But I have not generally come across railfans in other countries who keep insisting that 50 year old stuff be fixed and put back to general use. Indeed many vocally criticize their railways when they try to do anything remotely like that.
I think that's a testament to how well built and designed the old Budd and Pullman cars were, though (I'm not sure about ACF; I've heard mixed things about maintenance on those cars). I've ridden in old trains in other countries and they just don't really compare.
You know, we were the world leader in rail travel up until about the late 1950's. And with the exception of speed, no other country has ever really equaled that standard of travel since then either (and neither have we). So I think there are perfectly rational reasons for wanting to preserve some vestige of that, especially in the absence of any better alternative. (Even for me, as a fan of heritage equipment, if the options were a) preserve the heritage fleet, or b) have a new, state of the art HSR system, I'd opt for the latter. But that's not the choice. The choice is between preserving old cars and buying new cars that do basically the same things, from a customer perspective.)
I like the Viewliners and I'm sure I will like the new cars, whatever they're actually called (and I read the press release again, it just says they're "similar" to the Viewliners). But those old heritage cars had real personality, which is one thing Amtrak has purposefully stripped out of all of their newer cars.
By the way, other countries do try to preserve modes of travel that they have led in. Look at England and the QE2, which is what, 50 years old now and still sailing? And they just recently produced the QM2, which is another true ocean liner (as opposed to a cruise ship, meaning it is designed for actual transport). This is also an outmoded form of travel, but they refuse to let it go, and they've proven that these ships can still be profitable regardless of how "obsolete" traveling by boat is seen by the rest of the world.
