2 CCCs on Texas Eagle

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

OlympianHiawatha

Engineer
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
4,367
Location
Norman, OK
At least 2 of the Texas Eagle train sets are running with 2 CCCs and no Sightseer, and by luck of the draw (bad) I drew both on a FTW-CHI trip I just completed. In both cases the crews said the Sightseer had been bad ordered and I imagine enough of these dreams turned nightmare are lying around Amtrak needs to do something with them. Actually it wasn't the worse, as one was used a a pure Lounge and the other as a pure Diner and everything seemed to work, although on both legs I overheard passengers grousing about no "big windows." But as busy as the Diner was and as busy as the Lounge usually was, there is absolutely no way one car would work as with the CONO. Let us hope this is short lived.
 
I just rode the TE this morning from SAS to FTW and it also had two CCC's. Both seemed pretty busy. On the days I'm Dallas, usually there is a SSL but sometimes there isn't. Seems like when a SSL is bad ordered, the one train it's robbed from is the Eagle.
 
I just rode the TE this morning from SAS to FTW and it also had two CCC's. Both seemed pretty busy. On the days I'm Dallas, usually there is a SSL but sometimes there isn't. Seems like when a SSL is bad ordered, the one train it's robbed from is the Eagle.
Of course. The same logic that made the TE a train that would lose its sightseer says that if one should lose it, its the one with the least need for it. And lets face it- honest truth: of the Capitol Limited, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, Empire Builder, and Texas Eagle, the five trains that run with SSLs out of Chicago, the Texas Eagle has the lowest ridership, the least capacity, and the least scenic route. And thus its the train that needs the SSL the least out of them.

Don't come back with it needs it. I know it needs it. But it needs it less then the others.
 
I just rode the TE this morning from SAS to FTW and it also had two CCC's. Both seemed pretty busy. On the days I'm Dallas, usually there is a SSL but sometimes there isn't. Seems like when a SSL is bad ordered, the one train it's robbed from is the Eagle.
Of course. The same logic that made the TE a train that would lose its sightseer says that if one should lose it, its the one with the least need for it. And lets face it- honest truth: of the Capitol Limited, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, Empire Builder, and Texas Eagle, the five trains that run with SSLs out of Chicago, the Texas Eagle has the lowest ridership, the least capacity, and the least scenic route. And thus its the train that needs the SSL the least out of them.

Don't come back with it needs it. I know it needs it. But it needs it less then the others.
Still people need a place to get out of their seat/rooms. If the CCCs worked right, it would be fine, but they don't. And you know, the Capitol Limited's route isn't all that scenic. I find that ALL Amtrak routes are scenic in their own right and it would be a shame for any of these trains to run without their SSL. Same goes for the CONO.
 
I just rode the TE this morning from SAS to FTW and it also had two CCC's. Both seemed pretty busy. On the days I'm Dallas, usually there is a SSL but sometimes there isn't. Seems like when a SSL is bad ordered, the one train it's robbed from is the Eagle.
Of course. The same logic that made the TE a train that would lose its sightseer says that if one should lose it, its the one with the least need for it. And lets face it- honest truth: of the Capitol Limited, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, Empire Builder, and Texas Eagle, the five trains that run with SSLs out of Chicago, the Texas Eagle has the lowest ridership, the least capacity, and the least scenic route. And thus its the train that needs the SSL the least out of them.

Don't come back with it needs it. I know it needs it. But it needs it less then the others.

Don't forget the Coast Starlight , Auto Train (as back-up, all table, non transferable), and Sunset Limited. But what I want to know is where the other 20+ Sightseers are? I mean lets do the math: 1 AT:2 SL;3 CL, CS, and TE;4 SWC, CZ, and EB; total: 24. Only 5 aren't in current service (although 4 will be back within the next months). So where is the shortage in Lounges? Am I missing something here?

cpamtfan-Peter
 
I just rode the TE this morning from SAS to FTW and it also had two CCC's. Both seemed pretty busy. On the days I'm Dallas, usually there is a SSL but sometimes there isn't. Seems like when a SSL is bad ordered, the one train it's robbed from is the Eagle.
Of course. The same logic that made the TE a train that would lose its sightseer says that if one should lose it, its the one with the least need for it. And lets face it- honest truth: of the Capitol Limited, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, Empire Builder, and Texas Eagle, the five trains that run with SSLs out of Chicago, the Texas Eagle has the lowest ridership, the least capacity, and the least scenic route. And thus its the train that needs the SSL the least out of them.

Don't come back with it needs it. I know it needs it. But it needs it less then the others.

Don't forget the Coast Starlight , Auto Train (as back-up, all table, non transferable), and Sunset Limited. But what I want to know is where the other 20+ Sightseers are? I mean lets do the math: 1 AT:2 SL;3 CL, CS, and TE;4 SWC, CZ, and EB; total: 24. Only 5 aren't in current service (although 4 will be back within the next months). So where is the shortage in Lounges? Am I missing something here?

cpamtfan-Peter
GML was referring to the ones coming out of CHI. If one of those trains had an SSL bad ordered (say the one schedules to go out on the CZ was dead) they would have to pull it off of that day's TE consist if there are no spares laying around the yard.
 
I just rode the TE this morning from SAS to FTW and it also had two CCC's. Both seemed pretty busy. On the days I'm Dallas, usually there is a SSL but sometimes there isn't. Seems like when a SSL is bad ordered, the one train it's robbed from is the Eagle.
Of course. The same logic that made the TE a train that would lose its sightseer says that if one should lose it, its the one with the least need for it. And lets face it- honest truth: of the Capitol Limited, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, Empire Builder, and Texas Eagle, the five trains that run with SSLs out of Chicago, the Texas Eagle has the lowest ridership, the least capacity, and the least scenic route. And thus its the train that needs the SSL the least out of them.

Don't come back with it needs it. I know it needs it. But it needs it less then the others.
Still people need a place to get out of their seat/rooms. If the CCCs worked right, it would be fine, but they don't. And you know, the Capitol Limited's route isn't all that scenic. I find that ALL Amtrak routes are scenic in their own right and it would be a shame for any of these trains to run without their SSL. Same goes for the CONO.
I agree, but CMPTL is slightly off on the number used, and its more a matter of where they are when you need them then the total available on the system. A Sightseer sitting in PDX isn't going to help today's Texas Eagle leaving from Chicago.

If you want to argue that Amtrak needs to get more of their equipment ready and availible for service, or order more Superliners, you get no arguement from me.
 
I just rode the TE this morning from SAS to FTW and it also had two CCC's. Both seemed pretty busy. On the days I'm Dallas, usually there is a SSL but sometimes there isn't. Seems like when a SSL is bad ordered, the one train it's robbed from is the Eagle.
Of course. The same logic that made the TE a train that would lose its sightseer says that if one should lose it, its the one with the least need for it. And lets face it- honest truth: of the Capitol Limited, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, Empire Builder, and Texas Eagle, the five trains that run with SSLs out of Chicago, the Texas Eagle has the lowest ridership, the least capacity, and the least scenic route. And thus its the train that needs the SSL the least out of them.

Don't come back with it needs it. I know it needs it. But it needs it less then the others.
Still people need a place to get out of their seat/rooms. If the CCCs worked right, it would be fine, but they don't. And you know, the Capitol Limited's route isn't all that scenic. I find that ALL Amtrak routes are scenic in their own right and it would be a shame for any of these trains to run without their SSL. Same goes for the CONO.
I agree, but CMPTL is slightly off on the number used, and its more a matter of where they are when you need them then the total available on the system. A Sightseer sitting in PDX isn't going to help today's Texas Eagle leaving from Chicago.

If you want to argue that Amtrak needs to get more of their equipment ready and availible for service, or order more Superliners, you get no arguement from me.
*Argues*

How many SSLs are waiting for repair?
 
I have booked a trip in August - St Louis to Chicago with my return trip on the TE. Does anyone know if the sightseer has been permantely discountined from the Chicago to Texas train.

If so I will switch to a Illinois train to St Louis.

Thanks.
 
I rode 22 Last Saturday WITH a SSL.

21 Wednesday/Thursday without. That day's northbound TE had one when I saw it in FTW.

Why is the diner on the TE still called CCC? I've been on the the CONO, and it operates very differently.
 
I rode 22 Last Saturday WITH a SSL.21 Wednesday/Thursday without. That day's northbound TE had one when I saw it in FTW.

Why is the diner on the TE still called CCC? I've been on the the CONO, and it operates very differently.
IIRC the diner crew gets off #21 in AUS/rejoins #22 in the AM,AMTRAK tried out the CCC

concept in the winter on the TE!Same thing with the SSL,I see it both ways, the crew on the CONOL last

week told me that their SSL was taken away to run on the TE since they often share cars!

It boils down to equpment problems I believe, lets hope Beech Grove is hiring and running full blast! :lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I rode 22 Last Saturday WITH a SSL.21 Wednesday/Thursday without. That day's northbound TE had one when I saw it in FTW.

Why is the diner on the TE still called CCC? I've been on the the CONO, and it operates very differently.
There are two different things, the type of car and how the car is used.

Diner-lite is the type of car.

CCC is the way a car is used.

A Cross Country Cafe (CCC) was designed to be the dining car and the lounge car (no sightseer) and serve an all day menu. The CCC is only operated in one type of car, a diner-lite.

Due to having too many diner-lite cars and deciding not to use the CCC concept on more that the CONO, Amtrak was forced to put diner-lite cars on the TE and the CL and use them like regular dining cars and still have a sightseer lounge.

Technically, the TE does not have a CCC, it has a diner-lite car. However, people still refer to the car as a CCC, even though technically, that would be incorrect.

Of course, this is all my interpretation of how it is, I could be wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top