Transport Tycoon Forums

After a surprising increase in passenger train interest along the Portland-Seattle corridor, ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation) is ordering two new Talgo trainsets in order to increase the frequency of the already-existing Cascades service as well as preserving the extension train service from Portland to Eugene. The original article is here: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/COMM/TalgoHome.shtml

In my opinion, it is unfortunate that Talgo is designing the control cabs: I do not like Talgo's choice of styling for their control cabs with their low noses and high, steep windscreens. Does anyone have any thoughts on the topic?

An ugly train is still a train - and in the US (outside of the NEC) any new passenger train is great news!

Quack quack?

This one's probably intended to imitate an eagle. Good news.

Speaking about trains that look like things, the last time somebody made a comment about the Hayabusa, it resulted in a forum temper-tantrums...

Dromedary.

Edit: As for the O/P that looks awful. Like an american school bus!

Ameecher wrote:Edit: As for the O/P that looks awful. Like an american school bus!

And existing trains don't?

EDIT: see next post for more relevant information.

JamieLei wrote:

Ameecher wrote:Edit: As for the O/P that looks awful. Like an american school bus!

And existing trains don't?

I disagree, American trains have much taller hoods than the one in the original picture I posted, as well as being much more angular like the F40ph you posted.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that American trains often were engineered very different than their European counterparts. Back in the 1930s, for example, steam power in this country was designed to thrive in rough condition unknown to Europe. Plus, while British freight cars in particular, generally carried less than 20 tons of freight per car, we were tripling that in those days!

Yeah, American trains are often ugly ducklings compared to their European counterparts, but ours are made to get the job done! When was the last time you all saw a ballerina roofing a house, or a burly construction guy dancing 'Swan Lake'?

Railwaymodeler wrote:Yeah, American trains are often ugly ducklings compared to their European counterparts, but ours are made to get the job done! When was the last time you all saw a ballerina roofing a house, or a burly construction guy dancing 'Swan Lake'?

The functionality is often a large element of their beauty, my issue with this one is that they've tried to round the classic America loco shape and they've ballsed it up big time.

Agreed. This locomotive just looks bad. The functional appearance of steam and first generation diesels, are one thing. This, is just bad. Ford Edsel bad.

Railwaymodeler wrote:Agreed. This locomotive just looks bad. The functional appearance of steam and first generation diesels, are one thing. This, is just bad. Ford Edsel bad.

Yep, and they're going into service in August.

In any sensible world, that train would have a flat front. The nose is purely down to FRA crashworthiness requirements and wouldn't be required if your countrymen didn't see flashing lights as a challenge.

I imagine the visibility is a lot better than in the F40. As for the AVE 102 and the Hayabusa, those nose styles are a completely different kettle of fish - they're aerodynamically designed for specific purposes (reduction in noise or piston effect) at high speeds, which isn't really an issue for Amtrak...

Originally, these sets were supposed to be used on Chicago to Madison services, but then the Wisconsin legislative branch stopped it, after investing 70 million dollars into it, saying they would save 10 million dollars a year. That's why the Cab set looks weird, It was a new set designed for a new service.

PikkaBird wrote:In any sensible world, that train would have a flat front. The nose is purely down to FRA crashworthiness requirements and wouldn't be required if your countrymen didn't see flashing lights as a challenge.

If that's the case, does anyone know if that's the reason the 37s also have a stupid shaped nose? Admittedly they do seem to do the crumple-zone duty rather well in crashes.

The ends don't crumple though, they just bend.

Looks pretty crumpled to me

Could very well be a design necessity too, they lacked storage in the middle so they went to the front. But crumple zones are more likely.

Having such long noses isn't a requirement for crumple zones though: all modern European MU's have crumple zones in front yet they don't have a long nose. It's just the way you incorporate it in your design.

Spacek531 wrote:

New talgo cab.png

Well now we know what a Brinks security van on rail track would look like.

And no one would have even thought of the concept of crumple zones in the late '50s, it's more just a packaging issue with all the systems of the day.

Strange thing to me is that they say Talgo trains were ordered for compatibility reasons with existing trainsets on the line. While this may be true for the coaches itself, as far as I can tell, the engines on the existing sets are different. I don't know the exact type of the existing sets, but it looks like an FP49H or something. So why did they choose to order also the engines from Talgo now?