Why not include diners Silver Salver and Silver Feast (both off of
the third "Twins") in the question about the "Inn" and the "Manor"?
Granted, the "Twin" diners were high-mileage cars but I doubt there
was anything structurally wrong with them that a good car rebuilding
shop could not have handled. There were four "identical" cars that
Amtrak passed up for no obvious reason and then they had to go
scraping for diners later and ended up with "one-of-a-kind" cars
like 8044, which was a former KCS diner.
As for the hot AT&SF coach; Southern, AT&SF, Milwaukee Road and a
few others opted for steam-ejector air conditioning in some of their
equipment. That happened to be the system of preference for those
roads' mechanical departments at the time. When it worked, it
worked well....but when it didn't, the ride could be pretty
miserable. All of the different car voltages and a/c systems were
just a few of the problems that Amtrak had to deal with in their car
fleet in the early years.
Don C.
--- In CBQ@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen J. Levine" <sjl@...> wrote:
>
> I remember that the original list of cars that Amtrak was going to
take did not include any Q cars, which surprised me. I would have
thought that the Q cars would have been the most desirable because
vestibule doors and climate control systems were the simplest. On a
zephyr, it seemed that the only air-operated sliding door on the
whole train was at the dining room end of the diner. Cooling and
heating systems operated independently of each other.
>
> I remember in June of 1975, on a San Francisco Zephyr trip, my
wife and I were riding in a 1952 ex-Santa Fe coach, behind which was
one of the 1956 ex-DZ coaches. The latter got sidelined when a
water pipe broke in it and people were moved into the our car. But
then the air conditioning failed in our car and, because it was tied
into a complex climate control system regulating both heat and air,
the car became unbearably hot. So we ended up moving into the DZ
car where the water vapor made the car cool. It was simply
ridiculous that a car's heating system would remain on when the air
conditioning failed, but that was the Santa Fe's complex climate
control system. Had the water line not broken in the ex-DZ car (I
think it was the Silver Bit), it would not have had that sort of
failure.
>
> I think violations of the KISS principle in post-war passenger
equipment made the situation worse for Amtrak in its early years.
>
> hjebone <stu5632@...> wrote:
> Steve,
>
> I was at transportation college on 5-1-71, and went to work for
> Amtrak on 6-12-72 and remained there until 1979 when I took a
> sabbatical. But I had been a fan since 8-22-63 when I rode #17
from
> Chicago to Oakland. While not in the operating department, my
> collegue & I were different from our other co workers, as we
actually
> got out and rode the trains, especially #5 & #6, The San Francisco
> Zephyr. It, for at least the first few months was hastily renamed
the
> City of San Francisco, then the SFZ, after D&RGW's last minute
change
> of heart, before 5-1-71, but after Amtrak PT #1 was printed.
>
> Without digging out my entire Randall archive and Don pulling out
his
> early consists, I can tell you a little of what went on from
memory.
> At first, Amtrak announced it would only buy the 1300 newest cars
for
> the system, all 100% stainless. Period. This was woefully short of
> what it would have needed for even a February consist of the CZ or
> the Broadway. Amtrak, as someone opined, was married to Penn
Central
> from the 'git-go', and some of its and the GM&Os equipment was in
> such unsafe condition, some of those trains got all new consists.
But
> it varied from day to day and month to month.
>
> I can remember riding in mostly UP,ATSF and SP diners west of
> Chicago, and even some western road stuff east of Chicago. The DZ,
> which ran daily from Chicago to Denver only, usually had a Q
diner.
> Amtrak insisted, at least for the first two years, nothing carbon
> steel painted, except UP was allowed on the property. This hurt
> availability with a big 'ouch'. I was told at the time by some wag
> that, "the railroads picked out what they wanted for exec trains
and
> such, and the junk that was left over went to Amtrak.'' I'm sure
Bill
> Kratville and others could debate that one! Suffice to say, we
have
> slides of four of the CZ obs taken from the Polk St bridge in
> Chicago, parked next to the old REA building on the Burlington
side.
> And they sat there for months and months and months, until Amtrak
> decided what to do with them. Initially, they wound up on the
Texas
> Chief, of all places.
>
> By the oil crisis of 1974, this all went out the window. We
started
> to see all sorts of smooth side GN, NP and other railroads' cars.
As
> to why they picked certain Q cars, while others got sold or
sidelined
> was and is still anybody's guess. My favorite contradiction was
this
> one: we were ALWAYS short baggage cars. Amtrak would not touch the
> Havelock baggage cars from 1952, and as a result, they all wound
up
> in company service. Yet, they would buy prewar SCL baggage-dorms.
By
> 1974, they begged the SP to let them have the 1962
> SLCC 'Economy' bags. SP agreed, and they were sorely needed. When
we
> got them,
> most were in turnkey shape, and some in fresh paint! Early in the
> game, they would not
> even look at any prewar Q Budd equipment, but bought tons of it
from
> the Santa Fe and the SCL. My favorites were the 3380-81. The
original
> 1937 Chief lounges.
>
> I guess what I'm trying to say is: 1) At first there was no
apparent
> rhyme or reason to it. 2)When it became painfully obvious in '72-
'73
> that there was an acute equipment shortage, the prewar taboo came
> off, but by then, the Q cars were in work train service. And 3) by
> 1974, they would buy or lease anything that would roll, including
the
> KCS' Stuart Knott, which had been in company service. Stu was
already
> painted boxcar red, and had a KCS MofW stencil in the center of
the
> car, where the shopman got too close with the silver paint, and it
> dribbled down behind the stencil. Such were the days of
the 'Rainbow'
> trains. As far as I can remember it!
>
> --- In CBQ@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen J. Levine" <sjl@> wrote:
> >
> > Of course, we know that, within only a few years after Amtrak
> selected its cars, the Silver Inn ended up in a derelict condition
> with other Burlington equipment. Obviously, the BN didn't need it.
> >
> > http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=721784
> >
> > Bob Webber <rgz17@> wrote:
> > Bill Kratville / Autoliner was the one who decided which
> western cars
> > ended up in Amtrak, of the offered cars. Autoliner refurbished
> some,
> > some were done by Pullman, some elsewhere. At the time, and for
> many
> > years before and since, Bill worked for the UP.
> >
> > If BN wanted to retain cars for company service or for whatever
> use -
> > even to selling the cars to non-Amtrak entities (like the
Mexican
> RRs
> > or Autotrain), they could do so. Autotrain ended up with some 31
UP
> > domes, along with WPs domes, and some AT&SF full domes. Since
the
> > five diners were extremely similar, I would think that the
earlier
> > diners would be more "preferable" strictly due to low use. One
was
> > essentially a spare for the CZ, the other two for KC trains -
which
> > didn't have a whole lot of use (compared with the DZ cars which
> were
> > in full use all the time). The NCL cars would be less preferable
> > simply due to their construction - and again, harder use.
> >
> > They likely had an inspection of all the cars, checking
especially
> > the running gear, and desirability of the interior - and picked
the
> > two to retain.
> >
> > Note that some railroads, esp. the UP, but also the AT&SF
regretted
> > losing so many of their cars and ended up purchasing quite a few
> back
> > from various sources.
> >
> > At 12:32 PM 6/29/2008, Stephen J. Levine wrote:
> > >I wonder if it had something to do with where the cars were
> assigned
> > >just prior to Amtrak, and also what diners Amtrak used on its
San
> > >Francisco and Denver Zephyrs in the early years.
> > >
> > > I believe that, by May of 1971, the only ex-Q train that ran a
> > > full diner regularly was the Denver Zephyr. The California
> > > Service/Nebraska Zephyr used the Chuck Wagons as their food
> service cars.
> > >
> > > sjl
> > >
> > >Russ Strodtz <borneo@> wrote:
> > > It may be set by PC doing what Amtrak wanted. There were sets
on
> > >lists and I'm not even sure that they were able to inspect
> everything
> > >that they could look at. It is my understandment that other than
> > >the Suburban what they got was what they were told to send out
as
> > >Amtrak wanted them. Also heard that UP could not understand
exactly
> > >what they wanted and how it was figured out but they still got
what
> > >was wanted. Still did not get enough and had to lease all kinds
of
> > >odd stuff.
> > >
> > >Even in recent times that are some odd things that are hard to
> > >understand. If you can spend government money I guess that is
> > >what will be decided.
> > >
> > >Russ
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: Stephen J. Levine
> > >To: cbq@yahoogroups.com
> > >Sent: Saturday, 28 June, 2008 18:33
> > >Subject: [CBQ] Why didn't Silver Inn and Silver Manor go to
Amtrak?
> > >
> > >I have always been curious as to why the 1952 diners Silver Inn
> and
> > >Silver Manor were not acquired by Amtrak.
> > >
> > >If BN was trying to hang onto the newer equipment for their own
> > >executive trains, the 1956 DZ Silver Tureen and Silver Chef
were
> > >their newest diners, followed by the ones running on the North
> Coast
> > >Limited. Yet these all went to Amtrak.
> > >
> > >If the goal was to sell Amtrak the newest equipment, then why
did
> > >the 1948 CZ diners go to Amtrak instead of the two diners above
> (the
> > >third 1952 diner, the Silver Cuisine, did go to Amtrak.
> > >
> > >Was it because, with the Kansas City service not working out
the
> way
> > >it was intended, these two diners became underused and thus, by
> > >1971, were in the best condition of any of the Budd diners? I
was
> > >wondering if anyone had any inside information.
> > >
> > >sjl
> > >
> > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >------------------------------------
> > >
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >------------------------------------
> > >
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Bob Webber
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:CBQ-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:CBQ-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|