Delivering next generation Acela

[peteski]

Even that one is easier on the eyes than the new Acela.

[nkalanaga]

How about this one?  The 1942 Talgo prototype:
https://imgur.com/6jZ1Wsa


Various descriptions I've seen online include "catfish-looking thing", "an eel that swallowed a Buick", and "a caterpillar".  This thing is ugly enough that I wouldn't mind having one.

A little off-topic, but the Atlas "kids line", battery-powered HO, has a passenger train loosely based on the Acela.  One of the model magazines reviewed it.  Just glancing at it, to me, it looked more like a version of the Talgo.  The Atlas cars have two axles each, unlike the Talgo, but it looks more like a Talgo than the Acela.

[peteski]

How about this one?  The 1942 Talgo prototype:
https://imgur.com/6jZ1Wsa


Various descriptions I've seen online include "catfish-looking thing", "an eel that swallowed a Buick", and "a caterpillar".  This thing is ugly enough that I wouldn't mind having one.

Yes, not very elegant, but at least the curvature of the front car/locomotive matches the rest of the consist 

[nkalanaga]

True, but that's about all I can say for the styling.

At least the "Amtubes" had an excuse.  For budget reasons, they were basically de-motored Metroliners.  To me, they didn't look any worse than the old heavyweight passenger cars, and for a similar reason.  They were designed for function, not styling, and were intended to be pulled by whatever was available.  They were never intended to match the locomotives, unlike the new Acelas. 

I agree, if one is designing a train, not just a car or locomotive, the whole thing should match.

[peteski]

At least the "Amtubes" had an excuse.  For budget reasons, they were basically de-motored Metroliners.  To me, they didn't look any worse than the old heavyweight passenger cars, and for a similar reason.  They were designed for function, not styling, and were intended to be pulled by whatever was available.  They were never intended to match the locomotives, unlike the new Acelas. 

I actually like the Amfleet car styling (especially in the Phase III scheme).  They rounded shape reminds me of an airliner fuselage (American Airlines jets at that time also has bare-metal fuselage with the patriotic re/white/blue cheatline).  Very elegant IOM.  I miss those simple airliner liveries compared to some of the crazy stuff the have on jetliners nowadays.  But I digress . . .

[nkalanaga]

I didn't mind them either, as they don't look bad, although I saw very few in service.  By the time they were common, we were in Kentucky, and not near a passenger route.  The Amfleet I cars were around before then, but not on the Empire Builder.  They looked a little odd mixed with older equipment, but no more so than heavyweight/streamlined mixes, which the SP&S ran until Amtrak took over.

[delamaize]

At the absolute minimum, Why couldn't they have made blisters for the sides of the locomotives to make them match the coaches.....

I mean if they are going to base it on the TGV, they should take more hints from the TGV.
I mean, I assume they mean that it uses the Avelia Horizon as the basis for this new trainset, but jesus, this is bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avelia_Horizon

The other thing I can't wrap my head around, Why do we (as in Americans) always insist on making our own version of something that works elsewhere? Why not just use the off the shelf TGV or ICE design, and make whatever electrical and safety changes, rather than make this mess?

EDIT:
It looks like the coaches might be based on TGV, but, to me the locos look more like these Talgos:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVE_Class_102

[Ed Kapuscinski]

The other thing I can't wrap my head around, Why do we (as in Americans) always insist on making our own version of something that works elsewhere? Why not just use the off the shelf TGV or ICE design, and make whatever electrical and safety changes, rather than make this mess?

Because USA! USA! USA!

[AlwaysSolutions]

I thought some fancy moldings could be bolted on to the loco to blend it in but nope.  It looks even worse from the back side:

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Cringe.

[CBQ Fan]

How about this one?  The 1942 Talgo prototype:
https://imgur.com/6jZ1Wsa


Various descriptions I've seen online include "catfish-looking thing", "an eel that swallowed a Buick", and "a caterpillar".  This thing is ugly enough that I wouldn't mind having one.

A little off-topic, but the Atlas "kids line", battery-powered HO, has a passenger train loosely based on the Acela.  One of the model magazines reviewed it.  Just glancing at it, to me, it looked more like a version of the Talgo.  The Atlas cars have two axles each, unlike the Talgo, but it looks more like a Talgo than the Acela.

Makes me think of a F-102!

[peteski]

Makes me think of a F-102!

Or of a SR-71.

[nkalanaga]

Mike:  Part of the reason we redesign everything is that our safety standards are different, at the basic levels.  And that, in turn, derives from different design standards.  Most European equipment is still designed based on  their coupler design, which used the center screw-link for pulling, and the buffers for pushing.  When pushing, or in a collision, the forces are transmitted through the side sills.

We, on the other hand, both push and pull with a single, center coupler, usually through the center sill, and the sides serve little purpose.  So, our safety standards are based around that. 

The other difference is that our freight trains are much heavier than the usual European trains, and our collision standards are based on impacts between those.  A European passenger train, hitting, or being hit by, one of our freights, would simply disintegrate.  Unless they've changed their standards in the last 20 years or so, our train would probably split theirs in two, lengthwise, with massive loss of life.

[CBQ Fan]

Or of a SR-71.

Now that is just wrong!

[C855B]

Mike:  Part of the reason we redesign everything is that our safety standards are different, at the basic levels. ...

Also... Euro, Japanese and Chinese track and infrastructure, especially those supporting high-speed trains, meet a much higher standard of construction and maintenance than we are willing to fund here. Their lightweight designs would not survive the beating they would take on our network of highly variable quality.

[Maletrain]

Or of a SR-71.

If they could make high speed trains come anywhere near the SR-71's speed, we would really revolutionize the passenger rail industry!  (But grade crossings would get real interesting!