Commuter rail: Why not a more attractive exterior/interior design?

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

beautifulplanet

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
337
Hello everyone,

in order to improve ridership numbers on commuter rail systems, it seems that offering a lot of passenger amenities and increasing comfort is helpful, still at the same time to also offer an aesthetically pleasing experience.

Many people seem to notice that US commuter rail systems, even newly delivered trainsets, don't feature a very attractive design.

I hope it's OK to also include pics to illustrate the matter, when linking to their respective source.

RTD commuter rail Airport Line EMUs by Hyundai Rotem interior:

Rail-Car-Assembly.jpg

source: http://denvertransitpartners.com/whats-new/

RTD commuter rail Airport Line EMUs by Hyundai Rotem interior:

167.jpg

source: http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/ep3_17


It seems so wonderful that Denver decided on EMU technology for their brandnew commuter services, including the line to the airport. It's so great to see that also in the USA still these investments into public transportation do happen. And EMUs will provide fast acceleration and a smooth and quiet ride (especially with that all-new track).

But what about that design? The exterior looks very boxy, which surely doesn't improve aerodynamics, while the color choice with the stainless steel silver look is just accompanied with one single blue stripe along the side of the cars. That probably doesn't appear like someone really spent too much effort on exterior design when all they came up with, so that the cars don't remain in their "naked" all-steel appearance, is that one blue stripe. It seems like an opportunity not used, that the brandnew trainsets were not created in a way that seems more visually appealing.

And the interior appears - while brandnew - not especially beautiful or comfortable as well. It looks like there are no individual seats for all the individual passengers, but merely 2-seat or 3-seat benches. It seems like the backrests are completely flat, unlike individual seats which would have curved backrests, to provide more support and comfort. And choosing a 3-seat-configuration on one side of the aisle surely will increase capacity, still RTD chose to ignore the experiences of commuter rail systems on the east coast (Metro North) and elsewhere, where the middle seat is mostly left empty as it appears to be uncomfortable for passengers to be cramped into the middle of two other passengers, especially in case they are strangers. It's wonderful to see a new emphasis on design also in US public transportation f.e. with it comes to the new BART cars and their exterior and interior design (though BART is rapid transit, not commuter rail), still this commuter rail example unfortunately doesn't seem to follow BART's trend. This could have an especially big impact for Denver as these cars will be one of the first things of Denver that a lot of visitors will see who arrive at the airport and use public transportation to come to town. Featuring beautiful design and a comfortable interior these trainsets could have been a moving billboard for the city of Denver, a beautiful first impression, while now visitors will of course just be happy to find very efficient public transportation when they arrive in the first place (which won't even exist like that in lots of other places in the US), still at the same time in the best possible case just don't perceive the visual appearance.




Another similar example would be SEPTA's recently delivered Silverliner V series:


Septa Silverliner V exterior:

this-week-septa-celebrated-the-completion-of-its-120-car-silverliner-v-order.752.502.s.jpg


source: http://planphilly.com/articles/2013/03/21/long-awaited-silverliner-v-contract-complete



Septa Silverliner V interior:

l_septa_silverlinerx300.jpg


source: http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/component/flexicontent/item/31279-14tmsepta



Compare that to modern and aesthetically appealing EMUs like Stadler Kiss, Siemens Desiro, Bombadier Twindexx or Alstom Coradis (in the next post within this thread).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bombadier Omneo / Twindexx exterior:

bombardier11.jpg

source: http://evnewsreport.com/deutsche-bahn-and-bombardier-sign-vehicle-contract-worth-216-million-euro/9537/



Bombadier Omneo / Twindexx interior:

bombardier-2.gif

source: http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/bombardier-omneo-regio-2n-double-deck-train/




Siemens Desiro exterior:
800px-RABe_514_freigestellt.png

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBB-CFF-FFS_RABe_514

Siemens Desiro interior:

799px-SBB-RABe514-inside.jpg

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBB-CFF-FFS_RABe_514

One could start a similar thread about subway/rapid transit or high-speed rail trainsets.

What's with the stainless steel look? Of course Amtrak long-distance lines could maybe remain with this tradition. Still using it for commuter rail services and the boxy appearance might create the impression of a technology of the past for possible choice riders in urban areas with ridership public transportation agencies normally would like to entice. A lot of the amenities in those modern US trainsets are up-to-date (WiFi, large information screens etc), but those facts might be hidden for lots of potential riders as they might just perceive them to be the same old uncomfortable trains that were on the rails dozens of years ago, which might not happen in case they had an attractive, contemporary design.
 
Exterior design has a lot to do with FRA requirements for strength. The ugly school-bus nose on the Talgos, for example, was supposed to look nicer, but was redesigned for safety/protection reasons.

As for the interiors, I really can't tell too much from the photos that makes the European designs nicer except for the seats, which are fine as long as you have the budget to maintain them. The cloth seating and moveable armrests are probably a high-maintenance item, and that doesn't fit well with the budgetary pressures that US transit agencies are constantly under.

I remember being in Vancouver 10 years ago. Their transit buses had nice, cushion seats (as opposed to the flat, hard seats that most transit systems use). Only problem was that on many of the buses that did urban routes, the seats were in such terrible condition that passengers would rather stand than sit on them (large cuts in the cushions, sometimes covered with tape, sometimes not). After lots of complaints from the passengers, and undoubtedly a higher-than-desired maintenance budget for seat cushion replacements, they changed to a hard, flat seat design (more modern styling, but still simple, low maintenance). Granted, Vancouver isn't the US, but the transit equipment market is the same, and the financial pressures are similar.

I'll agree that the 3x2 seating style for the Denver trains is an unfortunate choice.

Let's also not confuse looks and comfort. For example, the Hyundai Rotem cars on Metrolink. The interior looks nice, but the seats are godawful, and the time I rode one from LA to Oceanside, it was the most painful couple of hours on a train I'd experienced in a long time.
 
Another reason the interior of most US commuter trains are not that comfortable is that they're used by - er - commuters to get to and from work each day. These commuters spend 1/2 hour to 2 hours on the train, not the 48 hours as on Amtrak. At the end of the run, in some cities the trains go back to the starting point and then go back for another 2 hour run many times a day.
 
Cloth seats in US commuter cars just won't work, Commuters in US behave like pigs, and do not take care of their tax payer investments.

picture same European cars with yoghurt cups and spoons on seats, Huge coffe cups rolling around with its 20 Oz contents flowing over 1/3 of cars floor.

all 36 pages of NY times and wall street journal occupying half the seats with orange peels and used tissues sticking out.

Nice pictures, but even pig sty's are clean till you put the pigs in them.
 
These are commuter cars we're talking about. Most passengers are on board for less than an hour. You don't need super comfortable accommodations that Amtrak needs for long distance (or even corridor-type service). I agree that 3-2 seating for the Denver cars is a poor choice. As far as exterior design goes, most commuters couldn't care less what their train looks like as long as it gets them to work and home on time. A lot of this depends on funding. Running an on-time, reliable service is much more important than minor improvements in exterior and internal appointments.
 
Cloth seats in US commuter cars just won't work, Commuters in US behave like pigs, and do not take care of their tax payer investments.
They work just fine down here on the MARC.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I think most of the examples of "nice looking" cars look like crap. Boxy cars give you room in the luggage racks, curved tops eat into that space. Not high on the list of things that commuters need, but when I need to haul something bulky into the office, the space is welcomed.

As far as stainless vs paint, one of the two requires far more maintenance. Form is dictated by function, as it should be.
 
Another reason the interior of most US commuter trains are not that comfortable is that they're used by - er - commuters to get to and from work each day.
Right, the reason commuter trains exist would be to transport commuters. In case the commuter rather uses the car, that wouldn't be so good for the commuter trains, as the transportation part would be carried out by a different mode of transportation. So it seems like it would make sense to make the trains comfortable (doesn't have to be super-roomy like Amtrak long-distance trains, but indeed comfortable they should be), and also creating pleasing surroundings with an attractive design - in & out - where people enjoy spending their time.

If one thinks about the competition, which for high-speed rail would be the airplane, for commuter rail in most cases it would be the car. Realizing how much attention the car manufacturers pay to design, exterior and interior, why would commuter rail - trying to compete with the car for business - not do so, and also pay attention to design?

I mean, there are encouraging trends like the new BART cars in the San Francisco Bay Area. There was a lot of customer feedback involved beforehand, about details how the interior should be arranged, and DesignWorks USA was ordered, to do the design. That is the same company, who designed the seats for the award-winning ICE 3 high-speed rail in Germany (see high-speed rail design thread here: http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/58590-high-speed-rail-a-more-attractive-exteriorinterior-design/&do=findComment&comment=503535 ).

These commuters spend 1/2 hour to 2 hours on the train, not the 48 hours as on Amtrak.
Yes, and that is why there are no sleeping cars on commuter rail. ;) Just kidding.

Seriously: just because the ride is not 48 hours, commuter rail still should be looking attractive, have an appealing design and seem like a comfortable place to be in, because even in case you're just spending 1/2 an hour per ride on commuter rail, that comes up to 20 hours a month. That is a lot of time, to hopefully spend in a place that's a pleasure to be in. And with the 2 hours mentioned, that comes up to 4 hours a day, to 20 hours a week, 80 hours a month (and that demonstrates how that commute might turn out to be more time on a train, than the person on vacation taking the 48 hour Amtrak ride once a year). So especially with 2 hours per ride, every work day, there should indeed be all amenities that are needed, all the comfort and pleasing design present, for somebody to spend that substantial amount of time in that place.
 
I would argue that all the needed amenities are there.

The only amenity I need is a place to sit and a train that provides frequent service and runs (mostly) on time. Most commuter outfits out there provide that today.
 
Cloth seats in US commuter cars just won't work, Commuters in US behave like pigs, and do not take care of their tax payer investments.

picture same European cars with yoghurt cups and spoons on seats, Huge coffe cups rolling around with its 20 Oz contents flowing over 1/3 of cars floor.

all 36 pages of NY times and wall street journal occupying half the seats with orange peels and used tissues sticking out.

Nice pictures, but even pig sty's are clean till you put the pigs in them.
Southern California's Metrolink has fabric seats in a 2x2 arrangement (and carpet in the seating area) and adequate comfort for my 45 minute ride to LAUS. Metro's light rail...no experience with that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course it is great that all the commuter rail systems that do operate these days, actually do operate.

And of course most of the riders taking them today, will also be happy that the service exists, otherwise they wouldn't use it.

Still there may be a possibility that in some cases ridership could be increased even more, which - all other benefits aside - even from an economical perspective for the operator might be a route that's worth exploring.

The only amenity I need is a place to sit and a train that provides frequent service and runs (mostly) on time. Most commuter outfits out there provide that today.
That's great in case it is like that, that all that's needed is a place to sit and frequent service and running (mostly) on time. These things will probably matter to everyone. At the same time, it's like somebody saying the car he or she drives only needs a place to sit and bring him from A to B. How it looks like or everything else doesn't matter, the only amenity needed is a place to sit, and getting from A to B. It's sure such a car would find a market as well, it would fit the demands for some people just right. Still, car manufacturers conducted market research, and found out that a car that offers more than that, would possibly appeal to even more potential users. That the design might matter, that more amenities might matter - not for everyone, but for some, and in the end, more people used the product. It might be possible the same dynamics apply to rail offerings as well.

I would argue that all the needed amenities are there.

The only amenity I need is a place to sit and a train that provides frequent service and runs (mostly) on time. Most commuter outfits out there provide that today.
This was in referral to the example with the 2 hour commuter ride, and "there should indeed be all amenities that are needed". So for a lot of commuters on a 2 hour ride to work, and again home from work, more amenities would be needed. In case some they say there are not needed for them, then that's great. But on a 2 hour commute, some would like to have comfort. Some would like to have a nice design. Some would like to have a good indoor climate. Some would like to have not only a place to sit, but good seats (especially when you sit on them for 2 hours). Some would like to have large windows, so one can see more and it's brighter inside. Some would like to have a quiet ride... Some would like to have reliable WiFi, so they can use that 2 hour ride productively or use WiFi for entertainment. Some would like to have outlets, so they can work on their notebooks... Or other things... And it seems like those would not be unreasonable requests, still it's up to the operators to decide what they would like to do. In case they cater to the wishes of potential customers, maybe they could see higher ridership.
 
But most of those things are either already provided or are in the process of being provided. You don;t need gaudily colored seats to provide those thing. ;) Sometimes some of those things are being provided with much enthusiasm even at the cost of efficient operations, which is kind of bizarre. But it happens. Schedules get slowed down because new cars have worse passenger flow in order to provide more comfortable seating etc. It happens.

The bottom line is as and when equipment is replaced as money becomes available, in general these features mentioned are all getting added.
 
Exterior design has a lot to do with FRA requirements for strength.
That appears to be an obvious topic: FRA regulation. For the majority of people who would like rail to be successful, it seems to be their opinion that the FRA rules make things a lot more difficult for rail as a mode of transportation, as heavier locomotives/rail cars/trainsets had to be used, which not only made them heavier, but also increased wear and tear on the tracks, made them slower to accelerate, and increased operating costs and fuel/electricity consumption. It seems like the FRA is in the process of changing some rules, like as it was reported that off-the-shelf European or Asian high-speed rail trainsets should be allowed on US tracks. Also for commuter rail it would probably be beneficial, if crumble zones were allowed instead of basically having to be able to withstand a crash without outer deformation etc.

The current FRA rules seem to arbitrarily put rail in a competitive disadvantage. It seems like the same safety standards/requirements for strength were not expected from other modes of transportation, like private cars. Also from what can be read on other rail blogs or forums, it seems like many people agree that a change is needed, in order for rail to be more successful.

Nonetheless, exterior design also should play an important role when looking at things from a potential riders perspective. In case the commuter rail service is being perceived (and without having a lot of information about it, or obviously not having used it, the first perception is the exterior visual) as old-style or as not modern, that the association could be that it probably might be the same uncomfortable, bumpy, unappealing rail travel experience one knows from before or one was told about. Many potential riders might not even try it, even in case it could fit their needs. In opposition to that, if it looked different, modern, maybe even beautiful or futuristic, then the first perception might be "Oh, this seems to be something new. What it is? When there's an opportunity, I'm going to give it a closer look. Maybe even try it out". That could be an important factor in increasing ridership.

The ugly school-bus nose on the Talgos, for example, was supposed to look nicer, but was redesigned for safety/protection reasons.
This here seems to be another example of a description of an exterior as "ugly" - does anyone really think commuter rail should not care about it if it is being perceived that way? Would that be beneficial? What about other modes of transportation, like cars, would the people in charge of the product there not care if it was described as "ugly"?

As for the interiors, I really can't tell too much from the photos that makes the European designs nicer except for the seats [...]
That surely seems understandable, as there are different tastes and opinions. At the same time, it seems surprising. Though there seems to be a lack of academic research or empirical science in regards to the perception of European commuter train interior designs by Americans - there seem to be no publicly accessable statistics on that -, still from anecdotal evidence I heard many Americans voice exactly that, that the interior designs are nicer. Even my own wife, who does not frequent rail forums and doesn't care about the success of rail systems per se, immediately took pictures of the interior and posted them on Facebook after boarding the WESTbahn rail cars in Austria, which are Stadler KISS trainsets just like seen above, published with the caption "Austrian trains are nice". Of course, the regional train commuter rail cars from the 80s that provided the ride into Austria immediately before were not worth a post, as they were not modern at all, with an interior and colors of the 80s, and not such a nice ride (more seemed like were due to be replaced soon). In case she had to commute, she would more likely do it in those nice trains she was raving about, then having to deal with the noisy, uncomfortable german regional train from the 80s on a daily basis, maybe then she'll rather drive. It seems like it does make a difference.

I'll agree that the 3x2 seating style for the Denver trains is an unfortunate choice.
It's not only in Denver. It's not visible in the picture above, but also the SEPTA Silverliner V features it. Many people might think it is fortunate though that in Philadelphia they did not make the whole train car 3x2, but just parts of it.

Let's also not confuse looks and comfort. For example, the Hyundai Rotem cars on Metrolink. The interior looks nice, but the seats are godawful, and the time I rode one from LA to Oceanside, it was the most painful couple of hours on a train I'd experienced in a long time.
Of course both outer appearance and comfort are important. Still both are also connected to design. And though it's obvious that one can't make it perfectly matching for every individual passengers taste, it's possible to conduct research before creating the design to make sure it'll be liked by as many potential passengers as possible.

It's interesting to hear that in that case (Metrolink by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority), it appeared to you like there was some room for improvement regarding the comfort on the seating. What exactly was so uncomfortable about the seats?
 
I don't give a hoot what the car looks like on my train. I don't give a hoot what the seat is made out of, either. I am a comfort freak- I even built my own office chairs out of car seats as a business venture thinking people cared as much as I did- they don't. But what I care about is my train running right and running fast. The seats on any NJT cars- even the decrepit Arrows- are more than adequate for the trips I use them for. Other than the fact that the Multi-Levels are a fine example of how not to design a rail car, NJT's fleet is fine as it is. I just wished they ran the things more often, faster, and more reliably.
 
This was in referral to the example with the 2 hour commuter ride, and "there should indeed be all amenities that are needed". ... Some would like to have reliable WiFi, so they can use that 2 hour ride productively or use WiFi for entertainment. ... (this) would not be (an) unreasonable requests
No it isn't. MBTA (Boston) already offers WiFi on their trains - and I think has for a long time.
 
Amenities like "comfort", "nice design", "good indoor climate", "comfortable seats", "large windows", "quiet ride", "reliable WiFi", "outlets"...

But most of those things are either already provided or are in the process of being provided. You don;t need gaudily colored seats to provide those thing. ;) Sometimes some of those things are being provided with much enthusiasm even at the cost of efficient operations, which is kind of bizarre. But it happens. Schedules get slowed down because new cars have worse passenger flow in order to provide more comfortable seating etc. It happens.

The bottom line is as and when equipment is replaced as money becomes available, in general these features mentioned are all getting added.
Is that so? So no reason to do or say something, everyone can just sit back and relax, as all of these things are getting added? To many it will seem like that isn't the case.

And being cost-efficient probably matters to operators. Fast schedules probably matter to them as well. As does a good passenger flow.

Still a nice visual appearance, including attractive seating, no matter if more blue with a modern design like seen on Stadler Kiss and Siemens Desiro above, or more stylish like on Bombadier Omneo and Alstom Coradia above, should probably also matter to them.

But most of those things are either already provided or are in the process of being provided. [...]

The bottom line is as and when equipment is replaced as money becomes available, in general these features mentioned are all getting added.
The SEPTA Silverliner V shown above replaced older equipment. Corrections are explicitly encouraged, in case any of the following isn't accurate:

- comfort: to many, it seems like they are not making a very comfortable impression. While of course an improvement over previous rolling stock, it still appears like comfort (consisting of many variables) can still be improved.

- nice design: the exterior is sometimes being referred to as "ugly tin can", and the interior - while of course okay - also doesn't seem to win any design prices.

- comfortable seats: there are no individual seats, but only 2-seat or 3-seat benches. The backrests are flat, not curved for better back support and comfort. The 3-seat-bench not only creates a visual impression of a crowded train, in the past they already have repeatedly been described as unpopular, as the passenger in the middle seat might feel cramped inbetween the other two passengers and thus especially uncomfortable.

- large windows: most of the trainsets above seem to have significantly larger windows.

- reliable WiFi: no WiFi at all is offered - see here:

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/philadelphia/48732-new-septa-trains-lack-modern-convenience

- outlets: it appears like the new Silverliner V has one outlet that is within reach of two seats for a whole rail car.

So it could seem like "The bottom line is as and when equipment is replaced [...], these features mentioned are not necessarily all getting added."

Same with the other example shown above, the brandnew RTD commuter rail EMUs.

It's a brandnew service, brandnew equipment, but the bottom line could be that "most of those things are not either already provided or are not in the process of being provided".

In case RTD would have ordered for example Stadler Kiss EMUs, they could have had comfort, a nice design, comfortable seats, larger windows, WiFi and outlets at every seat. Or they could have ordered any other trainset that provides all these things, which one exactly probably won't matter as much to many operators, just that it fulfills all of their requirements, and wins the competetive bidding process. So with a possibly even better design (including amenities) would possibly have resulted in an even higher ridership.

In the following there is the link to the new RTD trainsets, and as part of the FAQ section it says "Will there be wifi on the cars? - Wifi is not in the current design." (One can take note of the word "design".)

http://www.dbetoday.com/3126/commuter-rail-car-model-display-a-big-hit-with-visitors/

Just one last note, which probably everyone already is aware of: It appears like "money" for rail doesn't just "become[...] available", but it is being made available through an effort by the people and/or their representatives and the people in charge. Same for the needed design (including amenities) to make rail as much of a success as possible - the people interested in rail being a success, would in many cases probably need to be engaged, for that to happen.
 
This was in referral to the example with the 2 hour commuter ride, and "there should indeed be all amenities that are needed". ... Some would like to have reliable WiFi, so they can use that 2 hour ride productively or use WiFi for entertainment. ... (this) would not be (an) unreasonable requests
No it isn't. MBTA (Boston) already offers WiFi on their trains - and I think has for a long time.
Yes, that obviously seems to be correct. I was already aware of the fact that MBTA offers WiFi, and that is indeed wonderful that it does, when what one is looking for is to increase ridership and thus the success of rail services. For some riders, not for all, WiFi being offered surely is another aspect of rail that makes it a more attractive choice when being compared to other modes of travel, for example the private car.

To many, it will seem like an encouragement to see that MBTA does offer that, and some other rail transporation agencies in the country might be already offering WiFi service as well. Still at the same time, there are many other areas where MBTA could still improve the customer experience. And also at the same time, there are lots of other commuter rail services not currently offering WiFi and also not planning to do so (see above).

It might appear to be beneficial for rail to provide potential passengers with an appealing design and all the necessary comfort and amenities, it order for commuter rail services to be as successful as possible.
 
Wifi is a waste of money, double so on commuter routes.

If someone needs that connectivity for their job, they likely have some kind of a device that gives them connectivity they need.

If they don't, then they don't.

Wifi is more important for recreational travelers that may not have the devices needed for mobile access.
 
Not necessarily. Data plans are expensive. With ATT, I believe $60 per month still only gets you 300MB of data, I have to be very careful how I use it. It's far better to be able to use a data connection where I don't have to watch where I'm going just to avoid paying for overages.
 
Actually no, a lot don't. Namely because for most jobs being able to access the internet on the go for work isn't required, it's often highly recommended or suggested. I have some friends that work for Ford and they have to buy their own connectivity devices if they want to do stuff for work remotely.

peter
 
I doubt too many commuters are working remotely while enroute. Mostly they'd be doing pre/post work things if that, like catching up on e-mails. But just having that option could sway many people over to the rails.

Heck, if the rail system and buses around here had wifi, I'd probably choose them and the two and a half hour ride to my campus over driving 40 minutes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can get 5GB every 60 days for $50 from my Straight Talk hotspot. For reference, Straight Talk largely piggybacks on Verizon. With that said, even mid-speed wifi so folks can read an online paper (or, dare I say, play some lower-bandwidth games) is a definite selling point these days. The more productive/relaxing a commute can be, the more likely (A) you're likely to choose to commute by transit; and (B) the more likely it is a transit agency can either charge more for fares or look to incidental benefits like this to make money. I can see, for example, WMATA being able to make a decent amount per month by charging for wifi (either by day or by selling a "wifi commuter pass" of some sort that could link X devices to the system).

As to commute lengths, it varies from system to system. You've got a lot of folks who are on VRE for 90 minutes. I think the Trenton/Hamilton-New York express trains take around 90 minutes while the locals take closer to two hours. I'd say that at over an hour, comfort does become a significant issue.

As to the look of the cars, as long as they're not brain-breakingly ugly, I don't think the look matters much.
 
Back
Top