posted
ODOT has posted information about the assembly and delivery of their new Talgo trainsets. The 2 new trainsets are being assembled in Wisconsin and they should arrive in Seattle this June. After a training and familiarization period they'll be rolling on the Cascades corridor by fall. That's the good news. The bad news is--- OMG, take a look at the picture of the new cab car design! It looks more like a milk truck or UPS van than a modern, cutting-edge, 21st century rail vehicle.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
These are the second set of pictures I've seen of this "thing". It gets uglier the more I look at. What were they thinking????
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeez, it looks like the front of a school bus! Where is the pride in design?
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Much as any here would wish they could operate faster, the ODOT Talgos only go 80.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to move this topic away from "how they look' (really, their job is to handle people economically and efficiently, YET be adequately attractive to engender public acceptance) to a home for what I think will prove surplus equipment - the two Wisconsin Talgo sets.
For ready reference, here is an exchange between myself (hopefully you'll agree both are mature and respectful) and another member over at "the other site":
quote:GBN: Likely off-topic, but on-topic of sorts.
With this encouraging ridership report, maybe those Wisconsin Talgos will have a home after all. As I noted at another topic, for all I care send 'em back to Spain. However, the Seattle Portland route puts to good use the Talgo's "cornering' (whoops, that's an automobile term) capacities, as 30min was cut from the pre existing conventional equipment schedule.
Hopefully, an order for Midwest Corridor equipment will move forth and that equipment will be bi-level and bi-directional as well as sufficient in size to include the Chi-Milw "Hiawatha" service.
Finally, as a WAAAAYYY OT thought. I have to wonder if Wisconsin's Tea Party Republican Gov. Walker, who is confronted with a recall initiative at present, but likely will survive such (don't think "train hating" has much to do with it; try public employee union busting), may just refuse to turn these trains over to Amtrak for operation and have them sit somewhere conspicuously as a "monument to waste". That would be sort of an "NY Turbo in reverse"
quote:RESPONSE: I doubt that. If he stored brand new trains that the state had already paid for, people would probably accuse HIM of gov't waste. I think the only way the Talgos won't run on the Hiawatha is if they're sold to another state, and like you said WA and OR would likely be the only interested parties. It wouldn't even surprise me if he actually tried to take credit for the shiny new trains. Politicians often appear at ribbon cutting ceremonies to try to take credit for a project, even if they voted against starting the project in the first place. Although I don't expect him to do that, it would be too big a flip-flop for someone who made opposition to rail a campaign issue.
To get back on topic, does the Cascades route have enough capacity to run enough trains to require more trainsets? OR has already ordered 2 new trainsets.
I think the last point the respondent raises is most germane to discussion here considering the member resources we have from the West and Pacific NW.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the Cascades corridor is ready to take the WI sets. The current plan is to take the existing 5 Cascades trainsets and rearrange them into 4, longer trainsets. Then add the 2 new OR sets to create a pool of 6 sets: 5 to operate the daily schedule and one set as back-up or in maintenance. In 2017, the construction projects are scheduled to be done and 2 more roundtrips will be added between Seattle and Portland, maybe more service between Portland and Eugene and there is an outside possibility of another roundtrip to Vancouver BC. Then, all 6 trainsets will be needed.
In my opinion, if WI wants to sell off their Talgos, the perfect place for them would be on the long-rumored Coast Daylight between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The Talgos would handle the curves well, they are light enough for all the starts and stops required and they'd handle the hills well. Just a guess, but I'd expect the Talgos would beat the Superliners on that corridor by at least 60 minutes.
When I saw the picture of the cab car I thought of our old friend, wigwagfan, who always advocated for Ambus service between Portland and Eugene. Congratulations Erik, it's not exactly a bus, but it's just as ugly!
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thing may be descended from the legendary RGS Galloping Geese!
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are the older Talgo trainsets still up and running? If so, maybe they will have enough to think about a Talgo run betweeen Eugene and Sacramento. I also like Vincent's idea of turning them into a new Coast Daylight between LA and SF. If they can cook up some Talgo sleeper cars, maybe they can bring back an overnight run between LA and SF. By they way, with regard to Calif. HSR, I heard on the radio, today, that even cities and towns in the Bakersfield/Fresno areas are getting turned off to Calif. HSR.
Yes, the new Talgo looks like a milk truck. I was just wondering how many people have ever seen a milk truck? When growing up in my small town, the local dairy had one that would bring glass milk bottles to the front porch. They would also pick up our used milk bottles for recycling. We were enviornmentally savvy back then, even without an EPA. I think I'm dating myself!
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I too remember the milkman -- as a kid growing up in NE Ohio, they would deliver milk to the home usually early in the morning, and when you were done with the bottles, you put them back in the milk hatch and they were taken away.
Posts: 2428 | From: Grayling, MI | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Put a funky cowcatcher on the Talgo and the resemblance becomes stronger still!
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of geese, it looks like you could catch a few big birds with that vertical windshield and top overhang.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The new OR Talgos are being delivered without the rotating seats that are standard on the WA & Amtrak trainsets. This means that half the seats on every trip will be facing backwards when the OR trainsets are used. The job of turning the seats usually seems to fall on the onboard Talgo train tech, so I wonder why OR decided to not use the rotating seats.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vincent206: The new OR Talgos are being delivered without the rotating seats that are standard on the WA & Amtrak trainsets. This means that half the seats on every trip will be facing backwards when the OR trainsets are used. The job of turning the seats usually seems to fall on the onboard Talgo train tech, so I wonder why OR decided to not use the rotating seats.
The Japanese have developed and use a mechanical method of turning seats. Push a button and they start turning as a wave going down the car. Do not know how widely it is used. It is not considered acceptable to ride backwards there, and in several other countries, as well.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand that at all. Turning the seats is normal---it allows people to ride "forward". There are some things in life I guess I will never understand.....I mean, I picture in my mind a bunch of "suits" sitting around the table and someone suggests this goofy new plan. "How innovative! That's great, Bob! Thanks for thinking outside the box!". Blah.....
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Q: Since I've never had reason to be near this equipment (other than to observe them being deadheaded through CHI on 3-4), aren't the Surf and Capitol Liner cars configured with fixed seating?
Here in Chi, the Horizons all have their seating configured "center of car forward" (as distinct from "forward riding"). Business Class is always forward riding.
At least Amtrak's crown jewel, the NorthEast Corridor, is forward riding. Even if I'm a bean counter myself, I would be less than happy to learn of one of my ilk decreed how much would be saved if Midwest Corridor practices were adopted out there.
Better place your bets that the Midwest Corridor cars will have fixed seating. All told if forward riding is important (it is to me), best plan your trips from originating stations and show up early. Otherwise, fly or drive.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To which I will add this crashing non sequitur: Marc Mitscher, the World War II carrier admiral, always rode in his chair on the flag bridge facing aft. "Only a damned fool rides with the wind in his face," he told one reporter. "I like seeing where I've been," he told another.
As for me, I prefer riding with the sun at my back, whether the train is heading east or west.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately the California cars have fixed seats. The first sets were truly fixed. They did not even recline.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Q: Since I've never had reason to be near this equipment (other than to observe them being deadheaded through CHI on 3-4), aren't the Surf and Capitol Liner cars configured with fixed seating?
Here in Chi, the Horizons all have their seating configured "center of car forward" (as distinct from "forward riding"). Business Class is always forward riding.
At least Amtrak's crown jewel, the NorthEast Corridor, is forward riding. Even if I'm a bean counter myself, I would be less than happy to learn of one of my ilk decreed how much would be saved if Midwest Corridor practices were adopted out there.
Better place your bets that the Midwest Corridor cars will have fixed seating. All told if forward riding is important (it is to me), best plan your trips from originating stations and show up early. Otherwise, fly or drive.
Of all the countries on various continents I've visited, I think the US is the only one that invests vast amounts of money, space, and time in "flipping seats", as it were - for what purpose exactly? I suspect the average traveler doesn't actually mind too much which way they face. I know enough people who actually prefer riding "backwards" for the supposed safety and comfort issue. FWIW most other countries have 50:50 seating - mostly airline style, maybe a few tables to seat 4, but generally each half of the car generally faces towards the middle of that car.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's interesting, Geoff. I never really thought about it, but I guess I just assumed that they flipped the seats at the end of a run. I guess it would take getting used to (riding backwards), because when I'm in a Superliner Roomette, I always take the seat that has me facing forward. It just feels "funny" the other way.
BTW, there are some airlines that have their First and Biz Class passenger cabins with both forward and rearward facing seats. I think United's 747-400's Biz Class is like this.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I missed Mr. Harris' earlier comment about the Japanese culture - not one of the countries I've visited. However, from photos at least, it does seem limited to the premier trains (ie Shinkansen) rather than commuter services as well.
The reason I mention the costs involved: - Space: usually an entire row is "lost" due to the space required to flip/turn the seats - Time: Somebody has to flip all those seats. - Cost: Mechanics of making the seats flippable is usually more than a even a reclinable seat, plus maintenance issues.
I've been in a BA business class cabin with the alternate front/rear facing seats. If you don't know your seat companion, it's distinctly too close until you put the partition up. I was forward facing though (didn't have a choice) but I suspect the feeling is distinctly odd on take-off.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
We spend 6 days touring Japan on a rail pass several years ago, and I can say that, outside urban and suburban services, all trains have seats that can be and are rotated. One in particuarly I remember, the train reversed direction more or less mid route. At that point everyone in the car got up, rotated their seat and then sat back down facing forward in the new direction of travel. This was on a regular train on a secondary main in Hokkaido.
Likewise, with quite a few years in Taiwan, I can safely say that all classes of trains except EMU suburban stock had seats that rotated or flipped. The old bottom class locals had old style non-reclining "walkover" seats; that is the backs flipped. The suburban EMU's had longitudinal bench seats along each side.
The first of the Korean high speed trains were TGV except signage and paint job, including the seating. I have heard that there was such an uproar and negative effect on ridership that the seating was replaced with proper rotating seats. One thing heard was that many Korean women basically said, I am not riding a train sitting knee to knee with some strange man. Specific confirmation of the foregoing would be appreciated.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting discussion. It never entered my mind that anyone whould care which way their seat faced until reading about it here.
Our local light rail has the seats facing the middle of the car and I almost always ride "backwards" because of the part of the train I desire, nearest my exit and car.
In a Superliner roomette or bedroom I like to face forward so I can see what is coming for potential photos. So my husband sits backward and has never commented on it mattering.
-------------------- Vicki in usually sunny Southern California Posts: 951 | From: Redondo Beach, CA | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My father's old Airplane Design textbook (from the early 1950s) had an extensive chapter on the proposed design of a jet airliner. According to this text, the ideal jet airliner would:
Have a high wing, for better passenger visibility and stability, like the B-52.
Have a bicycle landing gear with outriggers, like the B-52.
Have four engines in two double pods, again like the B-52.
Seat between 44 and 56 passengers in four-abreast seating, with the seats mounted facing backwards "for safety".
Have an aisle depressed several inches below the seat mounting height, so passengers wouldn't hit their heads on the wing spar of the high wing.
Interesting that virtually NONE of the features this textbook touted wound up in the final design of any of the successful first-generation jetliners (B-707, DC-8, CV-880).
Posts: 413 | From: Houston, Texas | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geoff Mayo: I suspect the average traveler doesn't actually mind too much which way they face. I know enough people who actually prefer riding "backwards" for the supposed safety and comfort issue.
In fixed-seating Amtrak and commuter coaches, the forward-facing seats always fill first. I rarely see newly-boarding passengers choose to travel backward unless all "normal" seats are already taken. Rather than do so, many will even drag their belongings into the next car, figuring they'll have better luck.
Personally, I get motion sick when riding backward. I'm sure that others do, too.
For those of you who do prefer seeing where you've been, rather than what's up ahead. . . Would you feel equally comfortable about riding backward as an automobile passenger? Or while on board a Greyhound bus?
As for Amtrak's decision to install non-turning seats in the first place. . .
It comes down to money, sure. But looking at many Amtrak design choices -- from uncomfortably reconfigured cafe and dining cars to the ghastly interior lighting in sleepers and Acela coaches -- I've long suspected that Amtrak's senior decision makers (and design contractors) do relatively little traveling by rail. And that any "research and development" journeys they do take are short, giving them only a perfunctory snapshot of the pecularities of life aboard a train.
That's the equivalent of asking an "occasional" driver to design a new car interior for General Motors. In Amtrak's case, it often results in passenger-unfriendly designs that customers will be stuck with for years to come.
quote:Originally posted by dilly: I've long suspected that Amtrak's senior decision makers (and design contractors) do relatively little traveling by rail. And that any "research and development" journeys they do take are short, giving them only a perfunctory snapshot of the pecularities of life aboard a train.
This nails it. There are many things big and small about not just rail vehicles, but most other facets of public transit systems big and small that simply scream that form of ignorance.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: This nails it. There are many things big and small about not just rail vehicles, but most other facets of public transit systems big and small that simply scream that form of ignorance.
I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of the people who plan and administer U.S. public transit systems drive to work each day. And continue to drive all weekend long. I'm sure the same applies to those who actually design passenger rail cars and city buses.
It's a problem compounded by globalization and standardization. Increasingly, transit design work is being done -- by foreign designers -- in places very different from the U.S. city where the new rail car or bus may ultimately go into service.
In the practical, aesthetic, and even cultural sense, what works in Germany, Japan, or even Canada will not necessarily work well in New York City. What works in New York will not necessarily work well in Atlanta, Indianapolis, or L.A.
And since the Americans who manage the development and approval process are unlikely to be regular riders of the mass transit they're in charge of planning. . .
It's really the blind leading the blind.
As a result, you end up with foolishy flawed, very expensive, "what were they thinking?" rail and bus designs that can't handle cold weather, potholes, heavy rush hour crowds, rock salt on passengers' shoes, stop and go traffic, low tunnels, moderate amounts of luggage, tight downtown turns, or the ever-widening American butt.
That last point is meant to bring the discussion back to the Talgo. I'm barely five foot ten and weigh under 150 pounds. Yet I find the current Talgo seating cramped and uncomfortable -- no better than a Trailways bus seat at best.
As Americans grow even heftier during the years ahead, I can't imagine how they're going to fit.
quote:Originally posted by Geoff Mayo: I suspect the average traveler doesn't actually mind too much which way they face. I know enough people who actually prefer riding "backwards" for the supposed safety and comfort issue.
In fixed-seating Amtrak and commuter coaches, the forward-facing seats always fill first. I rarely see newly-boarding passengers choose to travel backward unless all "normal" seats are already taken. Rather than do so, many will even drag their belongings into the next car, figuring they'll have better luck.
Well, maybe that's a regional thing, as you say later on. Certainly in the few commuter trains around LA I've ridden recently, there were enough people in rear-facing seats at the start of the journey with open forward facing pairs of seats to justify the statement earlier.
As to whether I'd do it on a bus - probably less keen but it's like comparing apples and chicken. The more "deluxe" coaches (um, I think you'd call them motorcoaches) in Europe often have tables with groups of four seats - ie two forward, two backward. I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain. True, your regional comment may apply here too but I suspect it's more lack of exposure than an outright refusal to try.
Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
