# Coast Starlight Bedrooms



## train-o-holic (Jul 25, 2010)

I have read here that most people who get a bedroom on the Coast Starlight usually have the bedroom facing the ocean. Has anyone ever got a bedroom that did not face the ocean? Is it safe to assume that MOST of the time the bedrooms face the ocean. Yes I have heard what they say about Assuming,but...i am a glutton for punishment.


----------



## guest (Jul 25, 2010)

train-o-holic said:


> I have read here that most people who get a bedroom on the Coast Starlight usually have the bedroom facing the ocean. Has anyone ever got a bedroom that did not face the ocean? Is it safe to assume that MOST of the time the bedrooms face the ocean. Yes I have heard what they say about Assuming,but...i am a glutton for punishment.


The four times we've ridden, yes, they were on the Ocean side. But others on this site who've taken the CS say this is NOT always the case, depending on how the consist is turned around or otherwise tinkered with at the LAX and SEA endpoints. I guess the best answer is probably yes, but not a guarantee!


----------



## jmbgeg (Jul 25, 2010)

train-o-holic said:


> I have read here that most people who get a bedroom on the Coast Starlight usually have the bedroom facing the ocean. Has anyone ever got a bedroom that did not face the ocean? Is it safe to assume that MOST of the time the bedrooms face the ocean. Yes I have heard what they say about Assuming,but...i am a glutton for punishment.


Are you talking about the deluxe bedrooms or the roomettes? You can end up with a roomettee with an easterly view, but all deluxe bedrooms have veiews out both sides (if your door is not covered by the drape).


----------



## ColdRain&Snow (Jul 25, 2010)

guest said:


> train-o-holic said:
> 
> 
> > I have read here that most people who get a bedroom on the Coast Starlight usually have the bedroom facing the ocean. Has anyone ever got a bedroom that did not face the ocean? Is it safe to assume that MOST of the time the bedrooms face the ocean. Yes I have heard what they say about Assuming,but...i am a glutton for punishment.
> ...


On the four trips I've had in the last year on 14/11, the car was positioned evens (bedrooms) west twice and odds west twice. Since each sleeper (except for the Transition) can be positioned either way, it's really hard to make a prediction ahead of time. One thing you can do is consult the timetable and fall back on Plan B if needed by visiting the PPC and/or Sightseer Lounge. The coastal viewing opportunities are twofold:

---Approx 15 minutes north of Oxnard (Ventura) to about 20 minutes south of San Luis Obispo (northern boundary of Vandenberg AFB).

---Between Olympia-Lacey and Tacoma. If on 14, these views of the Tacoma Narrows may fall into darkness during winter months.

Have a great trip!


----------



## inspiration100 (Jul 26, 2010)

Last two times on the Coast Starlight the bedrooms were NOT on the ocean side.


----------



## CNW (Jul 26, 2010)

When I rode the CS in January I was surprised to see all the bedroom passengers out in the hall because the bedrooms were not facing west.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 26, 2010)

Last time I rode the CS, the 30 and 31 cars were coupled roomette ends together, so the 30 car bedrooms didn't face the ocean, but 31's did.

The short answer is "no, bedrooms do not always face the ocean."


----------



## Drew (Jul 26, 2010)

When I was on 14 back in early January, my bedroom didn't face towards the ocean, our car (1432) was the only car that was positioned like that with the bedrooms facing east. 31 and 30 had theirs facing the ocean.


----------



## the_traveler (Jul 26, 2010)

As said, it can be put either way, but I would be in the PPC or Sightseer anyway! There you're guaranteed to easily see out both sides!


----------



## jmbgeg (Jul 26, 2010)

CNW said:


> When I rode the CS in January I was surprised to see all the bedroom passengers out in the hall because the bedrooms were not facing west.


With some of the bedroom fares over $1,000 SEA or PDX to LAX or vice versa, you would think that Amtrak's operations and marketing teams would understand the materiality to customers of having the deluxe bedrooms configured in the consist to face the west.


----------



## LA Resident (Jul 26, 2010)

the_traveler said:


> As said, it can be put either way, but I would be in the PPC or Sightseer anyway! There you're guaranteed to easily see out both sides!


Yes indeed. Too many people fixate only on the ocean side and miss lots of beautiful ranch and grassland scenery, plus the launching pads at Vandenburg Air Force Base. A couple of years ago, there was a rocket on the pad in preparation for firing when we passed through--and visible only on the non-ocean side!

(For those hoping to witness a launch at some point: sorry but the train would be halted in either direction far from the location in the event that a rocket launch was imminent.)


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 26, 2010)

jmbgeg said:


> You would think that Amtrak's operations and marketing teams would understand the materiality to customers of having the deluxe bedrooms configured in the consist to face the west.


I completely agree that they _should_ be thinking about it, even though it appears they don't. They should plan for it and advertise it as a sleeper's perk thanks to their planning. Maybe plan for one car the other way and sell them as "ocean view" or "inland view" as the case may be so people know what they're getting ahead of time. How hard can this actually be, Amtrak? Retrieve head from hind quarters and take another look at your SOP.



LA Resident said:


> Yes indeed. Too many people fixate only on the ocean side and miss lots of beautiful ranch and grassland scenery, plus the launching pads at Vandenburg Air Force Base. A couple of years ago, there was a rocket on the pad in preparation for firing when we passed through--and visible only on the non-ocean side!


Well, if I ever buy a ticket for _two years ago_ I'll be sure to keep that in mind.


----------



## leemell (Jul 26, 2010)

daxomni said:


> jmbgeg said:
> 
> 
> > You would think that Amtrak's operations and marketing teams would understand the materiality to customers of having the deluxe bedrooms configured in the consist to face the west.
> ...


The point made is that there are times when there are vehicles on the pads. Sometimes you luck out. Vandenberg is a very active launch site.


----------



## guest (Jul 26, 2010)

daxomni said:


> jmbgeg said:
> 
> 
> > You would think that Amtrak's operations and marketing teams would understand the materiality to customers of having the deluxe bedrooms configured in the consist to face the west.
> ...


WE saw a rocket on a launch pad while on the CS in March of this year.

I think this may happen more than you think since many rockets are sent off from the West Coast for geo-synchronization with the Earth i.e. puts a satellite in an orbit 25,000 miles above Earth so that it appears always stationary because it orbits at same speed as the Earth's rotation.

So maybe you won't see it if you buy a ticket from 2008 at the Star Trek AGR Window :giggle: but I think you have a fair chance to see a rocket preparation the more times that you ride the CS. And as a prior poster said, not forgetting to look inland!


----------



## rrdude (Jul 26, 2010)

zephyr17 said:


> Last time I rode the CS, the 30 and 31 cars were coupled roomette ends together, so the 30 car bedrooms didn't face the ocean, but 31's did.
> 
> The short answer is "no, bedrooms do not always face the ocean."


And you know what? That's really symptomatic of Amtrak. Would it cost more? Yea. Take more time? Yea.

Do people ride the train to look at the side of the bluff, on inland when the ocean/beach is out the other side? No.

I liked it when each train had it's own mgmt team, and could really tinker with things like this, menu items, staffing, equipment-when-it-was-available, etc., etc.


----------



## sunchaser (Jul 26, 2010)

Last summer, on the northbound CS our bedroom was facing inland. No worries though, we had boarded at SAC, & we were offered beautiful views of Mount Shasta, & some lakes along the way. The southbound CS bedroom was facing the other way.


----------



## the_traveler (Jul 26, 2010)

As sunchaser just said, if the car was always facing the ocean side in Southern CA, you would be seeing rocks and trees in Northern CA and Southern OR instead of mountains, lakes and streams!


----------



## LA Resident (Jul 26, 2010)

the_traveler said:


> As sunchaser just said, if the car was always facing the ocean side in Southern CA, you would be seeing rocks and trees in Northern CA and Southern OR instead of mountains, lakes and streams!


So right! I had a roomette on the ocean side on one trip and had to get up at the crack of dawn to get into the PPC to take fotos of Shasta! Got some great sunrise shots! Amazing that there were at least a half-dozen others in the PPC at that early hour!

So while the ocean side is indeed beautiful, it's not the end-all and be-all to the delights of the CS!!


----------



## ColdRain&Snow (Jul 26, 2010)

leemell said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> > jmbgeg said:
> ...


Over the years, I have seen some launches from LA during the sunset hour that created spectacular contrail displays such as this one.



sunchaser said:


> Last summer, on the northbound CS our bedroom was facing inland. No worries though, we had boarded at SAC, & we were offered beautiful views of Mount Shasta, & some lakes along the way. The southbound CS bedroom was facing the other way.


You guys make a great point about some of the special sights to be experienced on the eastern side of the route. I awoke out of a dead sleep on 14 only to see Mt. Shasta towering right above the _Coast Starlight_ as she was traversing across its slope. It's a vision that I will never forget.


----------



## boxcar479 (Jul 26, 2010)

I was on the C.S. in march at first I was disapointed that our roomette wasn't facing the ocean but the scenery on the east side is just as nice as the coastal views, We were on the Starlight a couple of weeks after that and we were on the west side. It was then that I figured out that the best seat on the train , was the one I was in, there are no bad seats for me anymore as long as I am on the train! Both times we rode the bedrooms were on the west side.


----------



## sunchaser (Jul 26, 2010)

LA Resident said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > As sunchaser just said, if the car was always facing the ocean side in Southern CA, you would be seeing rocks and trees in Northern CA and Southern OR instead of mountains, lakes and streams!
> ...


I was one of those early risers, sipping coffee, crying & taking pics of the mountain with my camera phone. We had bought a movie camera, but I had not used it yet. I did not realize how much I missed the area until we traveled through that morning....Next time I will get up earlier so I can see Castle Crags. They will be on the left heading north just past Dunsmuir. It's so beautiful & peaceful there.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 29, 2010)

daxomni said:


> jmbgeg said:
> 
> 
> > You would think that Amtrak's operations and marketing teams would understand the materiality to customers of having the deluxe bedrooms configured in the consist to face the west.
> ...


Earlier you were lamenting that Amtrak is wasting thousands of dollars by forcing people to call up and get their room numbers but now you want them to waste thousands of dollars, countless man hours, interfere with other train movements just so they can ruin the views of the mountains in favor of views of the ocean. I'm confused. Do you want them to waste money or not?


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 29, 2010)

AlanB said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> > jmbgeg said:
> ...


Let's really pile it on. Set up the consist so the bedrooms face the ocean, then cut the sleepers out and Oakland, wye them so the bedrooms will face Mt. Shasta and the Willamette canyon descending the Cascades, and reassemble the train! Everybody's happy right, except those concerned with costs, I guess. :blink:


----------



## JayPea (Jul 29, 2010)

zephyr17 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > daxomni said:
> ...



Hey, what a great idea!!! And while we're at it, let's reverse that whole process at Portland, so that the bedrooms will face toward Puget Sound. Never mind that for a good portion of the year it will be dark by the time you get to the Sound so you couldn't see much anyway. But that sounds like a great idea to me!!!!


----------



## sunchaser (Jul 29, 2010)

JayPea said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


While you're at it, can you add some extra stops wherever I want them? :lol:


----------



## buckhouse2006 (Jul 30, 2010)

Hi,

Traveling in August. Will be in car 1430 (north bound) and 1130 (sound bound). Roomette 9 both ways. Really doesn't matter, but I want to know what side the room is. The Sleeping car virtual tour site doesn't answer my question.


----------



## LA Resident (Jul 30, 2010)

buckhouse2006 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Traveling in August. Will be in car 1430 (north bound) and 1130 (sound bound). Roomette 9 both ways. Really doesn't matter, but I want to know what side the room is. The Sleeping car virtual tour site doesn't answer my question.


If you read through the threads on this topic, you will see that the answer is: no one can say for sure.

Many times the even-numbered roomettes are on the ocean side going up. But not always.

Ditto for train 11.

As most people posting on this thread have said, relax and enjoy the view from your roomette from whichever side, and spend much of your sightseeing time in the PPC. It's the special treat on the CS and allows you to see everything from one seat!


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 30, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Earlier you were lamenting that Amtrak is wasting thousands of dollars by forcing people to call up and get their room numbers but now you want them to waste thousands of dollars, countless man hours, interfere with other train movements just so they can ruin the views of the mountains in favor of views of the ocean. I'm confused. Do you want them to waste money or not?


Is anything you say not some sort of intentionally misworded fallicy? Your steadfast refusal to debate what I _actually_ say and to ignore the *source* of each complaint just so you can mouth off to me is tiresome. You seemed so educated and reasonable when I first arrived. Such a pity. I never claimed any dollar amount. Those are just words you're putting in my mouth. How much do you honestly think it would cost Amtrak to spec out a specific orientation and then simply stick with it? Under normal operations no cars would need to be specifically reoriented unless and until they were being changed out. Having the orientation of each car be a known quantity would allow the reservation system to plan out which way each room was facing and perhaps Amtrak could even sell a known side of the car as a premium over the standard bedroom (or even coach) fee. It may not work out for whatever reason, but I don't see the harm in _suggesting_ it as an added value that could be charged on top of general ticket rates. If the cost was negligable then they could simply offer this pre-determined orientation for free.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 31, 2010)

daxomni said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Earlier you were lamenting that Amtrak is wasting thousands of dollars by forcing people to call up and get their room numbers but now you want them to waste thousands of dollars, countless man hours, interfere with other train movements just so they can ruin the views of the mountains in favor of views of the ocean. I'm confused. Do you want them to waste money or not?
> ...


The only thing tiresome is your continued bashing of Amtrak without in most cases any understanding of how and why things work and are the way they are.

Next, I'm aware that you never claimed an amount. I'm here telling you that the amount of money that would have to be spent to fullfill your wishes here would be considerably more than you think, and far more than will ever be wasted by having a few phone reservation agents fielding calls from those who want their sleeper room numbers and I'm not saying that it wouldn't be smart for Amtrak to fix that email issue.

These cars aren't fixed in their consists. They are routinely removed and shuffled for any number of reasons. At the very least, every car must be taken out of daily operation once every 92 days for a FRA mandated inspection that lasts 2 days. Annually they are taken out for 2 weeks for yet another mandated inspection. This doesn't even begin to speak to cars that have to be taken out for repairs and other reasons like late running trains or intensive cleanings.

If Amtrak has to stop and spin cars around every time they break up a consist, that's added switching time. That costs big bucks! And of course in the case of a last minute bad ordered car, having to stop and worry about flipping the replacement car around means further delaying the train's departure and increasing expenses. Something that will anger people far more than not knowing which way their sleeper will face.

Then there are those occasions where something happens to a train while enroute that causes the train to be reversed back to its originating point. Many times it is not possible to turn the entire train, leaving the rooms backwards from the norm.

Even VIA rail doesn't try to guarantee which way a car will face on its premier train the Canadian, and for good reason. It's simply not practical.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 31, 2010)

I do want to point out that Amtrak has never advertised, marketed or otherwise stated or implied that bedrooms would face the ocean on the Coast Starlight. It is purely an urban legend, and never a service promised by Amtrak. Reasonable people should simply not expect it, since Amtrak has never set those expectations.

BTW-the same legend applied to the SP Lark in its glory years, perhaps retroactively. It was pointed out by Dennis Ryan and Joe Shine in their "Southern Pacific Passenger Trains - Vol 1 Night Trains of the Coast Route" that this was untrue even then. Because of the lack of vestibules in the 3-unit Lark Club Diner/Lounge, the cars adjacent to it HAD to run with the vestibules next to the Lark Club per FRA regulations. So one of those cars had to run with the bedrooms facing inland. And because bedrooms and compartments were the higher level accomodations, SP ran all-bedroom/compartment cars next to the Lark Club for the convienence of their higher-paying passengers. In addition SP operating policies were to run sleepers with the aisle side facing inside where the run included double track. Also, unlike the Superliners of today which are designed to run either direction, cars then then had a strong orientation; the lengthwise beds in all accomodation types all faced the same direction to run with the foot of the beds forward. And even then they got attached to trains backwards either deliberately as described above, or by omission.

This is probably a 70 or 80 year old legend, and apparently never really true. So even SP in the 40s and early 50s, when luxury overnight trains still made a profit carrying business travelers and so SP was motivated to cater to them, they didn't promise or provide the amenity of ocean facing bedrooms in all cars.


----------



## LA Resident (Jul 31, 2010)

zephyr17 said:


> I do want to point out that Amtrak has never advertised, marketed or otherwise stated or implied that bedrooms would face the ocean on the Coast Starlight. It is purely an urban legend, and never a service promised by Amtrak. Reasonable people should simply not expect it, since Amtrak has never set those expectations.
> 
> BTW-the same legend applied to the SP Lark in its glory years, perhaps retroactively. It was pointed out by Dennis Ryan and Joe Shine in their "Southern Pacific Passenger Trains - Vol 1 Night Trains of the Coast Route" that this was untrue even then. Because of the lack of vestibules in the 3-unit Lark Club Diner/Lounge, the cars adjacent to it HAD to run with the vestibules next to the Lark Club per FRA regulations. So one of those cars had to run with the bedrooms facing inland. And because bedrooms and compartments were the higher level accomodations, SP ran all-bedroom/compartment cars next to the Lark Club for the convienence of their higher-paying passengers. In addition SP operating policies were to run sleepers with the aisle side facing inside where the run included double track. Also, unlike the Superliners of today which are designed to run either direction, cars then then had a strong orientation; the lengthwise beds in all accomodation types all faced the same direction to run with the foot of the beds forward. And even then they got attached to trains backwards either deliberately as described above, or by omission.
> 
> This is probably a 70 or 80 year old legend, and apparently never really true. So even SP in the 40s and early 50s, when luxury overnight trains still made a profit carrying business travelers and so SP was motivated to cater to them, they didn't promise or provide the amenity of ocean facing bedrooms in all cars.


Thanks for the useful information! Fascinating about the Lark. Can you tell anything more about what sounds like an incredible dining/lounge adventure: the 3-car club diner/lounge.

And I assume you came across this info through the cited book or other secondary sources, that you weren't a (young) adult plying the LA-SF route in the late 40s, early 50s!!! But if you were, all the more power to you!!


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 31, 2010)

The Lark Club was an articulated 3 unit car, with the middle car sharing trucks with the other 2. The articulation made it possible to have a it almost completely open between the 2 service cars, so the diner lounge space was 2 cars long. The first car was a dormitory/kitchen, the second was the diner, and the third the lounge, although the "diner" and "lounge" sections did double duty. They served dinner and breakfast, but breakfast was much more popular than dinner, and, of course, the call for lounge seating in the morning was not great. Only 8 tables were pure diner tables and only those were set up to serve dinner seating 24. The rest of the diner had seating somewhat like todays Cross Country Cafe cars, and served as an extension of lounge space. The opposite was true at breakfast, when the entire diner was set up for breakfast, as well as the forward half of the lounge, seating 64 at one sitting. From 1949 to 1957 they even had a phone booth and mobile phone service. Doesn't seem like much today, but it was a very big deal then. They ran on the Lark until 1965, although in the later years, menu selections and service levels were greatly reduced. The Lark itself survived until 1968, and was the last train SP was able to successfully discontinue until the advent of Amtrak (although not for lack of trying).

If you can find the excellent Shine/Ryan book, it has numerous pictures of the Lark Club interior, including builder's photos taken by Pullman when the cars were brand new, as well as shots of various menus and ads.

Unfortunately, neither of the Lark Club cars survived, although a very similiar Cascade Club is preserved by the Pacific Locomotive Association in Niles Canyon near Fremont, CA.

I never had the pleasure of riding the Lark, although I have seen it. Fortunately, I did have the opportunity to ride Santa Fe's superb Super Chief. My first ride on the coast route was in 1958 aboard the Coast Daylight as a child, when it still was in full Daylight regalia. In 1970 I rode the Pacific Railroad Society's "Mountain Outin'" special over Tehachapi Pass. It had a Shasta Daylight triple unit Coffee Shop/Diner in its 22 car consist, which I remember well.


----------



## LA Resident (Jul 31, 2010)

zephyr17 said:


> The Lark Club was an articulated 3 unit car, with the middle car sharing trucks with the other 2. The articulation made it possible to have a it almost completely open between the 2 service cars, so the diner lounge space was 2 cars long. The first car was a dormitory/kitchen, the second was the diner, and the third the lounge, although the "diner" and "lounge" sections did double duty. They served dinner and breakfast, but breakfast was much more popular than dinner, and, of course, the call for lounge seating in the morning was not great. Only 8 tables were pure diner tables and only those were set up to serve dinner seating 24. The rest of the diner had seating somewhat like todays Cross Country Cafe cars, and served as an extension of lounge space. The opposite was true at breakfast, when the entire diner was set up for breakfast, as well as the forward half of the lounge, seating 64 at one sitting. From 1949 to 1957 they even had a phone booth and mobile phone service. Doesn't seem like much today, but it was a very big deal then. They ran on the Lark until 1965, although in the later years, menu selections and service levels were greatly reduced. The Lark itself survived until 1968, and was the last train SP was able to successfully discontinue until the advent of Amtrak (although not for lack of trying).
> 
> If you can find the excellent Shine/Ryan book, it has numerous pictures of the Lark Club interior, including builder's photos taken by Pullman when the cars were brand new, as well as shots of various menus and ads.
> 
> ...


Thanks again for your posts. I first rode the Daylight in 1956 as four-year old tike, from SD/LA to San Jose. All I really remember is how gleaming the silver coaches were and how hard the doors between cars were to pull open!

My first Super Chief ride didn't come until summer 1971, on the same day that Amtrak took over the passenger rail system. Fortunately, there wasn't even an Amtrak nameplate yet on the train; it was still the superb Santa Fe service in every way.

My cousin used to take the Valley Daylight two or three times a year between LA and Fresno, where he had summer jobs. I guess the Tehachapi Loop part of the ride was always quite a thrill.

I guess the Via Rail Canadian is the only North American train still able to convey the luxury of the heyday of passenger travel in the US. Ironic.


----------



## leemell (Aug 1, 2010)

LA Resident said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> > The Lark Club was an articulated 3 unit car, with the middle car sharing trucks with the other 2. The articulation made it possible to have a it almost completely open between the 2 service cars, so the diner lounge space was 2 cars long. The first car was a dormitory/kitchen, the second was the diner, and the third the lounge, although the "diner" and "lounge" sections did double duty. They served dinner and breakfast, but breakfast was much more popular than dinner, and, of course, the call for lounge seating in the morning was not great. Only 8 tables were pure diner tables and only those were set up to serve dinner seating 24. The rest of the diner had seating somewhat like todays Cross Country Cafe cars, and served as an extension of lounge space. The opposite was true at breakfast, when the entire diner was set up for breakfast, as well as the forward half of the lounge, seating 64 at one sitting. From 1949 to 1957 they even had a phone booth and mobile phone service. Doesn't seem like much today, but it was a very big deal then. They ran on the Lark until 1965, although in the later years, menu selections and service levels were greatly reduced. The Lark itself survived until 1968, and was the last train SP was able to successfully discontinue until the advent of Amtrak (although not for lack of trying).
> ...


Although not the same, the State of California and Amtrak have all the ducks lined up to reestablish the Coast Daylight from LA to downtown San Francisco. The Surfliner 798/799 would change to 98/99. All they need is money. -_-


----------



## LA Resident (Aug 1, 2010)

leemell said:


> LA Resident said:
> 
> 
> > zephyr17 said:
> ...


Let's hope it's at least a little better than the current 798/799 trains which have old Heritage coaches with dirty scratched windows, and a tiny little snack counter in the Heritage BC car. If it's going to be between a 10-11 hour trip, a diner, even some sort of lounge, would certainly be in order. There's no way to attract riders on what is admittedly a very slow route without some amenities. Otherwise, for example northbound, given the fact that the present 799 only leaves LA less than three hours before the CS, I would think most people would still want to ride the CS. What difference does it make to get into the Bay area at 7:30 p.m. as opposed to 9:30 p.m?

Now if they ran it up the west side of the Bay after San Jose, that might attract some riders put off by the bus transfer at Oakland (which I assume would be the east Bay terminus, not Emeryville.


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 1, 2010)

leemell said:


> LA Resident said:
> 
> 
> > zephyr17 said:
> ...


Although the new "Daylight" would be about as much like the SP's mid-50's "Coast Daylight" (aka "Morning Daylight") as the Southwest Chief is like the Santa Fe "Super Chief". Same route, that's about it. Although, unlike the "Super Chief", the new train would probably be a better train than the sorry late-stage "Coast Daylight". :unsure:


----------



## mrsmayberrry (Mar 3, 2011)

guest said:


> train-o-holic said:
> 
> 
> > I have read here that most people who get a bedroom on the Coast Starlight usually have the bedroom facing the ocean. Has anyone ever got a bedroom that did not face the ocean? Is it safe to assume that MOST of the time the bedrooms face the ocean. Yes I have heard what they say about Assuming,but...i am a glutton for punishment.
> ...


Northbound from Santa Barbara my upper level bedroom faced East, not towards the beach


----------



## zephyr17 (Mar 3, 2011)

mrsmayberrry said:


> guest said:
> 
> 
> > train-o-holic said:
> ...


Most of the time, it carries sleepers oriented both ways. The last time I took it, the 30 car had bedrooms facing the ocean, and the 31 and 32 had them facing inland.

As noted, there is no promise that Amtrak makes regarding sleeper orientation and operational realities mean they can face either way.

Guest, the "best answer" is you lucked out. It is a flip of the coin. Your sample set is too small to be a valid predictive base.


----------

