Railroad Forums
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
electricron wrote:Except when we're in an era where everything is under the budget axe, and modernizing our transportation infrastructure continues to be seen as a luxury rather than a necessity.
Whether it does or not has nothing to do with Viewliner II production and delivery, or how many Amtrak ultimately buys.
Greg Moore wrote:Bob Roberts wrote:. . . this Amtrak page says that some new viewliners will be used as through cars on the Pennsylvania / Capitol ltd.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =1&theater" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I don't see anything there. . . Anyway, unless it's in an official press release I wouldn't put much stock in that.
Most air to air combat today and in the future will involve shooting missiles beyond visual range, the day of dogfighting has long been gone. The ability to detect the enemy fighter before it can detect you and shoot and destroy it from farther afar is important today. That's what the F35 is supposed to be able to do better than other jets.Funny how some never seem to learn from history. This is almost exactly word for word what the experts were saying at the beginning of the Vietnam War. Air Dominance, Air Superiority, whatever you want to call it will ALWAYS involve "dogfighting". No matter how many of the superior numbers the enemy has are eliminated by F-22 and F-35 advanced systems, they won't be able to get them all. Some will get through to visual range when the only ordinance the good guys have left will be their guns. Let us hope they maintain their superior airmanship and dogfighting skills because, in such an environment, those are the only things that will save them and permit them to clear the skies over enemy territory of aircraft.
Matt Johnson wrote:Compared to items most people will list as necessary items for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, transportation is a luxury. Planes more so than trains, trains more so than buses, buses more so than cars, cars more so than bicycles, bycycles more so than shoes, shoes more so than bare feet. Ships and boats fit in there somewhere too. Luxury is in the eye of the beholder.electricron wrote:Except when we're in an era where everything is under the budget axe, and modernizing our transportation infrastructure continues to be seen as a luxury rather than a necessity.
Whether it does or not has nothing to do with Viewliner II production and delivery, or how many Amtrak ultimately buys.
Matt Johnson wrote:Well, I would argue that if the US wants to be economically competitive, it'd best not let its infrastructure continue to crumble while other industrialized nations invest in things like high speed rail.Look at the other industrialized nations carefully, are their unemployment figures higher or lower than America? Then ask why they are? Then ask why should America follow their bad examples?
gokeefe wrote:Being from Maine I think its worth remembering some things:First and foremost, I'm talking about the usefulness, or not, of some things. Not talking about the worth of the people who patriotically work to make them at our government's request.
First and foremost I have very close personal family and friends who have made some very well paying careers out of producing the nation's weapons systems. I am deployed right now in Afghanistan with some of them and others are back at home. Some work at Bath Iron Works building destroyers. Others worked at General Dynamics in Saco building, of all things, the new .50 cal machine guns. These will replace M2s currently in stock (and in combat use I might add) with serial numbers and production dates that can be traced back to WWII.
There are all kinds of other defense related contracts and jobs in Maine that collectively are the single largest source of employment wages, income and wealth for many of Maine's middle class families. I know others too who work for Sikorsky and fly Black Hawk (UH-60) helicopters for the National Guard. When training in Maine they are available for rescue missions, medical evacuations and any other manner of civil support roles that may come up. Point being military acquisition spending has the same dollar for dollar potential towards economic impact as Amtrak's capital programs. Military operations in some cases also have positive impact (especially training at home....ever seen the lines at the Dunkin' Donuts when a National Guard convoy pulls in?) . . .
Point being military acquisition spending has the same dollar for dollar potential towards economic impact as Amtrak's capital programs.Not really. Spending to procure equipment may have similar employment effects. But you need to take the next step. Amtrak, like the Union Pacific, uses their capital equipment to try to make money. The Pentagon can't use its equipment to make money. The buck turns into a tank and it grinds to a halt.
), to make a profit, i.e. to create wealth? electricron wrote:Sorry, time is a piece of efficiency, certainly from the customers' point of view! C'mon.Matt Johnson wrote:Well, I would argue that if the US wants to be economically competitive, it'd best not let its infrastructure continue to crumble while other industrialized nations invest in things like high speed rail.. . .
I certainly agree American government should be investing in transportation, but I don't agree America should be investing in high cost, low economic impact, high speed rail. That's why I accept Amtrak buying relatively slow speed Viewliner IIs. Regular speed trains are just as efficient at moving passengers as high speed trains, they just do it at slower speeds.
History has proven that [not] every investment for the future or the economy is a wise one. We must selectively choose the correct ones.
ApproachMedium wrote:There was quite a few mods done to the old design when these new cars were done. There was plenty of electronics that were put in to the old cars that were probably obsolete by the time the car was built much like many other things amtrak has bought in the past has had (See HHP/Acela Trainset). The new cars come with a proven HVAC system that the older viewliners were swapped to. They have the same package unit HVAC systems, and the same modernized ABC battery charger. However beyond that they are totally different. The electrical schematics were updated, the 3 phase 480 trainline now travels UNDER the car like everything else amtrak has instead of over on top of the roof on an insulated bus bar. Many other low voltage items were changed around. The toilet plumbing is totally different. Room layouts are not the same.Thanks. Yeah, to be clear I'm not saying, "oh they're the same, it should be easy" I figure there's a lot of changes, and you outline some decent ones. I'm just thinking the issues are probably fairly different than the ACS-64 issues.
There has been some snags in the process, these cars are over a year late in their expected original delivery date. I know on our end (amtrak employees) we were told there was a lot of delay in the manufacture supplying the railroad with the schematics for the plumbing and electrical, something that was required for them to make approvals for funding to continue the project. That was well over a year ago though. I am sure there was plenty of other back and fourth with them besides just that.
I for one will be very happy to see these cars come to the yard and begin to enter service. As much as I love to keep our heritage strong, I couldnt want more than anyone to see every last heritage diner and baggage car roll off a cliff in to the sunset. Or at least the diners off to some museum. They are nothing but a nightmare to work on and cause way too many service delays.
ApproachMedium wrote:The electrical schematics were updated, the 3 phase 480 trainline now travels UNDER the car like everything else amtrak has instead of over on top of the roof on an insulated bus bar.Oh, so that's what those are! I always wondered why the Viewliner I's had old boxcar style walkways on the roof!
Buy an armored personnel carrier, a tank, a helicopter, or 1,000 machine guns. Sorry, they don't create wealth Over Here. They don't even create wealth Over There -- unless or until they're put to use in war to destroy the other guys' lives and wealth. And that can happen, of course.Not so. Tanks, fighters, helicopters, subs, etc. deter bad people from coming and stealing your car, train, house, school, business, etc. We need a balance of security, infrastructure and everything else. It isn't all or nothing. We have a messy system, called democracy, running on an even messier platform, called politics, that allows all 317+ million of us to figure out how to allocate our government budget. You can argue that we spend too much on military, that we should spend more on infrastructure, but please don't confuse things by saying military spending is worthless. It surely isn't.
Jehochman wrote:And please don't put words in someone else's mouth. He didn't say military spending was worthless. He said they don't CREATE wealth. There's a huge difference.Buy an armored personnel carrier, a tank, a helicopter, or 1,000 machine guns. Sorry, they don't create wealth Over Here. They don't even create wealth Over There -- unless or until they're put to use in war to destroy the other guys' lives and wealth. And that can happen, of course.Not so. Tanks, fighters, helicopters, subs, etc. deter bad people from coming and stealing your car, train, house, school, business, etc. We need a balance of security, infrastructure and everything else. It isn't all or nothing. We have a messy system, called democracy, running on an even messier platform, called politics, that allows all 317+ million of us to figure out how to allocate our government budget. You can argue that we spend too much on military, that we should spend more on infrastructure, but please don't confuse things by saying military spending is worthless. It surely isn't.
