to meet, but I was lucky because the conference hotel was a somewhat expensive one.


----------



## Philzy (Oct 7, 2009)

Bill Haithcoat said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> > goodnightjohnwayne said:
> ...


As a kid (mid to late 80s or even early 90s) I remember dome cars or dome diners on the Auto Train before it was changed to superliner equipment. Does anyone remember this, or am I just not remembering correctly? Anyone know of pics of this? I took a quick look but not luck finding anything.



nferr said:


> Today, of course, business travel on the Northeast Corridor is robust and accepted by companies as legitimate travel expense because it compares favorably with air travel. Both speed and cost wise. I used to travel a lot to DC on business and it was easiest to take the Nightowl out of New Haven to arrive in DC in the morning with a decent amount of rest. This was of course when the Nightowl (and Twilight Shoreliner) had sleepers. Otherwise I had to get up in the middle of the night to drive to NYC to catch the air shuttle. The cost came out less with the Nightowl, especially when you factored in airport parking, etc. There was always a lot of business people in the sleeper on this train. Amtrak needs to bring sleeper service back to trains 66/67.
> However it is one of the few trains that work well for business travel when you factor in time. Other than the Acelas and NE regionals.


You are the third person in a weeks time that lives in that area and that I have heard mention this. Hopefully someone is listening. I would think that Amtrak is prob missing out on some actual business revenue where companies would pay up business fares for sleepers on that run.


----------



## cpamtfan (Oct 7, 2009)

Philzy, you are remembering correctly. You did ride in a dome diner on the Auto Train. I think they were like the UPs old dome diners or something.


----------



## Philzy (Oct 7, 2009)

cpamtfan said:


> Philzy, you are remembering correctly. You did ride in a dome diner on the Auto Train. I think they were like the UPs old dome diners or something.


ah ha! this old noodle still has some use left in it!

thanks!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 7, 2009)

cpamtfan said:


> Philzy, you are remembering correctly. You did ride in a dome diner on the Auto Train. I think they were like the UPs old dome diners or something.


Ex-Milwaukee Road, I'm pretty sure, built by the Milwaukee as lounge cars and converted by Amtrak to diner service. They were pretty rotten mechanically by that point. I don't remember the exact details, but Amtrak bought them for the Auto Train. They were not conveyed to Amtrak until the mid 80s, IIRC.


----------



## pismobum (Oct 11, 2009)

It's unbeleivable how much mis-information gets put up here when the facts are readily accessable.

i.e. earlier post

"Silver Penthouse is a BNSF Business car". It is a 'stuff and mount' snack bar

"Silver Sky is owned by VIA". It is owned by Gateway Rail and is in Illinois

"Ex-Milwaukee Road, I'm pretty sure, built by the Milwaukee as lounge cars and converted by Amtrak to diner service." - They were coaches with 66 seats upstairs and 22 seats downstairs. They were not diners

"They were pretty rotten mechanically by that point." Princess and Tour Alaska had spent a fortune refurbishing the cars for 'high end' tourism. The market (as part of the Coast Starlight) did not support them and they were sold to Amtrak.

I don't remember the exact details, but Amtrak bought them for the Auto Train. They were not conveyed to Amtrak until the mid 80s, IIRC." - 1990, and they were bought from Princess Tours.

"You did ride in a dome diner on the Auto Train. I think they were like the UPs old dome diners or something." no UP domes ever came to Amtrak, and UP's dome diners were the only ones ever built.

And FYI - Amtrak converted a series of ex GN/NP/CBQ "short" domes to HEP and some of those ran in coach/lounge service on Auto Train.

Over ten years has been spent documenting the details of all the domes ever built - info is readily available thru domecars.com


----------



## Donctor (Oct 11, 2009)

pismobum said:


> It's unbeleivable how much mis-information gets put up here when the facts are readily accessable.Over ten years has been spent documenting the details of all the domes ever built - info is readily available thru domecars.com


Two things:

1) I find it _very_ believable that incorrect information gets put up here. Not everyone has a perfect memory, and I'm sure that a number of posters on this forum have many things to worry about other than Amtrak stuff.

2) Good to know that the info is available. I had no idea that such a site existed.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Oct 11, 2009)

pismobum said:


> It's unbeleivable how much mis-information gets put up here when the facts are readily accessable.
> i.e. earlier post
> 
> "Silver Penthouse is a BNSF Business car". It is a 'stuff and mount' snack bar
> ...


 I agree with you about the misinformation posted on this site. Some people post information that they really know nothing about. In most cases there are sources to verify information. I have kept notes on my train travels since I was a kid in the 1950s. Thank you for providing the correct information and references.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Oct 11, 2009)

jphjaxfl said:


> pismobum said:
> 
> 
> > It's unbeleivable how much mis-information gets put up here when the facts are readily accessable.
> ...


Iphjaxfl I know what you mean about taking good notes. Only thing, I did not do so myself, and now I regret it. To this day I have certain equipment questions from the 50's which I do not think I will ever find out.

Any chance you know much about C&EI diner and lounge operations? Such as the origin of the coffee shop lounge which for about three winters ran on the Dixie Flagler? Or which trains recivd the ten new coaches in 1953. (btw I have most of the standard equipmnet books from the era,like Randall, Waynor)

I can try to justify my lack of more notes on two things: 1. I lived in denial refusing to believe the trains I grew up with would one day no longer exist,so what's to take notes about and 2. the lack of even one single friend who shared the hobby. Now, most of my friends were accepting of my hobby and most rode with me from Chattanooga to Atlanta and back---but just once. But they did not "get it".

And of course forget anything like the internet back then. Thank God for the internet, as I have said many times. NONE of us would know ANY of us with out that.

Yes, I am quite aware how certain questions keep coming up here which have been answered many times. I will not repeat them but I can rattle them off easily. But I try to keep in mind two things. One, as noted above by Amtking, many people have more things to worry about than train questions, and 2 two, not everybody has been on here nearly as long as I have and do not know how extensively certain questions have already been answered.

So, let us just be glad we have this forum and each other.

And think about how in our jobs most of have ( or had) to answer the same questions all day long from our public.

And last, but not least, there may have been a few times when I have asked the same question more than once!!! (you think?)


----------



## pismobum (Oct 11, 2009)

More park/parlour trivia.

First - I mis-spoke. VIA had bought 8 US domes in anticipation of needing more cars. With the cutbacks, they were never used and were sold back to the US in the last year or so. Gateway/Butterworth was involved in many/most of them, but "Silver Sky" that I said he bought was bought by someone else.

As far as the "Parks" - i.e. dome/sleeper/round-end obs, CP built 18 - 7 for the Canadian, 8 for the Dominion, 2 for Toronto service (others worked Vancouver/Montreal) and 1 spare. 1 was wrecked, 1 is in a Canadian museum and 2 have been sold to US buyers with 14 active. The 7 "CZ" cars (virtually identical) have been covered here already (I'll be on the Silver Solarium behind SP 4449 beginning 10/13 - eat your heart out). There were seven MORE round-end dome/obs cars as well (not sleepers). The first was the tail car on the original GM "Train of Tomorrow". There were 3 for the "Chessie" that never saw service there and ended up on the D&RGW with vestibules built so they could run mid-train, one for the Wabash "BlueBird", and Silver View and Silver Vista for the "Twin Zephyr".

There were also a number of "square-end" dome/obs cars (UP had a bunch) plus Denver Zephyr, KC Zephyr, etc, and of course MANY round-end and square-end obs cars WITHOUT domes.

ATSF built 6 full sets of hi-levels to cover chiago-west coast service. Amtrak only needed 4 lounges (parlors) for the Coast Starlight so modified 5 (1 protection car). The 6th lounge is in private ownership. There were also 6 diners, but they are also all in private hands.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 12, 2009)

pismobum said:


> "Ex-Milwaukee Road, I'm pretty sure, built by the Milwaukee as lounge cars and converted by Amtrak to diner service." - They were coaches with 66 seats upstairs and 22 seats downstairs. They were not diners


I * KNOW * that they were not diners. I said they were converted into diners. I thought they were lounges. And in anycase, since I didn't actually haul up my book of Amtrak car statistics, because I wasn't home when posting it, I did put a caveat of "I'm pretty sure", which means I'm not positive on my information.

Secondly, they were rotten *mechanically*. I am consulting my book right now. When Amtrak bought them, their trucks were 23 years old, their braking system, while compatible with Amtraks, was in serious need of an overhaul, they had significant metal fatigue problems, and their underfloor members were suffering from corrosion. They were refurbished for high end service, yadda yadda. Yeah, they put lipstick on a pig. They were given a nice interior and a nice repaint. They were NOT significantly upgraded mechanically- or even at all, really.


----------

