Engine numbers photoshopped out of "Amtrak America"

[Tracktwentynine]

I noticed recently that in the 2010/2011 version of "Amtrak America", the publication describing routes and destinations, that in every instance, the engine numbers have been photoshopped out of the images. The cover, for instance, has a great shot of the Empire Builder, in which the engine numbers should be clearly visible. But there aren't any numbers on the engines.

I checked the System Timetable, but it doesn't have all that many photos anyway. Most of the photos there include the engine number. I also looked at the only other copy of "Amtrak America" that I have, the 2007/2008 edition. In there, it's about half and half.

The one place I was able to see an engine number was just a partial. In "Amtrak America" 2010/2011 on page 4, the number 3 is visible on the rear of the second unit (rear facing). But the side numbers on both locos and the front number on the front loco are absent.

I find this curious. Any thoughts on why this is the case?

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Subject came up in the Town Hall meeting. Something about if your train derails/wrecks you (people) are not going to want to see the that engine number on an photo. Did not understand it then, still don't get it now. Maybe some recalls it better. I do recall it was one of the few question that Mr. Boardman did not have an reply for. (His staff handle it for him)

 

[Guest]

Trust me - as an Amtrak employee - people get VERY confused when they see numbers painted anywhere on trains!! They see a number 6 painted on an engine, and they assume that must be the California Zephyr. They see a 37006 on a car, and think that is the number that should be on their ticket...it just makes such things FAR less confusing to photoshop them out!

 

[Guest]

Plus, is the exact same engine always used on a particular route; never changing even when maintenance or scheduling would otherwise require it?

I am sure that some Amtrak lawyer is worried if they disclose a particular engine number thru a published photo, that if a different engine was used, someone a-hole would sue.

 

[jis]

Plus, is the exact same engine always used on a particular route; never changing even when maintenance or scheduling would otherwise require it?

I am sure that some Amtrak lawyer is worried if they disclose a particular engine number thru a published photo, that if a different engine was used, someone a-hole would sue.

Yes indeed that can happen, specially from deranged railfans

"See I bought a sleeper ticket for a thousand bucks on this train to be close to my favorite P42 number 666 for the journey. Your ad said that would be it. But it wasn't. So I want my money back! And I want damages for mental anguish caused by false advertising, to cover my shrink's bills, and triple damages of course!"

You can bet there will be a 6 page thread on this forum on that subject.

But all joking aside, I am quite sure that is a significant consideration.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Subject came up in the Town Hall meeting. Something about if your train derails/wrecks you (people) are not going to want to see the that engine number on an photo. Did not understand it then, still don't get it now.

Doesn't make any sense to me either. Although I must point out that many of the "photos" in my Amtrak route guide are not actually photos of trains but are instead carefully merged (and overly reflective) computer models set against photo backdrops. Now that's far more curious to me than whatever happened with the engine numbers. But speaking of the town hall meeting, what else came up?

Trust me - as an Amtrak employee - people get VERY confused when they see numbers painted anywhere on trains!

The first time I ever rode a bus (elementary school) I was confused about which number meant what. Ever since then I've accepted that there will be various unrelated numbers on buses, trains, planes, boats, and taxicabs. Any adult who can't figure this out on their own is not worth catering to.

They see a number 6 painted on an engine, and they assume that must be the California Zephyr. They see a 37006 on a car, and think that is the number that should be on their ticket...it just makes such things FAR less confusing to photoshop them out!

I don't think easily confused people would even remember which tiny number was in which location on a photo of a train in a book.

I am sure that some Amtrak lawyer is worried if they disclose a particular engine number thru a published photo, that if a different engine was used, someone a-hole would sue.

Since you're so sure this is the concern I would like you to provide some evidence of a successful lawsuit based on nothing more than an engine photo in a route guide. Heck, I'll even accept unsuccessful lawsuits that make it past the first motion to dismiss.

 

[battalion51]

Number confuse the traveling public. I'll never forget this, standing on the platform in Delray Beach, P098 pulling in right on time with the AMTK 94 leading, and woman in her 60's saying "Oh that's not our train, that's train 94." I'm sure if it weren't for the requirements of the FRA/AAR requiring visible engine numbers Amtrak (and many passenger railroads) would love to cut down on confusion and have blank numbers on the engines and cars. But alas...

 

[oldtimer]

Subject came up in the Town Hall meeting. Something about if your train derails/wrecks you (people) are not going to want to see the that engine number on an photo. Did not understand it then, still don't get it now. Maybe some recalls it better. I do recall it was one of the few question that Mr. Boardman did not have an reply for. (His staff handle it for him)

I can relate to that answer as former 35+ year employee of Amtrak's mechanical department, I can tell you that at a time in the past Amtrak had an engine that was nicknamed "Old Blood and Guts" as it was involved in an abnormally high number of fatal grade crossing accidents.

This name was given to it by the engine crews and the mechanical forces. The FRA even came out to do a special brake test on it and found that it actually applied the braking forces a few fractions of a second quicker then other similar engines.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I'm sure if it weren't for the requirements of the FRA/AAR requiring visible engine numbers Amtrak (and many passenger railroads) would love to cut down on confusion and have blank numbers on the engines and cars. But alas...

Some aircraft have nearly invisible identifiers that are apparently allowed by law. The numbers are still there but they're very difficult to read as the identifier is very close in color to the rest of the plane. If Amtrak really wants to address this it might make more sense to put up a remotely changeable electronic notification board of some sort. That way it's obvious which train is which, including for stations that have no track signage of their own.

 

[MikeM]

At the town hall meeting, the explanation was this. If a given locomotive was involved in a tragic accident (like a major derailment, grade crossing accident, etc), management didn't want to have anyone coming back and saying "Locomotive # X, which was pictured on the front of the Amtrak time table this year, collided with a propane truck and obliterated East Podunk AK last night". Then everyone who has a timetable would look at it and it'd be another hook for the accident.

Probably a bit overly sensitive, but they run the railroad, not that big of a thing.

 

[MattW]

Couldn't Amtrak do something like VRE does and stick a letter in front of the numbers? It might help with the train number confusion a little.

 

[leemell]

I'm sure if it weren't for the requirements of the FRA/AAR requiring visible engine numbers Amtrak (and many passenger railroads) would love to cut down on confusion and have blank numbers on the engines and cars. But alas...

Some aircraft have nearly invisible identifiers that are apparently allowed by law. The numbers are still there but they're very difficult to read as the identifier is very close in color to the rest of the plane. If Amtrak really wants to address this it might make more sense to put up a remotely changeable electronic notification board of some sort. That way it's obvious which train is which, including for stations that have no track signage of their own.

The FAA rules:

Experimentals (<180 kts), Gliders and Light-Sport Aircraft (LSA) can display 3-inch tall N-numbers. Other aircraft, as detailed in FAR §45.29, must display 12-inch high registration numbers..

(1)...Be painted on

the aircraft or affixed by any other means insuring a similar degree of

permanence;

(2) Have no ornamentation;

(3) Contrast in color with the background; and

(4) Be legible.

 

[leemell]

Subject came up in the Town Hall meeting. Something about if your train derails/wrecks you (people) are not going to want to see the that engine number on an photo. Did not understand it then, still don't get it now.

They see a number 6 painted on an engine, and they assume that must be the California Zephyr. They see a 37006 on a car, and think that is the number that should be on their ticket...it just makes such things FAR less confusing to photoshop them out!

I don't think easily confused people would even remember which tiny number was in which location on a photo of a train in a book.

You underestimate the lack of observation, understanding, ability to follow directions, and sometimes general intelligence of some of the general public. I have had to lead people to the coach cars even when explained what and where they were and the car number was pointed out just 10 feet away. Some could not understand the difference between coach and sleeper. They will remember unimportant things like engine numbers and give them a significance they do not deserve. The list is endless as anyone who has worked in a position that interacts with the public can tell you. The thing you have to remember, if you can think of it, it will, and probably already has happened.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Some aircraft have nearly invisible identifiers that are apparently allowed by law. The numbers are still there but they're very difficult to read as the identifier is very close in color to the rest of the plane.

The FAA rules:

I admire your faith in the rule of law applying equally to all, but reality would appear to contradict you.

Take a look at this photo...

If you look closely you'll see there is actually a registration ID but as you can imagine it's hard as heck to read on a moving aircraft. This is not an alteration and it's not just one aircraft. I've seen these same sorts of nearly invisible registrations on aircraft at my own airport. I'm not sure what they're used for but unverified speculation has included diplomatic transport, prisoner exchange, and various forms of rendition. I'm not entirely sure which set of rules governs such aircraft but they're apparently legal to fly in the US and elsewhere.

The thing you have to remember, if you can think of it, it will, and probably already has happened.

Says the man who apparently couldn't imagine a plane might be allowed to carry a nearly invisible registration?

 

[rrdude]

Trust me - as an Amtrak employee - people get VERY confused when they see numbers painted anywhere on trains!! They see a number 6 painted on an engine, and they assume that must be the California Zephyr. They see a 37006 on a car, and think that is the number that should be on their ticket...it just makes such things FAR less confusing to photoshop them out!

Years ago, they Photoshopped, well I guess "no" 'cause Adobe Photoshop wasn't even invented then, they "air-brushed" out the pantographs on the top of the Amtrak GG1's....

 

[spacecadet]

I admire your faith in the rule of law applying equally to all, but reality would appear to contradict you.

Take a look at this photo...

If you look closely you'll see there is actually a registration ID but as you can imagine it's hard as heck to read on a moving aircraft. This is not an alteration and it's not just one aircraft. I've seen these same sorts of nearly invisible registrations on aircraft at my own airport. I'm not sure what they're used for but unverified speculation has included diplomatic transport, prisoner exchange, and various forms of rendition. I'm not entirely sure which set of rules governs such aircraft but they're apparently legal to fly in the US and elsewhere.

I don't think you can compare a contractor for the CIA with a scheduled air carrier. For one thing, they don't operate under the same FAR. And FAR part 45 makes various exceptions to the rules about displaying registration markings that may apply to these flights.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I don't think you can compare a contractor for the CIA with a scheduled air carrier. For one thing, they don't operate under the same FAR. And FAR part 45 makes various exceptions to the rules about displaying registration markings that may apply to these flights.

I absolutely agree. The original comment was meant more as an aside and not an actual recommendation for Amtrak, although I probably could have been a little clearer about that. The sad thing is that these planes are probably used for all sorts of heinous things that go against my morals but we'll leave that discussion for another time. As for Amtrak numbers I think we have the full story as multiple people have posted roughly the same explanation. The only question I still have is why they use computer generated trainsets in some their photos. :huh:

 

[RTOlson]

When has Amtrak used computer-generated models for its photos? Can you link to an example?

The only thing I can think of that is most likely fake is the train set depicted on the paper Amtrak luggage tag.

 

[sportbiker]

One reason people might confuse the approach of Engine 94 for route 94: City busses! They typically have a head sign that includes the route number in big, bold digits. I suspect people are just transferring that background knowledge to the approaching train.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

When has Amtrak used computer-generated models for its photos? Can you link to an example?

This is a physical booklet I'm talking about. Namely the route guide that says "Amtrak 2010/2011 America" on the cover. There's probably an online version somewhere but I'm not sure it would be as easy to spot the difference on a computer screen. Specific examples of computer generated trainsets would be the CZ in Ruby Canyon on Pages 36-37 and the Empire Builder at Glacier Park on pages 54-55. The look of the trains is close to a real train but is off just enough to be noticeable. They're a little too clean, a little too smooth, a little too reflective, and just don't match-up with the rest of the shot as well as a real train would. There is no way I'm the first person to notice this on AU?!

 

[MrFSS]

When has Amtrak used computer-generated models for its photos? Can you link to an example?

This is a physical booklet I'm talking about. Namely the route guide that says "Amtrak 2010/2011 America" on the cover. There's probably an online version somewhere but I'm not sure it would be as easy to spot the difference on a computer screen. Specific examples of computer generated trainsets would be the CZ in Ruby Canyon on Pages 36-37 and the Empire Builder at Glacier Park on pages 54-55. The look of the trains is close to a real train but is off just enough to be noticeable. They're a little too clean, a little too smooth, a little too reflective, and just don't match-up with the rest of the shot as well as a real train would. There is no way I'm the first person to notice this on AU?!

I remember discussions on this topic in years past here on AU.

We have even seen trains that have been "rebuilt" to look much nicer than an original one. Baggage cars removed, extra cars added, etc.

 

[leemell]

Some aircraft have nearly invisible identifiers that are apparently allowed by law. The numbers are still there but they're very difficult to read as the identifier is very close in color to the rest of the plane.

The FAA rules:

I admire your faith in the rule of law applying equally to all, but reality would appear to contradict you.

Take a look at this photo...

If you look closely you'll see there is actually a registration ID but as you can imagine it's hard as heck to read on a moving aircraft. This is not an alteration and it's not just one aircraft. I've seen these same sorts of nearly invisible registrations on aircraft at my own airport. I'm not sure what they're used for but unverified speculation has included diplomatic transport, prisoner exchange, and various forms of rendition. I'm not entirely sure which set of rules governs such aircraft but they're apparently legal to fly in the US and elsewhere.

The thing you have to remember, if you can think of it, it will, and probably already has happened.

Says the man who apparently couldn't imagine a plane might be allowed to carry a nearly invisible registration?

As some one already pointed out, there are exceptions for some other than scheduled air service.

In addition, even at 12 inches, that is not even the size of the windows on this picture, and if it is another color, even a little, it satisfies the FAR.

 

[RTOlson]

When has Amtrak used computer-generated models for its photos? Can you link to an example?

This is a physical booklet I'm talking about. Namely the route guide that says "Amtrak 2010/2011 America" on the cover. There's probably an online version somewhere but I'm not sure it would be as easy to spot the difference on a computer screen. Specific examples of computer generated trainsets would be the CZ in Ruby Canyon on Pages 36-37 and the Empire Builder at Glacier Park on pages 54-55. The look of the trains is close to a real train but is off just enough to be noticeable. They're a little too clean, a little too smooth, a little too reflective, and just don't match-up with the rest of the shot as well as a real train would. There is no way I'm the first person to notice this on AU?!

I can't seem to find "Amtrak America" online (although I could order it via mail if I really wanted to). I'd be interested to see it.

Sight unseen, I would generally believe that Amtrak starts with images of real trainsets and then photomanipulates the images to within an inch of their lives. That said, I suppose it's possible they would use a CGI image, but it seems impractical to me.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

As some one already pointed out, there are exceptions for some other than scheduled air service. In addition, even at 12 inches, that is not even the size of the windows on this picture, and if it is another color, even a little, it satisfies the FAR.

Leemell, it looks like you're just debating with yourself at this point and quite frankly I couldn't care less which of your various views wins. As I said before the original comment was nothing more than an aside.

Sight unseen, I would generally believe that Amtrak starts with images of real trainsets and then photomanipulates the images to within an inch of their lives. That said, I suppose it's possible they would use a CGI image, but it seems impractical to me.

Both the booklet and the shipping are free. You can also find them at any number of Amtrak stations. If you can't be bothered to request that one be delivered to your door at no cost to you then I guess there's nothing more I can do to convince you.

 

[RTOlson]

Both the booklet and the shipping are free. You can also find them at any number of Amtrak stations. If you can't be bothered to request that one be delivered to your door at no cost to you then I guess there's nothing more I can do to convince you.

^^

Of course, even if I ordered it today, there would be no chance of my receiving it to continue this conversation at this time, right? It would take at least a few days…

You raise very good points about obtaining Amtrak America. I may flip through an Amtrak America the next time I'm traveling through, but I don't necessarily want to add it to my in-home "collection" of stuff. It's already too big.