Talk:Viewliner

Accessible Bedroom Reservations

``Reservations for accessible Bedrooms can only be made by calling Amtrak and speaking with an agent. makes it sound like a travel agent can't help with such reservations. Is that really the case? Also, how does a deaf person who is paralysed such that they cannot use their legs but can use their hands make a reservation? JNW2 (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"Used on Eastern Routes"

This is a pretty pathetic phrase. Exactly which routes? Silver Star, Silver Meteor and Palmetto that I know of. Any others?68.224.206.168 (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Palmetto's a day train, but the Crescent, Cardinal and Lake Shore Limited carry them too. Mackensen (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Viewliner Inspection Car

@Mackensen: The linked references are images. One image shows a car marked "inspection car", while the other shows an image of people sitting in rear-facing seats, looking through a large glass window at the end, observing the tracks. If images aren't aren't a credible reference... what would be a more credible reference? RickyCourtney (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• @RickyCourtney: I can't tell from the image that the car was converted in 2014. Nor can I view its name. I certainly can't verify that it was converted from 2301. Further, the whole point of {{verify credibility}} is not that I'm doubting the information, but that a single photograph and a forum discussion on trainorders (or anywhere, not singling that site out) don't constitute reliable sources. Ideally Amtrak Ink will run some feature on it at some point, or maybe a blurb in Trains or Railway Age. Mackensen (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Split?

I think it might make sense to split off a new stand-alone Viewliner II article. There's precedent with the Silverliner articles. While the basic design is the same, with the IIs we're talking about a new fleet with multiple car types and a different manufacturer. Alternatively, a more obvious split within the articles between the I and II, as was done in the Turboliner article, might be appropriate. Mackensen (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not going to strongly disagree here, but I think consistency is ideal here. Other cartypes run by Amtrak are on the same page- (Amfleet I/II or Superliner I/II) I think a better separation would not be bad however. 2604:2000:C6AC:D00:9A6:147:9101:D542 (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Spliting by formatting, but not in different articles, definitely seems like the way to go. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Viewliner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141006093856/http://mpeagles.com/files/Rail%20News%20for%20August%2011,%202014.pdf to http://mpeagles.com/files/Rail%20News%20for%20August%2011,%202014.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Questioning Viewliner I option numbers

All of the sources I found for the Viewliner I order with MK state that it was for 50 sleepers with 50 options. I cannot find anything that mentions the currently-published claim of 50 firm + 227 options (for a total of 277), and the citation link for this claim is dead. Also, the only way I can see 177 making sense ("none of the remaining 177 options were exercised") is if the original order was for 227 total (not 277), of which 50 were produced...but, again, I can't find any references for these numbers, either. I have a feeling that the 277 or 227 numbers were mentioned in Amtrak planning documents, and were never part of the MK order, which was 50+50. SixSix (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

RFI and Viewliner II replacement

This is what the Amtrak press release says: Last month, a Request for Information was sent to potential suppliers defining and describing the scope of Amtrak’s overnight train fleet—including Superliner I & II, Viewliner I & II and Amfleet II railcars—and solicited input from manufacturers regarding the replacement of this equipment. I suspect this is clunky wording on Amtrak's part. It makes sense for the RFI to describe the current fleet, including the V-IIs. I would be surprised if the V-IIs, which only just entered service in some cases, would be subject to immediate replacement. That would be a significant departure from Amtrak's fleet management practices. I think we need a better source if we're going to say that the V-IIs are going to be replaced. Mackensen (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree. Unless there is direct evidence that the VII fleet specifically is to be replaced, clunky wording is more likely. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)