# CUS electrification



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jul 14, 2017)

So I was in CUS almost a week ago, and I remember there were a lot of fumes, and a suprising number got into the station, which didn't bother me, but I'm sure it bothered others. What if (yeah, I know it's real unlikely) third rail electrification was mandatory on all regular trains (perhaps exceptions can be made for excursions, as they are rare and pose no threat to regular conditions), like in Manhattan, so as to eliminate issues with fumes in the station. Also, overhead wire would work, but I know people will complain about Superliner clearances, but if they are moving everything to Viewliner, there shouldn't be an issue onve they switch, just slap a 5 MPH restriction on the Superliners in the station.


----------



## CCC1007 (Jul 15, 2017)

No chance, unless the whole suburban network of metra and all of the Chicago based state supported lines had either dual mode engines or were replaced with EMU's.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jul 15, 2017)

Deleted - my post was about WUS, not CUS


----------



## PaTrainFan (Jul 15, 2017)

This has been a complaint for years that brought the attention of the Chicago Tribune, EPA and Sen. Durbin. The owner of the old post office building above the tracks was taken to court for failing to provide proper ventilation. The main offenders appear to be the much older and higher polluting Metra locomotives, and Metra.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-union-station-air-testing-met-20151105-story.html


----------



## A Voice (Jul 15, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> So I was in CUS almost a week ago, and I remember there were a lot of fumes, and a suprising number got into the station, which didn't bother me, but I'm sure it bothered others. What if (yeah, I know it's real unlikely) third rail electrification was mandatory on all regular trains (perhaps exceptions can be made for excursions, as they are rare and pose no threat to regular conditions), like in Manhattan, so as to eliminate issues with fumes in the station. Also, overhead wire would work, but I know people will complain about Superliner clearances, but if they are moving everything to Viewliner, there shouldn't be an issue onve they switch, just slap a 5 MPH restriction on the Superliners in the station.


Electrification, especially just within terminal areas, is not really a practical solution even if there were a _severe_ problem with exhaust. Regardless, improved ventilation would be far less expensive.

Where did you ever get the (mistaken) idea Amtrak was "moving everything to Viewliner" ?


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 15, 2017)

I was just through CUS twice in the last two weeks and I was amazed at the LACK of fumes out in the platforms. I figured they had some good ventilation in place.


----------



## neroden (Jul 15, 2017)

I think they forced the owner of the old Post Office to fix the ventilation.

I still think partial electrification (with overhead catenary) is a good long-term idea, particularly for the high-frequency BNSF Line. There are very few overbridges on that line so the catenary could be put up high enough to clear any freight trains. I suspect BNSF wouldn't complain. But it would have to be funded by Metra.

Metra is not only short on money, it's a notorious stick-in-the-mud organization, unwilling to do anything to improve its operations.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Jul 16, 2017)

neroden said:


> I think they forced the owner of the old Post Office to fix the ventilation.


The Old Post Office was sold in March, 2016 to a developer called 601W, and is currently in the middle of a $500 million multi-year renovation of the building, which will eventually house offices and retail.

The prior owner, Robert Davies, was a derelict landlord and, for all intents and purposes, just a squatter, never intending on developing the property, merely waiting for the area to become more desirable so he could sell the property off at a sizable profit. In addition to not maintaining the ventilation fans properly, several fires had broken out in the building and he was in arrears in his property taxes to the tune of $600,000 or so. The city was on the verge of taking the Post Office away from him, when he finally made a deal to sell it off to 601W.

The new developer is probably receiving either TIF money or some sort of property tax abatement, and keeping the ventilation system working properly was no doubt a condition for receiving that assistance. I understand that Union Station's Phase I plans would require that the developers of the Post Office also remove two elevators shafts in order to convert the former mail platform into passenger platforms for the anticipated through tracks.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 16, 2017)

Where in the world would you get the idea that Amtrak is moving away from Superliners? If the Midwest/California car order is ever built, it will be a bi-level design, so the number of two-level cars would increase, not decrease. Electification of CUS will only happen if Metra embraces electric service on its routes. I won't say that this would never happen, but I wouldn't bet any money on it. In that case what would Amtrak do? Invest in a fleet of bi-modal locomotives for all its LD and Midwest short hauls? Seems very far fetched.


----------



## PerRock (Jul 16, 2017)

MikefromCrete said:


> Where in the world would you get the idea that Amtrak is moving away from Superliners? If the Midwest/California car order is ever built, it will be a bi-level design, so the number of two-level cars would increase, not decrease. Electification of CUS will only happen if Metra embraces electric service on its routes. I won't say that this would never happen, but I wouldn't bet any money on it. In that case what would Amtrak do? Invest in a fleet of bi-modal locomotives for all its LD and Midwest short hauls? Seems very far fetched.


Not to mention that Superliners fit under the wires on the NEC. The issue with them on the NEC is the Tunnels.

peter


----------



## neroden (Jul 17, 2017)

MisterUptempo said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > I think they forced the owner of the old Post Office to fix the ventilation.
> ...


Thanks for the information!


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jul 18, 2017)

Didn't we just have a thread about Metra electrification? I know that some of the predecessors to Metra considered it (like in the 1920's after the IC [illinois Central] electrified their commuter lines) but never did anything about it.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Jul 19, 2017)

I sincerely doubt electrification will ever be considered as long as METRA needs to expand service. Currently, the State of Illinois has no money for anything and will have less in the future if they raise the income tax, etc. Last month, I just drove around the suburb area, though a few areas like Crystal Lake look hit hard, many are doing well in McHenry, Lake, Dupage, and Cook counties. I just do not see a project like this even in the distant future.


----------



## west point (Jul 19, 2017)

Present METRA electrification ( DC low voltage ) uses a method not considered best practices. Now it is 25 kV AC with sometime 12.5 kV for stations.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 3, 2017)

Wait. Why would they have less money if they raised the income tax?


----------



## Ryan (Aug 3, 2017)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Wait. Why would they have less money if they raised the income tax?


Because obviously if taxes increase people will just give up and stop working. It’s totally logical that people would rather sit at home and have no money (but not have to pay any taxes!) then to have money but subject themselves to having their hard-earned money stolen by Big Government.

Or something.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (Aug 3, 2017)

Ryan said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Wait. Why would they have less money if they raised the income tax?
> ...



Exactly. At least, that's what they believed in Kansas, so they did the opposite. Worked wonders for them.


----------



## neroden (Aug 4, 2017)

The sarcasm is thick today


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 4, 2017)

Actually, I have had countless amusing conversations with various, um, down to earth people. Whenever the find out that I ran my own business that handled largely cash transactions, they couldn't shut up falling all over themselves telling me how I could hide my income from the government, which is obviously the good part of running ones own business.

Funnily enough, I never hid a penny. Not saying I wouldn't have at some point where the numbers got big enough that I might have had room to do it. But it never seemed pointfull as I was mostly interested in demonstrating to various stakeholders that I had a solid, fast growing company. And in the end, when a fire burned down the market I was running it in, those complete and accurate records are a major part of why I got a large and quick insurance payout. I could prove my 48% year/year growth meticulously. And that greatly increased my LOBI payment.

Honestly, I fondly wish for the day when I write a million dollar quarterly tax estimate to the IRS. That would mean I made a lot of money.

And as for hiding money- first we figure out how to make large profits. Then we can worry about how to route them to the Caymans.

But there really are a large number of imbeciles who would happily spend 20% of their income to avoid giving 15% to the government. I don't get it, but there it is. However expecting that effect to be large enough to reduce tax revenue from a reasonable tax increase is nuts.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 4, 2017)

The reason those imbeciles fight so hard to keep from paying taxes is summed up by one word: GREED!

In addition to Patriotism and Religion being the Last Refuge of Scoundrels,Tax Advoidance and Evasion are the way to roll for far too many!

Good to know you are honest and didn't let those "advisors" talk you into an appearance on "American Greed"!


----------



## Lonestar648 (Aug 4, 2017)

I was just visit several people in Illinois earlier this summer. Several stated that they were actively looking at leaving Illinois with the prospect of increased taxes. So if Illinois raises taxes, but fewer pay the taxes by not working or by moving to another state (individuals and businesses), how is Illinois ahead? Wouldn't they stay at the same level or possibly worse?


----------



## Ryan (Aug 4, 2017)

Anecdotes are not data and talk is cheap.

This also has nothing to do with electrification at CHI. Take your debunked economic theories elsewhere.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 5, 2017)

I haven't met many people who are going uproot family and friends over minor tax increases on a state level. They talk about it, sure. Talks cheap.


----------



## RSG (Aug 6, 2017)

Lonestar648 said:


> I was just visit several people in Illinois earlier this summer. Several stated that they were actively looking at leaving Illinois with the prospect of increased taxes. So if Illinois raises taxes, but fewer pay the taxes by not working or by moving to another state (individuals and businesses), how is Illinois ahead? Wouldn't they stay at the same level or possibly worse?


We've been told that won't happen. So there. But let's take a look at the same practice in microcosm. Last year Cook County IL put a sin tax on pre-sweetened beverages. After a lengthy delay for implementation and a court challenge with several extensions, it finally went into effect this past week. The chair of the county commission was wailing how much the delay in implementation was costing the County because they had already worked the expected future revenues into the current budget. _Before_ any tax was even collected. How much do you want to bet that the expected revenues will decrease over the coming months, particularly since many shoppers in Cook County can go to the collar counties without the tax and purchase their naughty drinks?

The City & County Of Philadelphia already implemented a similar tax last year. Revenues are down over projections. The powers that be are shocked, particularly since they, too, are relying on the sinful beverage tax as a cash cow (while at the same time desiring to decrease consumption). But expect more governmental bodies to follow suit nonetheless.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 6, 2017)

Driving a County over to buy something is different than moving there. Heck, Philadelphians have been shopping at Christiana Mall in Delaware (0% sales tax) instead of Neshaminy Mall (8% sales tax) for years. There are a lot reasons people want to move out of Philly (and very few good reasons not to move out of that hell hole) but I can assure you that taxes are not a primary one on residents minds.


----------



## railiner (Aug 6, 2017)

RSG said:


> Lonestar648 said:
> 
> 
> > I was just visit several people in Illinois earlier this summer. Several stated that they were actively looking at leaving Illinois with the prospect of increased taxes. So if Illinois raises taxes, but fewer pay the taxes by not working or by moving to another state (individuals and businesses), how is Illinois ahead? Wouldn't they stay at the same level or possibly worse?
> ...


Interesting....talk about a 'regressive' tax....the inner city people, the ones that probably suffer the most from over-consumption of the target drinks, will probably just pay it and keep on drinking, while those close to the suburban counties, and probably less likely to over-indulge in the sweet drinks can avoid the new tax easily.....


----------



## Lonestar648 (Aug 6, 2017)

Are companies and individuals moving away from high taxes?? Check out the growth of Frisco, Texas just north of Dallas, the fastest growing city is the US. The city is mostly transplants for high tax states like California, New York, and/or economic hurt areas like Illinois and Michigan. Toyota, USA is moving their entire corporate office from California to Texas. Toyota said all their employees got a raise just by moving, no income tax and lower gas prices. If you could get 6% - 10% a year or more, would you consider moving. In California, with the high salaries, that could be $8,000 - $12,000 increase a year. How many are moving for just this one company? Over 4000. Yes, people are moving. We moved from Chicago, due to the job market. I have several friends who moved from Michigan and Illinois due to the economy.and taxes. The higher the taxes rise, the more people and companies will consider relocating.


----------



## neroden (Aug 6, 2017)

On the other hand, people are relocating away from states which don't provide reasonable levels of public services, to states which do provide public services (and of course, have higher taxes). Kansas cut taxes and services and watched everyone and every business move across the border to Missouri, which has higher taxes and better services.

Texas is bad, though not Kansas bad, when it comes to public services, and I know a large number of people who have done whatever they can to move out of Texas because of its insufficient public services. The caveat to that is that *certain cities* within Texas are providing the public services which the state is not providing. Eventually, however, those cities are going to need to raise taxes in order to keep it up.

Paying less in taxes is completely worthless if you end up having to pay for private school (because the public schools have been trashed as in Kansas), pay for out-of-pocket medical care (because there's no decent health insurance), pay for bottled water (because your city water is toxic), etc. etc.


----------



## neroden (Aug 6, 2017)

"If you could get 6% - 10% a year or more, would you consider moving."

To Texas? No way in hell.

Everyone I know who's moved from a healthy state to Texas has regretted it. Sometimes because of the endemic racism, sometimes because of the endemic sexism, sometimes because of the homophobia, occasionally because of the corrupt legal system, often because of the derelict state of public health services... many of them are trying to find a way to get out of Texas again but can't afford to. Others did get out.

It's a trap.

Many of them found that their out-of-pocket expenses went up. Turned out those taxes were paying for services which you have to buy privately in Texas.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 6, 2017)

Lonestar648 said:


> Are companies and individuals moving away from high taxes?? Check out the growth of Frisco, Texas just north of Dallas, the fastest growing city is the US. The city is mostly transplants for high tax states like California, New York, and/or economic hurt areas like Illinois and Michigan. Toyota, USA is moving their entire corporate office from California to Texas. Toyota said all their employees got a raise just by moving, no income tax and lower gas prices. If you could get 6% - 10% a year or more, would you consider moving. In California, with the high salaries, that could be $8,000 - $12,000 increase a year. How many are moving for just this one company? Over 4000. Yes, people are moving. We moved from Chicago, due to the job market. I have several friends who moved from Michigan and Illinois due to the economy.and taxes. The higher the taxes rise, the more people and companies will consider relocating.


Interesting, I guess, but still irrelevant (doesn't prove your initial contention that tax revenue goes down as tax rates go up) and still wildly off topic for the conversation at hand. Maybe this time you'll consider dropping it.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Aug 14, 2017)

A Voice said:


> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> > So I was in CUS almost a week ago, and I remember there were a lot of fumes, and a suprising number got into the station, which didn't bother me, but I'm sure it bothered others. What if (yeah, I know it's real unlikely) third rail electrification was mandatory on all regular trains (perhaps exceptions can be made for excursions, as they are rare and pose no threat to regular conditions), like in Manhattan, so as to eliminate issues with fumes in the station. Also, overhead wire would work, but I know people will complain about Superliner clearances, but if they are moving everything to Viewliner, there shouldn't be an issue onve they switch, just slap a 5 MPH restriction on the Superliners in the station.
> ...


Well I was talking with a conductor and he said everything will be moving to Viewliner, because Amtrak bought the plans from Budd when it went bankrupt, so if it can make it's own cars that saves a lot of money.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## Ryan (Aug 15, 2017)

I would definitely trust a Conductor to be an authoritative source of information on Amtrak’s long term build plans.


----------



## jis (Aug 15, 2017)

ROTFL.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 15, 2017)

jis said:


> ROTFL.


Photos or it didn't happen. h34r:


----------



## Ryan (Aug 15, 2017)




----------



## A Voice (Aug 15, 2017)

Devil's Advocate said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > ROTFL.
> ...





Ryan said:


> kleJ2jJ.gif


Jis is a bit younger than I thought.....


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Aug 15, 2017)

As most members on here do, I doubt every train will become Viewliner in the near future. Such a move would require a huge car order. In addition, Amtrak would either have to deal with mixed consists or convert entire trains at once as the cars have different floor heights than Superliners. Add this to the potential platform length and height issues and the lack of a sightseer lounge on Western tourist-oriented trains and such a move makes little to no sense.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Aug 16, 2017)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> As most members on here do, I doubt every train will become Viewliner in the near future. Such a move would require a huge car order. In addition, Amtrak would either have to deal with mixed consists or convert entire trains at once as the cars have different floor heights than Superliners. Add this to the potential platform length and height issues and the lack of a sightseer lounge on Western tourist-oriented trains and such a move makes little to no sense.
> 
> Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app


While I agree, he did his research. Superliners are the best cars IMHO for passengers but apparantly crews hate them, though I do think it's possible to chop a SSL and make it into a good single level car, putting the cafe where the stairs and wet bar are located.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Aug 16, 2017)

Regardless of what kind of cars are used, I think Superliners should fit under catenary wire, though I'd rather third rail since it's cheapers and would work just fine for the job of getting rid of the majority of fumes, if all locos were dual mode then it wouldn't even cost any time for trains, no loco swaps.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## jis (Aug 16, 2017)

Who told you third rail is cheaper? Besides the fact that Thirdrail would be most offended  , that is actually not true for mainline electrification in this century. That is why no one does it unless they are forced to by some other factors.

Making all locos dual mode is lunacy. Carrying around the extra weight and incurring the extra cost of acquisition and maintenance on all locos so that they can run 3 miles on the other mode out of their 200 to 2,000 mile run is crazy. It is easier and more cost effective to put in all the duct work and exhaust fans necessary to suck out all fumes form the train shed.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Aug 16, 2017)

jis said:


> Who told you third rail is cheaper? Besides the fact that Thirdrail would be most offended  , that is actually not true for mainline electrification in this century. That is why no one does it unless they are forced to by some other factors.
> 
> Making all locos dual mode is lunacy. Carrying around the extra weight and incurring the extra cost of acquisition and maintenance on all locos so that they can run 3 miles on the other mode out of their 200 to 2,000 mile run is crazy. It is easier and more cost effective to put in all the duct work and exhaust fans necessary to suck out all fumes form the train shed.


Do you know why the LIRR and Metro-North predominantly chose third rail? It seems odd that they are the only commuter rail operators in the US to use it. Also, why do almost all rapid transit railroads use it? Is third rail more efficient when high speeds are not achieved (such as on rapid transit lines)?
Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Aug 16, 2017)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Who told you third rail is cheaper? Besides the fact that Thirdrail would be most offended  , that is actually not true for mainline electrification in this century. That is why no one does it unless they are forced to by some other factors.
> ...


The southeastern England electrification was also done with third rail, even "main lines." It's been my understanding that once you get over about 100 MPH it becomes problematic and that constant tension catenary which is what high-speed rail uses is superior. I think it was probably done because that was the available and state of the art technology. Heck, there was even a Chicago-NY high speed line planned with third rail at the turn of the last century.

When the IC electrified their commuter lines in the 20's it was catenary rather than third rail.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (Aug 16, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> > As most members on here do, I doubt every train will become Viewliner in the near future. Such a move would require a huge car order. In addition, Amtrak would either have to deal with mixed consists or convert entire trains at once as the cars have different floor heights than Superliners. Add this to the potential platform length and height issues and the lack of a sightseer lounge on Western tourist-oriented trains and such a move makes little to no sense.
> ...


If a conductor was saying that Amtrak was converting everything to Viewliner, I can assure you he either did no research at all, or his "research" consisted of listening to a drunken lunatic talking in his sleep (or something of comparable credibility), because there is no such plan in the works. I'm sure *some* crews don't like Superliners, but that doesn't apply to all crews. For the record, when the first Viewliner diner was introduced a couple decades back, crews didn't like it either. Anything (other than the existence of stairs) that is really a problem for crews working those cars could be worked out in a revised design, provided they seek appropriate input.

Superliners have a major advantage over the standard single-level fleet in that they are ADA compliant without the need for high-level platforms or lifts at every station. They also have a bit more capacity overall, and so require fewer cars to carry the same number of passengers.

It's certainly possible to make a sightseer-lounge-esque single-level car, but there aren't currently any plans to do so with Amtrak's fleet.

Sent from my LAPTOP COMPUTER using a web browser


----------



## jis (Aug 16, 2017)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Who told you third rail is cheaper? Besides the fact that Thirdrail would be most offended  , that is actually not true for mainline electrification in this century. That is why no one does it unless they are forced to by some other factors.
> ...


There was a point in time when OHE was more expensive to maintain and feed, and there are applications even now where that may be the case. But electrifying CUS is not one of them since it is predominately serving loco hauled trains.

If you look at even rapid transit lines of the nature of RER being built today, it is not at all unusual for them to use overhead, even using ceiling rails in tunnels - case in point e.g. the brand spanking new Elizabeth line (Cross Rail) in London. What are today known as People Mover systems which tend to use some variation of third rail, often don't even run on steel rails - e.g. the VAL systems.

But that point is moot since Chicago Union Station does not serve any rapid transit line. It serves only main line. Main line loco hauled trains usually have concentrated power feed needs, for which third rails with low voltage requiring extremely high current feeds through third rail shoes, making them uniquely poor choice.


----------



## west point (Aug 16, 2017)

Over head electric for high level boarding subways may not have been chosen due to the need for slightly higher clearances. So tunnels would need more excavation spoil to meet those clearances. 3000 V overhead AC or DC might have been a great compromise to reduce the number of substations ? Low level boarding such as Chicago seems to be a receipt for disaster using 3rd rail ?

12.5 or 25 kV AC overhead reduces the need for close to station DC 3rd rail substations.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Aug 16, 2017)

Another reason against third rail electrification is that, one assumes anyway(s), is that Metra would probably just want to start electrifying their lines rather than just the station, is that much of Metra's system runs at grade with frequent pedestrian crossings (likely one of the reasons the IC went with catenary - street level running). Ever so often you hear about people being electrocuted at the grade section of the brown line, less so with the yellow, though that has fewer street crossings and far fewer pedestrians. Another is our propensity for heavy snows and very cold weather from time to time.


----------



## neroden (Aug 20, 2017)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Do you know why the LIRR and Metro-North predominantly chose third rail? It seems odd that they are the only commuter rail operators in the US to use it. Also, why do almost all rapid transit railroads use it? Is third rail more efficient when high speeds are not achieved (such as on rapid transit lines)?


History. Those are very very old electrification systems. There were some problems with overhead line electrification (making third rail appear to have some advantages) which were solved by the 1930s.

Rapid transit systems use third rail generally to reduce the tunnel diameter relative to overhead line electrification. For short distances overhead lines lose some of their advantages, and smaller tunnels often save enough money to be worth it. For systems which are not primarily underground, this advantage disappears.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 21, 2017)

Metro North didn't choose it; they inherited it from New York Central. LIRR IIRC actually electrified some lines under state ownership. Why they maintained third rail for that and modernization periods is a bit of a mystery. It might have something to do with a tightass idiot of a Texan technical planner.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Aug 26, 2017)

Hotblack Desiato said:


> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> > brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> ...


While they make sense in a business world, it's much easier to evade the conductor with the bi-level design. I still think everywhere should run Superliners but I know that ain't gonna happen. I love the old Superliner design, my personal favorite Amtrak fleet, but I mean if Amtrak has the rights to the Viewliner design and can build them themselves that makes a lot of sense to standardise the fleet. The was conductor explained it seemed pretty solid and didn't SEEM like he was lying but I don't get why he would be doing that.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## jphjaxfl (Aug 26, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> Hotblack Desiato said:
> 
> 
> > norfolkwesternhenry said:
> ...


Where is the funding coming from for Amtrak to convert all cars to viewliners? Since Amtrak owns the Viewliner design, why haven't they finished up the the current group of Sleeping cars and Dormitory Baggage cars?


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Aug 26, 2017)

jphjaxfl said:


> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> > Hotblack Desiato said:
> ...


Well the Superliners wil run till the end of their useful life, then rather than replacing them with more Superliners they will replace them with viewliners. Shops aren't efficient and stuff happens, but they'll eventually get done.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## Ryan (Aug 26, 2017)

You realize that Amtrak isn't building the current order of Viewliners, right?


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (Aug 27, 2017)

You put a lot of faith in one conductor’s statements. As sure as he may sound about this topic, things like this aren’t secretly told to conductors years in advance of public announcement. There is a lot of misinformation that spreads across front-line employees (of all industries) regarding items on which they really have no access to inside info.

Often, it is just speculation, or hypothetical discussion, that turns into “fact” after passing through a bunch of people’s ears/mouths (see the telephone game for further info). But I assure you, for decisions of this level of importance, as soon as it was officially announced to a large employee group (such as several thousand conductors), it will be announced to the public almost simultaneously. In many cases, I bet interested members of the public would know _before_ most employees.

As already mentioned, Amtrak doesn’t build any equipment. They may own the rights to the Viewliner, but they’re having a hell of a time getting an experienced car manufacturer to build passenger-carrying equipment to that spec. If they can resolve those issues, and secure funding, they could extend the production run and add more cars (and new types, such as coaches or cafes) to the order. If they don’t, and the line shuts down after the current order is complete, then owning the rights to the car won’t do them any good if they don’t have someone who can build it. It would probably be easier/cheaper to go with an already-in-production design than to shop around their blueprints for a 30-year-old design and find someone else that wants to build it.

But regardless of any of the above, the reality remains that no such decision has been announced about the replacement of equipment that still has at least a good decade or more of life left in it. And even if someone in charge today has the personal desire to eventually replace those cars with Viewliners, a lot can happen (including more changes to Amtrak management, changes in the political climate and funding situation, federal regulations regarding equipment safety, etc.) between now and when someone is ready to sign on the dotted line to purchase their replacements.


----------

