They exist and are FRA compliant. Orders have been placed by Marin County and by Toronto. Just a matter of others ordering more. Sumitomo is the supplier.
I think just the lead end, not both ends. I've seen plenty of Cascades consists where there was no cabbage/NPCU, just a locomotive on the front and a "batmobile" look on the rear.
The Talgos and California fleet have God-awful paint schemes that should never have been agreed to. Example: look at North Carolina, it's a variation on existing colors, not the same, but it works beautifully. Oregon, Washington, and California wanted a branding and culture very separate from Amtrak, whether right or wrong is another topic i guess, but when the cars are shuffled around into different trains the result is off. If Amtrak was willing to put up a little more, it could have preserved it's bargainiing leverage.
I think Amtrak should have insisted that all their trains whether owned by them or the states, should match Amtrak's livery. If they had to 'throw the states a bone', for financing the cars, it should have been something simple, like choosing an appropriate name. What if Amtrak did insist? What would the states do, refuse to finance the car? Or find another operatior?
Really, you're concerned about matching paint schemes?
Well it's not a really big deal, but personal opinion....
But Amtrak California is a separate company. They own much of the equipment and they contract with Amtrak to run the services.
The employees are Amtrak? they wear Amtrak (not "Amtrak California") uniforms, etc.? When Amtrak operated some contracted commuter services like MBTA, they were clearly differentiated and dedicated to those services. I don't think it's the same in this instance. Nor for the North Carolina services.
Many European countries' regional routes use unique livery. It helps one realize what train they're looking at, which can actually be helpful to passengers, as well as for "branding" purposes.
The simple answer is that Caltrans pays the bill, so what they say goes. They don't even allow their equipment to leave the state without explicit permission, because if they do they know they won't see it again for a while, Amtrak and the frieght railroads are constantly loosing track of cars.
The political intention going forward is clearly to divvy up Amtrak and spin off the State funded services as separate organizations, even though they may be operated by Amtrak in some instances. If I am a state and I am paying for something, why would I want to be hamstrung by less that spectacular service provided by Amtrak is beyond me. Now if Amtrak were actually capable of providing world class service that would strengthen their case a bit more.
I think some track inspectors should be focusing their attention on where the track is loose. Might cause a derailment.
But they won't be allowed to call it Amtrak California, will they?
Such rebranding would be very minor. The routes themselves have their own branding (Pacific Surfliner and San Joaquin). "Amtrak California" isn't exactly a household name anywhere, and changing it to something else wouldn't take much effort at all, other than scrubbing off the "Amtrak" name from the side of the cars.
Changing branding is nothing massive. Many airlines do so almost regularly every 5 years or so. I think it is a complete non-issue in the broader scheme of things. Amtrak California was branded that way because it masde sense at the time. It says nothing about what may or may not happen down the line. However, if the peace of mind that one gets by believing otherwise is important......
