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



## beautifulplanet

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:






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

RTD commuter rail Airport Line EMUs by Hyundai Rotem interior:





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:






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



Septa Silverliner V interior:






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).


----------



## beautifulplanet

Stadler Kiss exterior:





source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadler_KISS


Stadler Kiss interior:





source: http://bahnonline.railimages.ch/fotos/2010/vorbild/juni2010/Zuerich+HB+Praesentation+der+neuen+S-Bahn+fuer+Zuerich/SBB+Dosto+RV+RABe+511+001+22280_19.jpg.html



Alstom Coradia exterior:





source: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/regions-confirm-EUR7bn-framework-ter-contract.html

Alstom Coradia interior:





source: http://railwayherald.com/world/alstom_to_supply_regional_trains_to_the_pays_de_la_loire_region

To be continued in the next post.


----------



## beautifulplanet

Bombadier Omneo / Twindexx exterior:





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



Bombadier Omneo / Twindexx interior:





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




Siemens Desiro exterior:




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

Siemens Desiro interior:





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.


----------



## Trogdor

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.


----------



## the_traveler

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.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

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.


----------



## MikefromCrete

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.


----------



## Ryan

Dutchrailnut said:


> 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.


----------



## beautifulplanet

the_traveler said:


> 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 ).



the_traveler said:


> 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.


----------



## Ryan

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.


----------



## TinCan782

Dutchrailnut said:


> 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.


----------



## beautifulplanet

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.



RyanS said:


> 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.



RyanS said:


> 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.


----------



## jis

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.


----------



## beautifulplanet

Trogdor said:


> 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.



Trogdor said:


> 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"?



Trogdor said:


> 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.



Trogdor said:


> 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.



Trogdor said:


> 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?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

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.


----------



## the_traveler

beautifulplanet said:


> 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.


----------



## beautifulplanet

Amenities like "comfort", "nice design", "good indoor climate", "comfortable seats", "large windows", "quiet ride", "reliable WiFi", "outlets"...



jis said:


> 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.



jis said:


> 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.


----------



## beautifulplanet

the_traveler said:


> beautifulplanet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## Ryan

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.


----------



## MattW

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.


----------



## Ryan

If someone needs that connectivity for their job, the employer is most likely paying for it.


----------



## PerRock

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


----------



## Ryan

That means that it's not *needed*.

If you want to have the ability to work remotely, you'll pay for the device, but that's not what I was talking about.


----------



## MattW

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.


----------



## Anderson

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.


----------



## cirdan

beautifulplanet said:


> Stadler Kiss exterior:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadler_KISS
> 
> Stadler Kiss interior:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> source: http://bahnonline.railimages.ch/fotos/2010/vorbild/juni2010/Zuerich+HB+Praesentation+der+neuen+S-Bahn+fuer+Zuerich/SBB+Dosto+RV+RABe+511+001+22280_19.jpg.html
> 
> To be continued in the next post.


Maybe this comnparison is not entirely fair as this is in fact the interior of the first class area. The second class is not quite as comfortable.

How many US commuter systems actually offer first class?


----------



## Ryan

None that I'm aware of.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

There's a sorta first class offering on NJTs Long Branch line, in the form of a commuter club, a similar thing on a UP line out of Chicago, and of course the LIRR's Seasonal Cannonball to the Hamptons


----------



## jis

Green Maned Lion said:


> There's a sorta first class offering on NJTs Long Branch line, in the form of a commuter club, a similar thing on a UP line out of Chicago, and of course the LIRR's Seasonal Cannonball to the Hamptons


The last time I looked in 2013, the Cannonball was a consist of standard C3s with a dual-mode DM30AC at each end. The special thing apparently was the schedule, which was a bit faster than the next fastest train to/from the Hamptons, and the reserved seat.

Apparently the Jersey Shore Commuter Club is not running anymore. The car was damaged in Hurricane Sandy and it has not run since then. They have a Facebook Page that announces its demise.


----------



## AlanB

jis said:


> The last time I looked in 2013, the Cannonball was a consist of standard C3s with a dual-mode DM30AC at each end. The special thing apparently was the schedule, which was a bit faster than the next fastest train to/from the Hamptons, and the reserved seat.


Well it is a standard C3 car, more or less; but you still do get at seat beverage service. I think one end of the car doesn't have the normal seating so as to provide room for the service area.


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last time I looked in 2013, the Cannonball was a consist of standard C3s with a dual-mode DM30AC at each end. The special thing apparently was the schedule, which was a bit faster than the next fastest train to/from the Hamptons, and the reserved seat.
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is a standard C3 car, more or less; but you still do get at seat beverage service. I think one end of the car doesn't have the normal seating so as to provide room for the service area.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I was thinking just after posting that. Is the beverage service is free?
The westbound Hampton Reserve service has only one less stop between the Hamptons and Jamaica, and of course now it goes through to New York, whereas if you took the train just ahead of it,, you have to change in Jamaica. I have actually taken the regular train that runs just ahead of the Hampton Reserve service and it runs nonstop from Speonk to Jamaica, which is probably one of the longest non-stop non-Amtrak run in the country.


----------



## AlanB

jis said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last time I looked in 2013, the Cannonball was a consist of standard C3s with a dual-mode DM30AC at each end. The special thing apparently was the schedule, which was a bit faster than the next fastest train to/from the Hamptons, and the reserved seat.
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is a standard C3 car, more or less; but you still do get at seat beverage service. I think one end of the car doesn't have the normal seating so as to provide room for the service area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, that's what I was thinking just after posting that. Is the beverage service is free?
Click to expand...

Well it's free in the sense that you don't pay per drink; but you pay a premium for the seat in the car over the regular ticket price. It's not like NJT's now dead Atlantic City Gambler's Express (ACE) where you paid a premium for the FC seat which was a better seat, but then still had to pay for the food/drinks that the attendant brought you.


----------



## Anderson

I've got to admit that I'm a bit surprised that, in at least some areas, "parlor car"/upgrade-class service doesn't exist on commuter lines. It's not as much of a surprise on some systems where the "base" class of service is pretty nice, but in some places where you have 3-2 seating and you're on the train for over an hour, I'd think you could do something there that would improve revenue per car.


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> I've got to admit that I'm a bit surprised that, in at least some areas, "parlor car"/upgrade-class service doesn't exist on commuter lines. It's not as much of a surprise on some systems where the "base" class of service is pretty nice, but in some places where you have 3-2 seating and you're on the train for over an hour, I'd think you could do something there that would improve revenue per car.


In several conversations with management of some of the largest commuter operations in the country I have repeatedly heard that the administrative headache is simply not worth it.
Note that the Hampton Reserve service on LIRR is a weekend thing, and not a commuter service per se. That is taking advantage of the unique tourist/vacation/weekender situation that LIRR has along the south shore of LI in conjunction with the Sunrise Highway traffic situation specially east of Riverhead. For the life of me I cannot figure out why NJT has stopped running their beach specials on NJCL, but their claim is that they never break even and given their limited budgets they'd rather run an additional regular train than something special.


----------



## Anderson

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've got to admit that I'm a bit surprised that, in at least some areas, "parlor car"/upgrade-class service doesn't exist on commuter lines. It's not as much of a surprise on some systems where the "base" class of service is pretty nice, but in some places where you have 3-2 seating and you're on the train for over an hour, I'd think you could do something there that would improve revenue per car.
> 
> 
> 
> In several conversations with management of some of the largest commuter operations in the country I have repeatedly heard that the administrative headache is simply not worth it.
> Note that the Hampton Reserve service on LIRR is a weekend thing, and not a commuter service per se. That is taking advantage of the unique tourist/vacation/weekender situation that LIRR has along the south shore of LI in conjunction with the Sunrise Highway traffic situation specially east of Riverhead. For the life of me I cannot figure out why NJT has stopped running their beach specials on NJCL, but their claim is that they never break even and given their limited budgets they'd rather run an additional regular train than something special.
Click to expand...

Ok, serious question: What is the administrative headache in question? Actually having to have reserved seats, etc. rather than the generic "have a ticket for your travel segment" tickets?


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> Ok, serious question: What is the administrative headache in question? Actually having to have reserved seats, etc. rather than the generic "have a ticket for your travel segment" tickets?


Yes. Essentially just having to handle an additional category of tickets with additional service expectations attached.

Notice that NJT subcontracted the ticketing for the ACE service which was contracted to them by the Casinos. Heck it is like pulling teeth to even have them issue through tickets on their own service spanning NJTRO (Commuter Rail) NJTBO (Buses and some Light Rail) and the DBOM Light Rails. Forget about totally another class of tickets! Actually, I'd rather get the to issue through tickets to LIRR and MNRR before dealing with additional class of service.


----------



## Ryan

I would guess (I'll use MARC as an example):

1. Having to deal with more types of rolling stock. Right now to put a train in service, you need a locomotive, whatever coaches are laying around, and a cab car. Both from a maintenance and operations POV (you probably also need to make sure that the "first class" car is in the same position in the consist).

2. Having to deal with selling two different classes of tickets - how do you differentiate between a Perryville-WAS First Class and Commuter Class tickets? That's probably a one time thing to get the ticket vending machines set up to do.

3. Conductors having to deal with commuters that don't "get it". Tourists wandering into the wrong car, that sort of thing.

4. Depending on what "first class" entails, increased staffing if you're going to have any kind of food/beverage service. If it's just "nicer seats", that isn't an issue (outside increased conductor responsibility to police the car and make sure that people don't sneak in.

5. Assigned seating (if offered) doesn't really work well with monthly passes (which is what most of the full time commuters use).

None of these are dealbreakers to an agency that is dedicated to providing the service, but they're all work that has to be done above and beyond what they're doing today. The final question would be "can the increased fares cover the increased costs"? If not, even if they wanted to, it probably wouldn't happen.


----------



## fairviewroad

RyanS said:


> The final question would be "can the increased fares cover the increased costs"? If not, even if they wanted to, it probably wouldn't happen.



This. Anti-transit groups would have a field day with taxpayer subsidized "first class" service on a commuter train. If you could

somehow demonstrate that the subsidies per "first class" passenger were lower than a "coach class" passenger, it might work

politically speaking. But the only way to find that out would be to actually implement it, and for the reasons you outlined that

is probably a long-shot at best.

The only place I can really see this happening would be on limited network systems. I'm thinking something like the Altamont

Corridor Express. One route, a very defined equipment rotation schedule, a place where enough people have money to burn

that they'd like the exclusiveness of a daily upgrade. And a long-enough ride for some folks to make the extras worth it.

I could see this working on Seattle's Sounder train service, too, although the length isn't as long. But once you get into a system

with many routes, all-day schedules, etc, then the logistics instantly get much harder to implement consistently.


----------



## Anderson

jis said:


> jis, on 12 Feb 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson, on 12 Feb 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:Ok, serious question: What is the administrative headache in question? Actually having to have reserved seats, etc. rather than the generic "have a ticket for your travel segment" tickets?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Essentially just having to handle an additional category of tickets with additional service expectations attached.
> 
> Notice that NJT subcontracted the ticketing for the ACE service which was contracted to them by the Casinos. Heck it is like pulling teeth to even have them issue through tickets on their own service spanning NJTRO (Commuter Rail) NJTBO (Buses and some Light Rail) and the DBOM Light Rails. Forget about totally another class of tickets! Actually, I'd rather get the to issue through tickets to LIRR and MNRR before dealing with additional class of service.
Click to expand...

Frankly, they seem a bit lazy. Ok, more than a bit...if anything, you'd think that moving to some sort of "tap card" system (or some approximation thereof) would be high on their agenda, since it would cut down on both an immense amount of paper _and_ allow integrating those things.

I also agree that at least NJT/LIRR through ticketing would make sense, even if there was no discount. MNRR will make sense eventually...but at the moment, it would be a lower priority in my mind given the lack of MNRR trains into NYP.


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> jis, on 12 Feb 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson, on 12 Feb 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:
> 
> Ok, serious question: What is the administrative headache in question? Actually having to have reserved seats, etc. rather than the generic "have a ticket for your travel segment" tickets?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Essentially just having to handle an additional category of tickets with additional service expectations attached.
> Notice that NJT subcontracted the ticketing for the ACE service which was contracted to them by the Casinos. Heck it is like pulling teeth to even have them issue through tickets on their own service spanning NJTRO (Commuter Rail) NJTBO (Buses and some Light Rail) and the DBOM Light Rails. Forget about totally another class of tickets! Actually, I'd rather get the to issue through tickets to LIRR and MNRR before dealing with additional class of service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frankly, they seem a bit lazy. Ok, more than a bit...if anything, you'd think that moving to some sort of "tap card" system (or some approximation thereof) would be high on their agenda, since it would cut down on both an immense amount of paper _and_ allow integrating those things.I also agree that at least NJT/LIRR through ticketing would make sense, even if there was no discount. MNRR will make sense eventually...but at the moment, it would be a lower priority in my mind given the lack of MNRR trains into NYP.
Click to expand...

Just to quote from _Mary Poppins_



> All for the lack of...
> 
> Tuppence
> 
> Patiently, cautiously, trustingly invested in the...
> 
> To be specific
> 
> In the Dawes, Tomes, Mousley, Grubbs
> 
> Fidelity Fiduciary Bank


----------



## Green Maned Lion

There are only three aspects of NJ Transit I trust in: their nonpariel political corruption, their boundless incompetence, and their limitless laziness,


----------



## jis

You've got that right GML! Add to that the propensity to blame everything on Amtrak if they even remotely think they can get away with it


----------



## beautifulplanet

RyanS said:


> The only amenity I need is a place to sit and a train that provides frequent service and runs (mostly) on time.
> [...]
> 
> Wifi is a waste of money, double so on commuter routes.
> 
> [...]
> 
> That means that it's not *needed*.



Of course to have the opinion that WiFi is not needed, or that WiFi on commuter rail is a waste of money, that is absolutely legit.

Maybe one can agree to disagree (with me simultaneously highlighting that for people looking for commuter rail to be even more successful, WiFi or not is not really the core issue, instead making the service as attractive as possible for current and future users is). Some other aspect is that maybe it might not be so relevant if the terminology is being used is that some amenity is needed, or that it is desired, or wished for to be there, or popular when it is there so that possibly for some riders it may be the one quality (probably in combination with other qualities) that causes the scales to tip and that in that way might be needed for them to take commuter rail instead of a different mode of transportation. So without discussion of the exact choice of words in depth, what is meant here in these paragraphs is that something might be needed for the commuter rail system, when it should be offered, in case it increases the attractiveness for many users.

At the same time, many people would agree that it would make sense (in any service business) to try to satisfy the wishes of the customers. If there are customers that wish for something, and/or if there is something that makes them more likely to make use of the service, or/and will make them like the service even more, then it would make sense to implement that something as part of the service offered.

If it just came down to what one single person would think is reasonable, maybe there was someone would not agree with "The only amenity I need is a place to sit" as they thought standing room only was good enough (like often found in Japanese commuter rail). So if it came down to that one person making the decision about the design of the person, maybe it would be no seats and standing room only. Still as a substantial number of US commuter rail users likes seats, it seems to make sense that there should be seats (although in a different meaning of the word, which I would not support, they might not literally be needed).

Obviously it would not be reasonable for a commuter rail system to implement something as part of the service in case just a very small percentage of their customers would wish for it. In the case of WiFi though, the following news article from March 2013 states that 40,000 to 60,000 passengers used MBTA's WiFi service every day.

See here: http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/downtown/2013/03/mbta_hopes_to_expand_wi-fi_ser.html

So of daily weekday ridership of 127,500 (as of Q1 of 2013), 40,000 to 60,000 passengers used the service. And that was while WiFi was only "installed on 258 of the T's 410 passenger rail coaches", so maybe a lot of passengers even ended up not using it, just because they sat in a car that did not have WiFi installed yet. That makes it appear like a substantial percentage of commuter rail users would like WiFi, and so it seems to many like it would not be a waste of money.

Especially as there might be some passengers who would have taken their car or some other mode of transportation (or would have chosen not to travel) instead, if it wouldn't be for commuter rail to offer such an attractive service, so offering this amenity might even lead to additional revenue, causing it even less to be any money wasted. Quite the opposite, more likely a good investment instead, as it might make commuter rail even more successful.


----------



## cirdan

RyanS said:


> 4. Depending on what "first class" entails, increased staffing if you're going to have any kind of food/beverage service. If it's just "nicer seats", that isn't an issue (outside increased conductor responsibility to police the car and make sure that people don't sneak in.


 On some European commuter services, the seats aren't even really much nicer. People pay extra for first class just to get away from the riff raff, or just because there is a higher probability they will actually find an available seat rather than having to stand. Enforcement is often through signs threatening hefty fines to people caught with the wrong class of ticket.


----------



## DesignDude

All I can say is look first at the car industry. When it comes to design, America has gotten better, but still just doesn’t get it. I can’t explain why, but that is the reality of this country. Even our light rail cars here in Denver are boxy compared the sleek beautiful ones in Jerusalem. Now I see these new commuter rail cars (which are uglier than the light rail ones) and I have given up hope that I’ll see an aesthetics revolution here in my lifetime. At the end of the day, American companies (Apple and Tesla excluded) just don’t really care about setting the world on fire when it comes to design. Oh, there are some artists who care, but generally, the public doesn’t, and are happy with pickup truck styling.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

To me, this is very attractive: http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=485529&nseq=10.

You said "attractive"!

This is attractive too: http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=455389&nseq=179.

Oh, if we forget about passengers: http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=491113&nseq=7.

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.


----------



## jis

The Denver LRT cars are completely off the shelf European :lol:

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

jis said:


> The Denver LRT cars are completely off the shelf European :lol:


You got it! They even have "SIEMENS" written by the entrance. I noticed that when I was riding them two weeks ago.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

I do really love the styling of the N700 Shinkansen: http://www.realrailway.com/photo/1024/tc_tecn700z.jpg.

And the ICE3 Baureihe 403: http://www.bahnbilder.de/bilder/ice3-offenburg-siegburg-als-ice-211731.jpg.

I know people do commute on those.

I do disagree with the OP in that the four examples he quoted were not good-looking at all, IMO. This Desiro seems better: http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=239482.

Also, the example he quoted as being "ugly" was an Alstom design, wasn't it?


----------



## PerRock

As a rider I am much more overly concerned on what the interior of a train is like then the exterior. A good paint job can do the exterior wonders.

Some interior designs I really like:

The OeBB (an now CZ) RailJet is a stellar design, and one I think would work well over here in the states. It's essentially a locomotive-hauled high speed train, with a cab car on one end. But it look nice from both the interior and exterior.

2nd Class:






1st Class:






The DB ICE3 (Siemens Velaro) is also really nicely designed.

2nd class (looking on to 1st class):






Vesibule:






Cafe counter:






As for commuters, or even metro. London Underground's new S-Stock is really quite nice:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/LUL-S-Stock-special-needs-car.jpg/640px-LUL-S-Stock-special-needs-car.jpg

Siemens has an ULF Tram (Ultra Low Floor) which is used in Vienna and Romania. Which again I think would be a great product to bring straight over here, especially for a tram system just starting up, as it's designed to have it's floor flush with the curb, so no need to build stations. The interior is a little more utilitarian, but still seems very much 'designed'. Whereas most american trains's interiors seem committee botched.

(I can't find an interior, so here is an exterior picture)

http://www.railjournal.com/media/k2/items/cache/8f9b49a7993ed80d42c489170ed36ea2_XL.jpg

peter


----------



## Green Maned Lion

It's a bloody train. It gets you from point A to point B. Who cares?

And that being said, it is a schonda if any trains were to ever exist within Jerusalem's hallowed walls. Which last time I was there, they didn't.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Well really, which trains are truly American these days? Just because it's built in the US doesn't mean it's truly American. No more Budd. No more Pullman. No more AC&F. No more Saint Louis Car. We have Nippon-Sharyo, Talgo, CAF, Siemens, none of those are American companies. Bombardier is actually Canadian, so that's about as close as it gets.


----------



## PerRock

US Railcar (used to be Colorado)

There are a number of companies that rehaul & refurbish cars; which could probably manufacture some cars if they wanted.

peter


----------



## jis

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Well really, which trains are truly American these days? Just because it's built in the US doesn't mean it's truly American. No more Budd. No more Pullman. No more AC&F. No more Saint Louis Car. We have Nippon-Sharyo, Talgo, CAF, Siemens, none of those are American companies. Bombardier is actually Canadian, so that's about as close as it gets.


Most of Bombardier's rail operations is European. The Canadian part is just small potatoes these days. For example the ALP-45s are manufactured completely in Europe and shipped over to the US by boat.


----------



## Tokkyu40

Trogdor said:


> 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.


Safety is another problem with the FRA rules. The requirement, for many years, was a rigid structure like a '48 Rambler. The European and Japanese trains are built with crumple zones, like an '08 Mercedes. In a collision, which offers better protection, an old Nash or a new Benz?

I hear the safety requirements have been updated, and the cars are being built like Ramblers with Mercedes noses welded on. It's an improvement, but we still have to buy overweight and expensive custom-built short production run technology rather than mass produced modern equipment.


----------



## Anderson

Tokkyu40 said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Safety is another problem with the FRA rules. The requirement, for many years, was a rigid structure like a '48 Rambler. The European and Japanese trains are built with crumple zones, like an '08 Mercedes. In a collision, which offers better protection, an old Nash or a new Benz?
> 
> I hear the safety requirements have been updated, and the cars are being built like Ramblers with Mercedes noses welded on. It's an improvement, but we still have to buy overweight and expensive custom-built short production run technology rather than mass produced modern equipment.
Click to expand...

By contrast, I would point out the fact that crumple incidents are where things tend to go very, very wrong with trains. As a rule, at least from what I can recall, as long as the car structure holds up people don't tend to get killed. When a car gets squished, the story changes. Put another way, US trains do have crumple zones: The couplings. The fact that trains can bend every 80 feet creates a sort of crumple zone. Additionally, it's a hell of a lot harder to put a hard stop on a million-pound Regional than it is on a 2000-pound car. The sheer mass of the train tends to take out whatever is in its way where a similar obstacle will stop a car hard. Take a large tree, for example: A lot of cars will slam into it and get wrapped around it. If a locomotive hits the same tree, you might have an emergency stop (and indeed it might induce something of a derailment) but the train isn't likely to get torn to shreds.


----------



## beautifulplanet

Thank you for this post.



Tokkyu40 said:


> Safety is another problem with the FRA rules. The requirement, for many years, was a rigid structure like a '48 Rambler. The European and Japanese trains are built with crumple zones, like an '08 Mercedes. In a collision, which offers better protection, an old Nash or a new Benz?
> I hear the safety requirements have been updated, and the cars are being built like Ramblers with Mercedes noses welded on. It's an improvement, but we still have to buy overweight and expensive custom-built short production run technology rather than mass produced modern equipment.


While of course by nature, rail-automobile comparisons have their limits, many might think within these limits it is a good illustration. Many might agree with you, in that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) should abandon the current regulation which many might think of as antiquated, and instead allow modern mass produced modern equipment to operate.

Many might think it's sad that it's generally the case outdated FRA rules still apply, at the same time there are what many might consider positive developments, in that the FRA granted waivers to several rail operators, so they are able to use modern and efficient rolling stock. For example, there is

- in New Jersey, New Jersey Transit's River Line commuter rail, using special tram-train-operations capable Stadler GTW 2/6 Diesel-Multiple Unit trainsets offering a tighter turning radius

- in Texas, Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Red Line commuter rail, using modern Stadler GTW 2/6 Diesel-Multiple Unit trainsets

- again in Texas, Denton County Transportation Authority's A-Train commuter rail, also using modern Stadler GTW 2/6 Diesel-Multiple Unit trainsets

- in California, North County Transit District's Sprinter commuter rail, using customized modern Siemens Desiro Classic Diesel-Multiple Unit trainsets

Modern, not FRA compliant rolling stock will also be used:

- in California, on San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District's eBART service, once again using modern Stadler GTW 2/6 Diesel-Multiple Unit trainsets

- in Texas, on Fort Worth Transportation Authority's future Cotton Belt commuter rail line, using some modern yet-to-be-determined Diesel-Multiple Unit

- and in California (this project might be very important to some), on Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board's Caltrain commuter rail, using modern yet-to-be-determined Electric-Multiple Units, which will offer lower operating costs, faster acceleration and shorter travel times, a more comfortable ride and a more attractive service (the FRA waiver already has been granted)

So some might think, there is hope. 

Being able to use light-weight rolling stock would be beneficial for nearly every kind of passenger rail operations, still besides commuter rail, high-speed rail stands to gain the most. After all, some might think that one of the reasons Amtrak's Acela wasn't able to make full use of all of high-speed rail's advantages was the thousands of modifications that had to be made in the attempt to basically convert an off-the-shelf TGV design into a more-or-less custom-built FRA compliant US rolling stock. This is why many were so excited about the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) efforts to change US regulations regarding safety requirements for passenger trains, including high-speed rail, to basically allow modern light-weight designs to operate - without time-seperated operations and the like. Crafting regulations takes time, so at least for some it may remain one of the most exciting developments, and some may be waiting for more news on this process moving forward or eventually being finished. The following is an article about this from last year:

Long Barred from American Tracks, European Train Designs Could Get Rolling by 2015

October 31, 2013

By Stephan J. Smith

http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/modern-european-train-designs-american-tracks-2015-fra

Thank you for this post.



Anderson said:


> By contrast, I would point out the fact that crumple incidents are where things tend to go very, very wrong with trains. As a rule, at least from what I can recall, as long as the car structure holds up people don't tend to get killed. When a car gets squished, the story changes. Put another way, US trains do have crumple zones: The couplings. The fact that trains can bend every 80 feet creates a sort of crumple zone. Additionally, it's a hell of a lot harder to put a hard stop on a million-pound Regional than it is on a 2000-pound car. The sheer mass of the train tends to take out whatever is in its way where a similar obstacle will stop a car hard. Take a large tree, for example: A lot of cars will slam into it and get wrapped around it. If a locomotive hits the same tree, you might have an emergency stop (and indeed it might induce something of a derailment) but the train isn't likely to get torn to shreds.


Many might think, it is sure legit to see it that way. At the same time, many might respectfully disagree.



> By contrast, I would point out the fact that crumple incidents are where things tend to go very, very wrong with trains.


Some might think, no, that's when things go right. Modern safety principles recognize that every crash is basically one object moving into some other object with a certain amount of energy, thus what is needed is crash energy management, and crumble zones are one important component of that, so sometimes it could be that when something crumbles, that is where things tend to go comparatively good with trains.  One example how work is being done on crumble zones (and standard couplings are not actual crumble zones at all) can be found here:

Will the crash zone crumple? FEA tells

November 6, 2003

By Paul Dvorak

http://machinedesign.com/archive/will-crash-zone-crumple-fea-tells


----------



## Tokkyu40

Anderson said:


> By contrast, I would point out the fact that crumple incidents are where things tend to go very, very wrong with trains. As a rule, at least from what I can recall, as long as the car structure holds up people don't tend to get killed. When a car gets squished, the story changes. Put another way, US trains do have crumple zones: The couplings. The fact that trains can bend every 80 feet creates a sort of crumple zone. Additionally, it's a hell of a lot harder to put a hard stop on a million-pound Regional than it is on a 2000-pound car. The sheer mass of the train tends to take out whatever is in its way where a similar obstacle will stop a car hard. Take a large tree, for example: A lot of cars will slam into it and get wrapped around it. If a locomotive hits the same tree, you might have an emergency stop (and indeed it might induce something of a derailment) but the train isn't likely to get torn to shreds.


A crumple zone and a rail car being crushed are two entirely different concepts. The rigid unyielding nature of the traditional construction is one of the main causes of the cars bending at the couplers and piling together like a folding ruler, leading to cars being crushed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApXBXUpqYsE

The addition of crumple zones offers a significant reduction in damage to the interior volume of the passenger space.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bofRMEBHTok


----------



## Jake

I am in full support of the OP's position. These brand new cars look like something you'd expect to see in the 80's and the seats look uncomfortable just by spying the pictures. It's a giant contrast to new units being put to use in Europe and Asia. What's worse, we will be stuck with this design for well over a decade with this kind of investment.

I don't know what RTD is doing. The Siemens Light Rail cars were a giant letdown design-wise. Extremely boxy, with steep steps to climb and uncomfortable seats. Again, look at the sleek new light rail setups across the pond.

Design absolutely matters. These systems have to complete with cars, and if they don't look modern and are not comfortable to ride, they will be less attractive. Period. It's just like the buses. Those RTD city buses are rickety as heck, hard to get on for a lot of people and the interiors are absolutely forgettable. Try a city bus in any city in Germany or Scandinavia and compare. Not even close.


----------



## beautifulplanet

Thank you for posting this additional information.



Tokkyu40 said:


> A crumple zone and a rail car being crushed are two entirely different concepts. The rigid unyielding nature of the traditional construction is one of the main causes of the cars bending at the couplers and piling together like a folding ruler, leading to cars being crushed.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApXBXUpqYsE
> The addition of crumple zones offers a significant reduction in damage to the interior volume of the passenger space.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bofRMEBHTok


The following side-by-side of the FRA crash energy management test was already posted before:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUpUJrk4QBE

Also, even on existing US rolling stock crash energy management features have been implemented, like the following link shows:

http://www.voith.com/en/products-services/power-transmission/scharfenberg-couplers/scharfenberg-couplers-railcars/crash-energy-management-41850.htm

In conclusion some may hope, that finally the paradigm of just having to build steel boxes as thick as possible for maximum security will go away, and instead, modern and light-weight asian and european rolling stock designs may finally be used, which aside from all the economic benefits and passenger-comfort benefits will actually offer increased security.


----------



## jis

Increased safety, yes. Security, I am not sure. I can't see how lightweight passenger cars would prevent someone carrying a bomb from carrying it on and detonating it inside the train for example.

BTW, what the modified Tier I standard basically does is, it allows the absorption of energy in CEM space designed into the car, but the design must still keep the passenger carrying portion of the car safe in face of 800 klb longitudinal buff load. So it is probably about 2/3rds of the way there. But it appears unlikely that they would yield on the 800 klb, which is higher than the UIC standard. So the situation now is that off the shelf UIC equipment will still need some modification to be Tier I compliant. But apparently it is not much since many European and Japanese manufacturers are already more resilient than what UIC requires. Witness how the Nippon-Sharyo used in SMART came out to be compliant with modified Tier I. Similarly Stadlers are in the process of getting Tier I approval. I bet the Viaggio cars to be used in Florida will only be slightly modified from off the shelf Viaggio cars too.


----------



## Peter W

As a local metro-Denver area resident for the last 30 years, I was shocked at the low seat comfort on these new trains. Comparing with our current commuter bus, the bus is an advantage. The RTD regional bus fleet features cloth fabric, tilt backs and between seat arm rests.

These new trains seem to merge today's technology with 1960's car seating. Leg room seems to be cramped, as on an airplane. The bench styling reminds me of being on a school bus.

I disagree with those that have commented here that "commuters don't need comfort". Although the trip might be shorter than an Amtrak segment, commuters are on twice five days a week, resulting in 5 to 10 hours of weekly train time. If people are going to stop communing by car, the train needs to be a pleasant experience to entice them to leave the car home.


----------

