2 Parlour Cars Out of Service

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.
As far as services go, they are exactly the same as in a PPC. While the booth seating may not be as comfortable as the swivel chairs, I think the viewing is just as good if not better. Those swivel chairs sit low so views down are not as good.

I hoped for a PPC, but the CCC is not bad. Nice to have a sleeper lounge so close to the sleepers.
 
The CCC on our train has all booths on the long end. It does not have those weird in facing 3 person booths. It does have two of them on the short end, though.
 
If they really have so many CCCs to spare, deploy them as first class lounges on the other LD trains (or at least one). Sure they are junk compared to the PPC and the SSL, but having another lounge is really nice and doubles your chance of being able to find a seat or table. No need to just let them sit idle in CHI.
 
Is Amtrak running short on SSLs *too*, or is Amtrak using the CCC instead of the SSL deliberately? If Amtrak is also starting to have problems finding enough SSLs, then the equipment shortage is getting severe.
Amtrak's not really short on Sightseer Lounges.

They're using the CCC as I noted before, because it can still fullfill the role of providing meals, like the PPC. A SSL has no warming tables or anything beyond normal cafe facilities, and therefore it cannot fulfill the meal role of the PPC. Additionally, there is an area upstairs in the CCC from which the LSA can serve drinks. Again the SSL doesn't really offer such a luxury.
 
If they really have so many CCCs to spare, deploy them as first class lounges on the other LD trains (or at least one). Sure they are junk compared to the PPC and the SSL, but having another lounge is really nice and doubles your chance of being able to find a seat or table. No need to just let them sit idle in CHI.
^ Yes, please, +1. :)
 
Is Amtrak running short on SSLs *too*, or is Amtrak using the CCC instead of the SSL deliberately? If Amtrak is also starting to have problems finding enough SSLs, then the equipment shortage is getting severe.
Amtrak's not really short on Sightseer Lounges.

They're using the CCC as I noted before, because it can still fullfill the role of providing meals, like the PPC. A SSL has no warming tables or anything beyond normal cafe facilities, and therefore it cannot fulfill the meal role of the PPC. Additionally, there is an area upstairs in the CCC from which the LSA can serve drinks. Again the SSL doesn't really offer such a luxury.
Then why not refit either a couple of SSL's or CCC's with the areas needed to make them comparable to PPC's. Might make sense considering the age of the PPC's and the availability (or lack thereof) of spare parts.
 
Is Amtrak running short on SSLs *too*, or is Amtrak using the CCC instead of the SSL deliberately? If Amtrak is also starting to have problems finding enough SSLs, then the equipment shortage is getting severe.
Amtrak's not really short on Sightseer Lounges.

They're using the CCC as I noted before, because it can still fullfill the role of providing meals, like the PPC. A SSL has no warming tables or anything beyond normal cafe facilities, and therefore it cannot fulfill the meal role of the PPC. Additionally, there is an area upstairs in the CCC from which the LSA can serve drinks. Again the SSL doesn't really offer such a luxury.
Then why not refit either a couple of SSL's or CCC's with the areas needed to make them comparable to PPC's. Might make sense considering the age of the PPC's and the availability (or lack thereof) of spare parts.
That's a great idea. They could be made very sexy!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Then why not refit either a couple of SSL's or CCC's with the areas needed to make them comparable to PPC's. Might make sense considering the age of the PPC's and the availability (or lack thereof) of spare parts.
Simply because Amtrak doesn't really have the money and they don't want to make more unique cars.

And while they've got a few extra CCC's, I'm not sure if they've got that many extras anyhow to outfit 6 or 7 with the types of chairs needed to create a PPC. And there would be no way to put in a theatre downstairs, without removing the kitchen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From what I have seen of the numerous CCC's I have been in, there is no warming or steam table on the Upper Level; so I'm guessing during meals the poor attendant is having to run up and down the stairs to deliver food. At least the special menu is till being offered although it looks like no Duck or Lamb this Summer :angry2:
 
From what I have seen of the numerous CCC's I have been in, there is no warming or steam table on the Upper Level; so I'm guessing during meals the poor attendant is having to run up and down the stairs to deliver food. At least the special menu is till being offered although it looks like no Duck or Lamb this Summer :angry2:
I did not look closely, but I did see two convection ovens upstairs.
 
You mean the Super 60s? One of my favourite planes!
Swadian, are you like British or something? That's fine and cool and all, but your spelling of favorite makes me wonder?
 

Perhaps he's Canadian because that's the way I would spell favourite too......along with colour, harbour and yes....."Parlour" Car.....which is the spelling Amtrak uses.......not the American "Parlor" Car.

 
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The latest fleet strategy includes 12 parlor cars, which suggests replacement for the Coast Starlight plus one more train.
Perhaps he's Canadian because that's the way I would spell favourite too......along with colour, harbour and yes....."Parlour" Car.....which is the spelling Amtrak uses.......not the American "Parlor" Car.
Mac thanks for reminding us on the "Implementation of a program to acquire 508 bi-level cars to replace the existing Surfliner, Superliner and Parlor car fleets."

Of course I noticed the Amtrak Fleet Strategy doc used the "Parlor" spelling, rather than the exterior PPC nameplate style "Parlour" spelling.

Let's hope the six Parlor cars will be PPC substitutes, as similar to the originals as possible, including the swivel chairs, which are closer to a plum / thistle than purple.* That's a lot to ask from the company that gave us the CCC,,,

Amtrak is short on Sightseer Lounges but very long on CCC; every time I come and go from Chicago there is always a long string of CCCs in the yard outside Union Station.
What s surprise.

- -

* The chair color is quite similar to the "second quote" display used in this AAU forum,,,
 
Let's hope the six Parlor cars will be PPC substitutes, as similar to the originals as possible, including the swivel chairs, which are closer to a plum / thistle than purple.* That's a lot to ask from the company that gave us the CCC,,,
While the CCC may not have been the best idea ever, I do think it important to remember that Amtrak was sort of forced into giving us that car. It was Congress and they're typical micro-management that caused Amtrak to seek out solutions to the costs of food service, which is what led to the CCC.
 
Let's hope the six Parlor cars will be PPC substitutes, as similar to the originals as possible, including the swivel chairs, which are closer to a plum / thistle than purple.* That's a lot to ask from the company that gave us the CCC,,,
While the CCC may not have been the best idea ever, I do think it important to remember that Amtrak was sort of forced into giving us that car. It was Congress and they're typical micro-management that caused Amtrak to seek out solutions to the costs of food service, which is what led to the CCC.
Is there a law or directive from congress that says "The car must include an inexplicable choke point in the middle and some of the bench seating must face inward?" Most of the problems I have with the CCC are unlikely to have come from Congress, although I've certainly been proven wrong before. I think whatever favorable comments the CCC has received probably come from the simple reality that the CCC is the first "new" car we've seen on a Western trains in ages. Everything else is decades old and looks every minute of it.
 
Let's hope the six Parlor cars will be PPC substitutes, as similar to the originals as possible, including the swivel chairs, which are closer to a plum / thistle than purple.* That's a lot to ask from the company that gave us the CCC,,,
While the CCC may not have been the best idea ever, I do think it important to remember that Amtrak was sort of forced into giving us that car. It was Congress and they're typical micro-management that caused Amtrak to seek out solutions to the costs of food service, which is what led to the CCC.
Is there a law or directive from congress that says "The car must include an inexplicable choke point in the middle and some of the bench seating must face inward?" Most of the problems I have with the CCC are unlikely to have come from Congress, although I've certainly been proven wrong before. I think whatever favorable comments the CCC has received probably come from the simple reality that the CCC is the first "new" car we've seen on a Western trains in ages. Everything else is decades old and looks every minute of it.
No law at all. And the "choke" point isn't inexplicable. It was done to separate the dining car side from the cafe car side. As well as to give the cafe attendant a bit more space, without expanding the area into the space needed by the dining car side.

Besides, there isn't a dining car in the fleet that doesn't have a choke point. On a Superliner Dining car, basically every employee must stop doing anything every time people try to walk through the prep area. Ride a single level diner and you have that narrow, 1 person only hall all along the kitchen, complete with 2 90 degree turns.

As for the seats facing inward, that's not something that Amtrak came up with either. I just rode in a dome car on the Saratoga & North Creek RR two weekends ago. The dome car had at least 4 or 5 tables set up in a similar fashion. I'm not entirely sure why they do that, although one thought is that it may help to avoid the odd man out that happens when you have a party of 3 in a traditional booth.

I personally don't like it or agree with the idea of that type of seating, but it's not something that Amtrak dreamed up all on its own. And I believe that I heard recently that Amtrak is actually working to remove those booths and replace them with the traditional 4 people booths.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's hope the six Parlor cars will be PPC substitutes, as similar to the originals as possible, including the swivel chairs, which are closer to a plum / thistle than purple.* That's a lot to ask from the company that gave us the CCC,,,
While the CCC may not have been the best idea ever, I do think it important to remember that Amtrak was sort of forced into giving us that car. It was Congress and they're typical micro-management that caused Amtrak to seek out solutions to the costs of food service, which is what led to the CCC.
Is there a law or directive from congress that says "The car must include an inexplicable choke point in the middle and some of the bench seating must face inward?" Most of the problems I have with the CCC are unlikely to have come from Congress, although I've certainly been proven wrong before. I think whatever favorable comments the CCC has received probably come from the simple reality that the CCC is the first "new" car we've seen on a Western trains in ages. Everything else is decades old and looks every minute of it.
No law at all. And the "choke" point isn't inexplicable. It was done to separate the dining car side from the cafe car side. As well as to give the cafe attendant a bit more space, without expanding the area into the space needed by the dining car side.

Besides, there isn't a dining car in the fleet that doesn't have a choke point. On a Superliner Dining car, basically every employee must stop doing anything every time people try to walk through the prep area. Ride a single level diner and you have that narrow, 1 person only hall all along the kitchen, complete with 2 90 degree turns.

As for the seats facing inward, that's not something that Amtrak came up with either. I just rode in a dome car on the Saratoga & North Creek RR two weekends ago. The dome car had at least 4 or 5 tables set up in a similar fashion. I'm not entirely sure why they do that, although one thought is that it may help to avoid the odd man out that happens when you have a party of 3 in a traditional booth.

I personally don't like it or agree with the idea of that type of seating, but it's not something that Amtrak dreamed up all on its own. And I believe that I heard recently that Amtrak is actually working to remove those booths and replace them with the traditional 4 people booths.
The one thing I didn't get most about the CCC or I guess the consists of the TE and CONO, and I guess the CL when it had it. The CCC was supposed to be 2-in-1, where they would have the cafe and diner together. However, all of the trains that have a CCC have never used the cafe AFAIK, and the lounge downstairs of the SSL is staffed. I know that it would be a mistake to take the SSL away, but from someone who didn't know about the value of the SSL and was looking from a purely managerial standpoint, probably someone who has never ridden an LD, would say that it is inefficient. There are essentially two cafes, one not being used, and less overall capacity in the diner, meaning less coach pax will have the ability to pay. It has never made sense to me. When Amtrak ordered these, did they intend on not having an SSL or not staffing the bottom of it? I know it was meant to simplify prep downstairs but if prep time is the only thing you're worried about and you have no intention of using the cafe part, I don't understand the point of reduced diner seating.
 
The one thing I didn't get most about the CCC or I guess the consists of the TE and CONO, and I guess the CL when it had it. The CCC was supposed to be 2-in-1, where they would have the cafe and diner together. However, all of the trains that have a CCC have never used the cafe AFAIK, and the lounge downstairs of the SSL is staffed. I know that it would be a mistake to take the SSL away, but from someone who didn't know about the value of the SSL and was looking from a purely managerial standpoint, probably someone who has never ridden an LD, would say that it is inefficient. There are essentially two cafes, one not being used, and less overall capacity in the diner, meaning less coach pax will have the ability to pay. It has never made sense to me. When Amtrak ordered these, did they intend on not having an SSL or not staffing the bottom of it? I know it was meant to simplify prep downstairs but if prep time is the only thing you're worried about and you have no intention of using the cafe part, I don't understand the point of reduced diner seating.
Johnny,

The idea was that the Sightseer Lounge would not be in the consist. And in fact the original CCC/SDS plans called for the conversion of the SSL's into CCC's once Amtrak was done converting the dining cars over. Thankfully that plan got stopped before it came to fruition.

But there was a period of time on the City where there was no SSL. And then for a brief period, they returned the SSL, but continued to use the cafe in the CCC leaving the downstairs in the SSL un-staffed, IIRC. Then they closed down the cafe in the CCC and went back to running it out of the SSL.

And the point of reduced dining car seating was that allowed them to reduce the staff and cut expenses, meeting the stupid Congressional mandate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The one thing I didn't get most about the CCC or I guess the consists of the TE and CONO, and I guess the CL when it had it. The CCC was supposed to be 2-in-1, where they would have the cafe and diner together. However, all of the trains that have a CCC have never used the cafe AFAIK, and the lounge downstairs of the SSL is staffed. I know that it would be a mistake to take the SSL away, but from someone who didn't know about the value of the SSL and was looking from a purely managerial standpoint, probably someone who has never ridden an LD, would say that it is inefficient. There are essentially two cafes, one not being used, and less overall capacity in the diner, meaning less coach pax will have the ability to pay. It has never made sense to me. When Amtrak ordered these, did they intend on not having an SSL or not staffing the bottom of it? I know it was meant to simplify prep downstairs but if prep time is the only thing you're worried about and you have no intention of using the cafe part, I don't understand the point of reduced diner seating.
The idea was to avoid the Sightseer. Others can tell you whether that happened for any period of time on the Capitol or Eagle (I can't), but I did encounter a lounge-less City more than once.

I do remember seeing pictures of 37000 on 29/30 in late 2006/early 2007, and again on 58/59 the fall of 2007. I think Rtabern (and maybe Trogdor) have pictures of one or the other.
 
Pic of the CCC that we had on our recent Coast Starlight. All 4 person booths on the long end. The short end still had the weird 3 person booths.

ccc.jpg
 
About the only good thing I can say about the CCCs on the Eagles and CONO is that the Crew can hang out in the Mafia Seats in the "Cafe" part of the Car without taking up Seats in the Diner like they do on other LD Routes!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, I got some pictures.

In October 2007, I rode the City of New Orleans from Homewood to Chicago on the City of New Orleans and had breakfast in the Cross Country Cafe. This is when the whole CCC concept just was implimented on #58 and #59 -- and the consist was running with no Sightseer Lounge -- and just the CCC with half of it as the diner and half of it as a lounge.

Note the original concept was to serve breakfast all the way into Chicago on the northbound City of New Orleans -- hence I was testing it -- by taking a Metra to Homewood and buying a $5.40 ticket on the City of New Orleans from Homewood to Chicago -- just to have breakfast as promised.

And yes, it worked. The "breakfast all the way into Chicago" thing was QUICKLY pulled... and by November or December of 2007... breakfast was cut back to stopping in KKI (Kankakee) and has remained so ever since.

Here are some of the photos of a CCC being used as an actual diner:

http://rtabern.shutterfly.com/872#877

(use arrows to see more photos)

While I am very anti-CCC, I did think it was cool you could eat breakfast on the City of New Orleans boarding in Homewood -- meaning Chicagoans can have an Am-breakfast by just riding down to Homewood on Metra and riding #58 back into CUS.
 
All four sets have had regular Parlours for at least a week now, but with one in the shop (not one of the two that were OOS when the thread started) for scheduled maintenance, there aren't any spares so if anything goes wrong, one will get blanked again.
 
All four sets have had regular Parlours for at least a week now, but with one in the shop (not one of the two that were OOS when the thread started) for scheduled maintenance, there aren't any spares so if anything goes wrong, one will get blanked again.
So in other words are the 2 that went in the shop when this thread started back on the line now and the "protect car" now being rotated through maintenance?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top