the Talgo pugnosed cab cars

[NE933]

Sometimes it takes awhile to warm up to something. A new arrangement, color scheme, flavor. I've tried giving it time, but I can't, I just can't, get myself to like the horrible shape, profile, look, design, of the cab cars of the new Talgo trains. I can't even get used to it. True that I've never seen one in person, but it won't matter. I hate the way these things look, and so therefore, beg the question:

how did this creature evolve through design? And why not something more flowing, harmoneous, instead of this awful looking rail vehicle that's been compared to a pig's snout, and the nose of a pug dog? I mean, it looks cute on them, but not to model a train after. The paint scheme accentuates all of what's wrong, making it even worse. Anybody?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Sometimes it takes awhile to warm up to something. A new arrangement, color scheme, flavor. I've tried giving it time, but I can't, I just can't, get myself to like the horrible shape, profile, look, design, of the cab cars of the new Talgo trains. I can't even get used to it. True that I've never seen one in person, but it won't matter. I hate the way these things look, and so therefore, beg the question:

how did this creature evolve through design? And why not something more flowing, harmoneous, instead of this awful looking rail vehicle that's been compared to a pig's snout, and the nose of a pug dog? I mean, it looks cute on them, but not to model a train after. The paint scheme accentuates all of what's wrong, making it even worse. Anybody?

Why does every freight cab have the same ugly design? Homogenization leads to a very dull but somewhat safer world.

 

[Paulus]

If memory serves, FRA said no to curved glass and that's what resulted in this.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

The Talgo cab car was reject by Amtrak. It was a sleek looking center seat control cab. A "standard" looking control cab from a high speed train in Europe.

So Amtrak wanted the ability for a student ride the cab car and have the ability to see out from a seated position. This original cab just did not have that ability. So Talgo refined the design. Creating a box with three windows looking out around a pair of big support beams. The train operator would seat in the middle and the student would sit to the side. Amtrak reject this plan also.

Both personal need to have the same view.

So now keep the box with three windows. Talgo move the control from the center to one side, the student seat to the other side.

It was a design by needs of Amtrak.

I think it OK...

But I too don't live there, or ride the Talgo much.

 

[neroden]

An additional factor: crumple zones were required to protect the driver (engineer). Now, require two parallel seats (as Just-Thinking said). Require flat glass (as Paulus said). Require a crumple zone in front of the driver. Try to retain maximum visibility... what do you get?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

An additional factor: crumple zones were required to protect the driver (engineer). Now, require two parallel seats (as Just-Thinking said). Require flat glass (as Paulus said). Require a crumple zone in front of the driver. Try to retain maximum visibility... what do you get?

I wonder how other countries manage to get by without building cabs that look uglier than sin. Are their trains much more dangerous? Or are we suffering from the demands of a clueless nanny state?

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Or it what happens when there are too many chiefs in the kitchen.

I don't recall the flat glass issue, but crush zones were always in the design. I would think a flat glass would be cheap to replace them a customed curve glass window. I don't recall the FRA having any issues, but that was early in the process, before Amtrak had it issues address.

 

[PerRock]

An additional factor: crumple zones were required to protect the driver (engineer). Now, require two parallel seats (as Just-Thinking said). Require flat glass (as Paulus said). Require a crumple zone in front of the driver. Try to retain maximum visibility... what do you get?

I wonder how other countries manage to get by without building cabs that look uglier than sin. Are their trains much more dangerous? Or are we suffering from the demands of a clueless nanny state?

Depends on who you talk to. But yes basically we have a very different standard for crash worthiness then Europe.

 

[neroden]

The view in Europe is that if the train is crashing into something head-on, you've lost, so they don't bother to attempt to do much about it. They try to prevent it with much more aggressive signalling requirements.

Basically all head-on crashes could have been prevented by what we now call "Positive Train Control" in the US.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

The view in Europe is that if the train is crashing into something head-on, you've lost, so they don't bother to attempt to do much about it. They try to prevent it with much more aggressive signalling requirements. Basically all head-on crashes could have been prevented by what we now call "Positive Train Control" in the US.

Instead of trying to reduce the chance of a crash we try to make the crash survivable. Which is just as well, I suppose, if you don't mind losing a limb or being paralyzed for the rest of your life. To my eye the European system of reduced grade crossings and improved signaling sounds like a much more logical method for reaching a similar goal. Do you have any idea when PTC will eventually arrive on most of the Amtrak routes?

 

[MikefromCrete]

The view in Europe is that if the train is crashing into something head-on, you've lost, so they don't bother to attempt to do much about it. They try to prevent it with much more aggressive signalling requirements.

Basically all head-on crashes could have been prevented by what we now call "Positive Train Control" in the US.

I'm glad we put safety ahead of design in this country. Don't count on any signal system to prevent all crashes, that's why they're called accidents.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

The view in Europe is that if the train is crashing into something head-on, you've lost, so they don't bother to attempt to do much about it. They try to prevent it with much more aggressive signalling requirements.

Basically all head-on crashes could have been prevented by what we now call "Positive Train Control" in the US.

I'm glad we put safety ahead of design in this country. Don't count on any signal system to prevent all crashes, that's why they're called accidents.

Although having regulations that differ from virtually everyone else means we have difficulty leveraging economies of scale. As a result the vast majority of our rolling stock is based on designs from the 1970's and 1980's, including the new Viewliner order. A lot has changed in the thinking of safety design in the last four decades and it's a shame to think that overzealous regulations may actually be working against the greater good.

 

[NE933]

Yes, this is a nanny state, if that's the term, a place where people now have to be told that boiling water burns.

That aside, I'm just wondering why nothing angular, like the Genesis or even the Metrolink cab car, couldn't have worked here.

While it's true a head on with another train is certain death, there are lots of grade crossings to deal with, and there isn't the money or geography to build fly-overs with all of them. Case in point the grade crossings at New London, CT are so near the water of Long Island Sound, the angle of any road bridge would be impossible, and an underpass would saturated from the high water table. All the separation projects involving a full build-out costs millions that aren't there to do every single one. So it's a necessary evil for as long as rail and street or highway traffic shall continue.

The Genesis fleet takes a well known beating daily with crashes into farm equipment, trucks, vans, cars, everything but the kitchen sink (and I'm sure it's hit one of those too!!!); the bolted nose design and the angled front seems to have served Amtrak well.

 

[PerRock]

If memory serves, FRA said no to curved glass and that's what resulted in this.

The P40s & P42s all have curved glass on the front. It's a subtle curve, but it's a curve non-the-less.

peter

(who is actively modeling an P40 this moment in Maya, ie. it's open in another window)

 

[MattW]

The view in Europe is that if the train is crashing into something head-on, you've lost, so they don't bother to attempt to do much about it. They try to prevent it with much more aggressive signalling requirements. Basically all head-on crashes could have been prevented by what we now call "Positive Train Control" in the US.

Instead of trying to reduce the chance of a crash we try to make the crash survivable. Which is just as well, I suppose, if you don't mind losing a limb or being paralyzed for the rest of your life. To my eye the European system of reduced grade crossings and improved signaling sounds like a much more logical method for reaching a similar goal. Do you have any idea when PTC will eventually arrive on most of the Amtrak routes?

I disagree. From what I've seen, particuarly with the latest high speed European trains. They seem to emphasize lighter trains so there's less energy to be dissipated and then they don't mind destroying the train to keep the passengers safe. In other words, European trains are designed like your car, with crumple zones and a controlled demolition should it come to that. The FRA's emphasis on vehicle survival makes no sense even just from a strictly physics perspective. A heavier vehicle has fare more energy that has to go somewhere. If it doesn't get dissipated in the vehicle, it has to get dissipated in the passengers. The Mythbusters dramatically showed the concept. They tested the old adage "two cars hitting at 50mph is like one car hitting a wall at 100mph" It turned out to be completely busted. The car that hit the wall at 100mph was demolished, while the two cars that hit at 50mph were each as if they hit the wall at 50mph. So yes, people will still die if you slam headlong into an immovable object like in the recent Spanish Talgo overspeed wreck, or if a bridge falls on the train like Eschede. But the risk mitigation doesn't have to include heavier and heavier vehicles.

 

[neroden]

"They seem to emphasize lighter trains so there's less energy to be dissipated "

-->this.

 

[Shawn Ryu]

Wonder when Gennie will get replaced.

Hope they dont look like the cab cars.

 

[PerRock]

Wonder when Gennie will get replaced.

Hope they dont look like the cab cars.

They're already working on them. The corridor trains out of Chicago (not all of them) and the Cali trains are getting new Siemens locomotives in a few years. The contract has already been awarded, and part of the contract includes the contingent possibility of Amtrak ordering long distance versions of the new locos. If I had to guess they're going to look similar to the ACS-64s, but I could be wrong there.

peter

 

[PRR 60]

Wonder when Gennie will get replaced.

Hope they dont look like the cab cars.

They're already working on them. The corridor trains out of Chicago (not all of them) and the Cali trains are getting new Siemens locomotives in a few years. The contract has already been awarded, and part of the contract includes the contingent possibility of Amtrak ordering long distance versions of the new locos. If I had to guess they're going to look similar to the ACS-64s, but I could be wrong there.

peter

By the time they are delivered, they might be Alstom locomotives. Siemans and Alstom are talking about swapping businesses: Siemans getting Alstom's electric power and transmission business and Alstom getting Siemans transportation business. This was triggered by GE trying to get the Alstom power assets. The French government is not enthusiastic about a US company carving a hunk out of a Alstom. They are much happier with the Siemans deal. The irony is that Amtrak would be back dealing with Alstom: one of the partners that designed and supplied the Acela trainsets. That purchased ended with considerable rancor between the parties. Amtrak is expert at rancor toward suppliers.

 

[Blackwolf]

Wonder when Gennie will get replaced.

Hope they dont look like the cab cars.

They're already working on them. The corridor trains out of Chicago (not all of them) and the Cali trains are getting new Siemens locomotives in a few years. The contract has already been awarded, and part of the contract includes the contingent possibility of Amtrak ordering long distance versions of the new locos. If I had to guess they're going to look similar to the ACS-64s, but I could be wrong there.

peter

By the time they are delivered, they might be Alstom locomotives. Siemans and Alstom are talking about swapping businesses: Siemans getting Alstom's electric power and transmission business and Alstom getting Siemans transportation business. This was triggered by GE trying to get the Alstom power assets. The French government is not enthusiastic about a US company carving a hunk out of a Alstom. They are much happier with the Siemans deal. The irony is that Amtrak would be back dealing with Alstom: one of the partners that designed and supplied the Acela trainsets. That purchased ended with considerable rancor between the parties. Amtrak is expert at rancor toward suppliers.

That might be rather unfortunate... :/

 

[NE933]

The main rancor is Bombardier. In the 15 years with Acela, seldom is Alsthom faulted for the trainsets' problems. It seems that Alsthom as well is embarrased to join in any major rolling stock project with BBD.

 

[neroden]

It would be pretty dopey for Siemens to sell its transportation business, but Siemens has done stuff like this before. :sigh: