"Amtrak Virginia" Offically up and running

[Guest]

Isn't it interesting how much information a discussion about one picture can generate?

A badly done one at that.

To be fair, only one aspect of it is badly done. The composition is great, and it's a composition that suits itself very well for cropping into a banner format. It's not the photographer's fault.

It's just that the edited version of the photo on the website terribly grainy, probably because they super-compressed the image down to 52 KB for the website. I suspect the original is much sharper, and that they could replace that version with a sharper image with a larger filesize if they wished, but that they chose to compress it as far as possible to minimize page-load times. It's a trade-off webmasters have to make, and this webmaster went overboard on the compression, in my opinion! (It's possible the original is actually a grainy slide, but I doubt it.)

...not only that but showing the dirty ancient engines (which are ugly) on a site designed to advertise PASSENGER service doesn't juice the appetite to ride (maybe to you guys, yeah, but not the average Jane/Joe). What year were they designed?

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Isn't it interesting how much information a discussion about one picture can generate?

A badly done one at that.

To be fair, only one aspect of it is badly done. The composition is great, and it's a composition that suits itself very well for cropping into a banner format. It's not the photographer's fault.

It's just that the edited version of the photo on the website terribly grainy, probably because they super-compressed the image down to 52 KB for the website. I suspect the original is much sharper, and that they could replace that version with a sharper image with a larger filesize if they wished, but that they chose to compress it as far as possible to minimize page-load times. It's a trade-off webmasters have to make, and this webmaster went overboard on the compression, in my opinion! (It's possible the original is actually a grainy slide, but I doubt it.)

...not only that but showing the dirty ancient engines (which are ugly) on a site designed to advertise PASSENGER service doesn't juice the appetite to ride (maybe to you guys, yeah, but not the average Jane/Joe). What year were they designed?

The P42s? You're kidding right, mid-1990's. They're Amtrak's workhorse engine for all long distance routes. They have driven that route for the last decade (plus), and are effectively Amtrak's most modern LD diesel. They have newer engines but none that could pull a LD train. They are far from ancient... middle-aged, maybe... not ancient by any standards of the word.

 

[wayman]

Isn't it interesting how much information a discussion about one picture can generate?

A badly done one at that.

To be fair, only one aspect of it is badly done. The composition is great, and it's a composition that suits itself very well for cropping into a banner format. It's not the photographer's fault.

It's just that the edited version of the photo on the website terribly grainy, probably because they super-compressed the image down to 52 KB for the website. I suspect the original is much sharper, and that they could replace that version with a sharper image with a larger filesize if they wished, but that they chose to compress it as far as possible to minimize page-load times. It's a trade-off webmasters have to make, and this webmaster went overboard on the compression, in my opinion! (It's possible the original is actually a grainy slide, but I doubt it.)

...not only that but showing the dirty ancient engines (which are ugly) on a site designed to advertise PASSENGER service doesn't juice the appetite to ride (maybe to you guys, yeah, but not the average Jane/Joe). What year were they designed?

The P42s are the engines used throughout non-electrified Amtrak territory, nationwide, with a few exceptions. They're the only Amtrak diesels you'll ever see in regular service in Virginia. And they're not ancient: they were built in 1996. (Compare to the AEM-7 electrics, from 1979. They count as "ancient" now.)

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

The P42s are the engines used throughout non-electrified Amtrak territory, nationwide, with a few exceptions. And they're not ancient: they were built in 1996. (Compare to the AEM-7 electrics, from 1979. They count as "ancient" now.)

Even there the F59s only drive short-haul non-electrified trains, They don't run long distance.

In fact when they were introduced in many ways the P42s were state of the art-- they may be a little behind these days, but not nearly near the end of their service life. We'll see P42s well into the 2010's.

 

[Philzy]

The P42s are the engines used throughout non-electrified Amtrak territory, nationwide, with a few exceptions. And they're not ancient: they were built in 1996. (Compare to the AEM-7 electrics, from 1979. They count as "ancient" now.)

Even there the F59s only drive short-haul non-electrified trains, They don't run long distance.

In fact when they were introduced in many ways the P42s were state of the art-- they may be a little behind these days, but not nearly near the end of their service life. We'll see P42s well into the 2010's.

With Amtrak's lack of being able to purchase new equipment, I'm sure they'll stay longer than that. just my

 

[AlanB]

Amtrak is pulling the P40, the P42's older cousin, out of mothballs. So I'm sure that we'll be seeing the P42's around for several more years.

 

[battalion51]

It actually has to be somewhat recent. At least post-2004. The AMTK 43 is in the lead, and it has a bolted nose job. IIRC they switched to the bolted nose back in the latter part of 04 or beginning of 05. Was this thing the perfect set up? No. You can see the baggage car door open, and a lackluster paint job on it, but you have to give credit to a degree. At least this isn't super photo-shopped as Amtrak has done MANY MANY times. So at least it's authentic.

As far as the P-42's being ancient, you do have to kind of laugh to a degree. The original portion of the fleet (AMTK 1-111) were built in 96 and 97. So this portion of the fleet is about 13 years old right now. Meanwhile when the orders for the P-40's went in the oldest F-40 was about 14 or 15 years old (the first F-40 rolled out in 76, and the P-40's rolled in 93). If you look at the SDP40F's those weren't around for more than 10 years. So if you go based on Amtrak's track record we should be seeing the new diesels within the next year or two. :lol: