Coast Starlight - Pacific parlour car

[maltbird]

Last spring we did took the coast starlight from Seattle to Los Angeles and back. ( we were "lucky" enough to be on one of the feather canyon detours)

We were looking forward to the pacific parlour car, but the one assigned to our train had brake proplems, so an extrea sightseer lounge was added.

We are going again later this spring. Is the parlour car back ???

Thanks

JOhn

 

[battalion51]

The Parlour's are still there. Unforutnately I believe Amtrak sold off the extra unrfurbished Hi-Level lounge so there is no spare, or the spare was on another train. But yes the Parlour's are still around.

 

[EmpireBuilderFan]

The only time that the Pacific Parlor car isn't in the Starlight consist is when it's bad ordered, such as the case you ran into. It's usually available the majority of the time, so odds are it will be there when you make the Starlight trip.

 

[F59 PHI]

car 39971 has been sold :-( IMO Amtrak should have kept a LOT more Highlevels for cardinal service, so the Palm could have stayed with a sleeper and diner. have 3 HL coaches, a HL diner, a Superliner lounge, a HL transition car and a viewliner.

They woulda needed to keep 9 more coaches, 3 diners and 3 transition cars, but it would have been worth it IMO

 

[battalion51]

Actually the Cardinal only needs three sets so you would only need 6 coaches, 2 diners, 2 lounges, 2 sleepers and 2 trans dorms (you could use half of the Dorm as revenue a la City of NOL). Also the Hi-Levels were saved off for the K-Card not the Card.

 

[tp49]

Parlour's still there saw it this morning as EBF said only way it won't be on the train is if there is a problem with the car otherwise it should be there.

 

[pismobum]

39971 was never a Starlate car. 39970-72-73-74-75 are the parlors - in "theory" enough for the 4 consists plus a rotation spare in LA. Problem is some get sent to Beech Grove for maintenance, then there is no spare. If there is a badorder (or 2 cars go out of service) then a Sightseer gets substituted.

 

[Anthony]

39971 was never a Starlate car. 39970-72-73-74-75 are the parlors - in "theory" enough for the 4 consists plus a rotation spare in LA. Problem is some get sent to Beech Grove for maintenance, then there is no spare. If there is a badorder (or 2 cars go out of service) then a Sightseer gets substituted.

I could swear that I was in 39971 on the Starlight, as the Parlour car, around spring 1998. I could be wrong, but I'll have to check some photos in a couple weeks when I can get access to them.

 

[Anthony]

39971 was never a Starlate car. 39970-72-73-74-75 are the parlors - in "theory" enough for the 4 consists plus a rotation spare in LA. Problem is some get sent to Beech Grove for maintenance, then there is no spare. If there is a badorder (or 2 cars go out of service) then a Sightseer gets substituted.

Go to trainweb, in the 'search rail worldwide' box, type 39971. A travelogue of Steve's comes up and he lists 39971 as the Parlour in his train's consist. The travelogue was from Summer 1998 - which sounds about right for that car, since I was in it that Spring.

:unsure:

 

[Allen Dee]

I rode #14 on 1/24 and #11 on 1/27. Both had PP # 39975.

 

[pismobum]

OK - my statement is poorly worded. 39971 was an un-refurbished (other than converted to HEP) ATSF hi-level lounge car that ran on various trains (including the San Diegans) and has now been sold. The other 5 ex ATSF hi-level lounges went thru a Beech Grove rebuild and were decaled "Pacific Parlor Car" for "exclusive" Starlight service. 39971 obviously has been on #11/14, but is no more a "Pacific Parlor Car" than any substitute Sightseer Lounge is a "Pacific Parlor Car".

(Also have to learn to never say "never" - Dome history said MOPAC put Budd domes with "Colorado Eagle" letterboards onto the Colorado Eagle in 1948 and PS domes on in 1952 for the "Texas Eagle". Just received photo/trip report from a gent with a dome on the Texas Eagle in 1948 (obviously a "Colorado Eagle" Budd - so much for 'exclusivity').

 

[Anthony]

39971 obviously has been on #11/14, but is no more a "Pacific Parlor Car" than any substitute Sightseer Lounge is a "Pacific Parlor Car".

Well, I seem to recall that this car had a medium-sized Pacific Parlour Car decal on the outside near the vestibule, though it was still in Phase III paint and was, as you said, definitely unrefurbished. Maybe that decal was a temporary thing while they were running it on the Starlight. If so, it would appear that they had dedicated it as a Parlour car for the time being, as the other Parlour cars at the time looked exactly like it inside. (the return leg of that trip I took had 39972 in a similarly unrefurbished state; it looked identical to 71 inside)

I will have to see if it had that decal when I get some photos together. Now I'm curious :lol:

 

[Anthony]

Hmm, after some casual searching, I found this note on Jim Hebner's photo site (http://www.hebners.net/amtrak/amtPARLOUR.html):

"39971 still has ATSF has ATSF Decor but has a Pacific Parlour decal outside"

I wonder if they would have run a car with a Pacific Parlour decal as simply another substitute car, especially back in 96-98 when all of the Parlours were "unrefurbished"? :unsure:

 

[pismobum]

"Rosenwald had found several vintage 1950s Santa Fe Railway lounge cars, possibly the same as he had traveled in as a kid, and had spent more than $3 million refurbishing them. The new Pacific Parlour Cars featured upstairs lounges with mahogany-paneled walls, glass sconces, domed viewing windows, swivel armchairs, couches, banquettes and full bars, and downstairs cinemas with big-screen TVs and classic movie theater seating for 19."

Rosenwald converted 5 coaches as "kiddie cars" downstairs and 5 of the hi-level lounges as above for the 4 trainsets plus a spare. 39971 was not included.

 

[battalion51]

Who's Rosenwald? :lol:

 

[Anthony]

Rosenwald = Brian Rosenwald, the former Product Line Manager for the Coast Starlight and current (higher position, I forget).

"Rosenwald had found several vintage 1950s Santa Fe Railway lounge cars, possibly the same as he had traveled in as a kid, and had spent more than $3 million refurbishing them. The new Pacific Parlour Cars featured upstairs lounges with mahogany-paneled walls, glass sconces, domed viewing windows, swivel armchairs, couches, banquettes and full bars, and downstairs cinemas with big-screen TVs and classic movie theater seating for 19."
Rosenwald converted 5 coaches as "kiddie cars" downstairs and 5 of the hi-level lounges as above for the 4 trainsets plus a spare. 39971 was not included.

All of those things such as mahogany walls, glass sconces, swivel armchairs, downstairs movie theater, etc. were only a product of the refurbishing efforts. 39971 was indeed used in its unrefurbished state as a Parlour car before any of this refurbishing happened. The Starlight had Parlour Cars from around 1996 or maybe earlier, and the refurbished cars only started showing up around 1999-2000 (if my memory serves me correctly). So for about two or three years, all of the Parlour cars were unrefurbished and did not have any movie theaters, mahogany walls, plush swivel armchairs, couches, or a full bar. They were simply used in revenue service in the old lounge configuration, in the same fashion as today's Parlour cars are (as a First Class lounge).

"Rosenwald had found several vintage 1950s Santa Fe Railway lounge cars, possibly the same as he had traveled in as a kid, and had spent more than $3 million refurbishing them."

This sentence, between "as a kid" and "... spent more than $3 million refurbishing them" left out a key detail, and that is that the cars were run in an unrefurbished state for a few years, on the Starlight, as Pacific Parlour Cars.

I realize that 39971 did not have these new and upgraded "Parlour" amenities as we know them today, but certainly this car was designated as a Parlour Car during the time period when none of the other cars in service were refurbished, either. So at the time, this is all we knew a "Parlour" car to be, and hence it was just as much of a Parlour Car at that time, as the currently used ones are, now.

Am I missing something? :unsure:

 

[AlanB]

Who's Rosenwald?   :lol:

Almost like someone knew that you were going to ask that question, B51, the LA Times just recently published a story on the EB and it's Parlour Cars.

By Returning to the Days of Luxury, Amtrak Executive Brian Rosenwald Made the Coast Starlight Train a Hit With Passengers. But Will It Survive Perpetual Cost Cuts?

The full story, and a very interesting read IMHO, can be found here.

Note: Free registration may be required to view this story. Also thanks OTOL for finding this story in the first place.

Ps. Rosenwald still works for Amtrak, but sadly is no longer in charge of the Coast Starlight.

 

[pismobum]

keep in mind as you read things like the Times article that errors continually creep into stuff - i.e. it states that the 'kiddie cars' were converted coach/baggage cars. They were actually converted from straight 341XX superliner II coaches, not coach/bags.

 

[AlanB]

keep in mind as you read things like the Times article that errors continually creep into stuff - i.e. it states that the 'kiddie cars' were converted coach/baggage cars.  They were actually converted from straight 341XX superliner II coaches, not coach/bags.

I'm not surprised at all about that kind of mistake. Heck most newspapers think that the conductor actually drives the train. So I certainly wouldn't expect them to know the difference between a Superliner II coach vs. a coach/baggage car. :blink:

 

[battalion51]

It's sort of sad. An Engineer buddy of mine has a nephew who's two, and even he can distinguish between a Conductor and an Engineer. :lol: If you say "What does Uncle do?" He'll say "Toot toot." If you ask what did uncle used to do, he'll say "All aboard." If a two year old can do it, so should fully grown reporters.

 

[steve_relei]

I agree that many in the newspaper business and other media do not know the difference between the conductor and the engineer. A few weeks ago, I sent an email to a reporter at a Tacoma newspaper (the article was about a man being struck by an Amtrak train, which was reported here) and pointed out to him the difference between the two. I never did get a response back from him. I see this error often. How difficult can it be for reporters to get their facts right and to know who does what on a railroad? After all, on an airplane, a reporter would not mistakenly say that the person flying the airplane is a flight attendant!

Anyway, I see the Coast Starlight go by frequently, and it almost always has the Parlour Car on it. Occasionally I will see a sightseer-lounge substituted (that means two sightseer-lounges on the same train and enveloping the dining car) for the ex-Santa Fe cars. Sleeping cars during this time of year usually number two; usually there are three during the summer. However, the parlour cars are still there.

Oh, and it's nice to se the Empire Builder running again!!! I watched it do its turnaround today.

 

[pismobum]

in the case of the 'kiddy' car conversions, it is extremely unlikely the error was caused by the reporter. Unless he was a 'serious practitioner' of railfans, he probably wouldn't know a coach/baggage from a diner. He was obviously only printing what somebody had fed him - either a misinformed amtrak employee or a 'helpful' railfan that didn't know his facts.

 

[AlanB]

in the case of the 'kiddy' car conversions, it is extremely unlikely the error was caused by the reporter. Unless he was a 'serious practitioner' of railfans, he probably wouldn't know a coach/baggage from a diner. He was obviously only printing what somebody had fed him - either a misinformed amtrak employee or a 'helpful' railfan that didn't know his facts.

You're probably right about the reporter, Pismobum. But on the other hand that's why newspapers employ fact checkers, to catch errors like that. :lol: Or the ever famous, "The conductor was driving the train".

 

[Allen Dee]

I am currently employed by the local newspaper. I am a wrench-turner, a maintenance mechanic by trade. I can't tell you how many times I have gone to the editorial department to slam their coverage of rail-related items.

They always get it wrong, "the conductor drives the train?????"

How stupid can they get? But these are college-educated journalists. I just grin and bear it!