Delivering next generation Acela

[eric220]

I remember thinking, “Geez that thing is ugly” when this came out:

The delivered product took the horrible proposed paint, made it worse, and destroyed the profile. It’s clear that Amtrak wanted a viewliner-inspired profile, but FFS...

[nkalanaga]

The main reason we don't have high-speed track is that American railroads, from the very beginning, have been designed for freight service.  You can't run high-speed passenger trains and heavy freight on the same track, because you can't bank the curves correctly for both speeds.

Even in Europe and Asia, the true high-speed track is passenger-only.  Where the TGV, ICE, or other high-speed trains run on shared track, their speeds aren't much higher than other passenger trains.

Trains Magazine had a report years ago about a high-speed rail conference in Philadelphia.  While our representatives were drooling over other countries' trains, they were amazed at what we had done on the Northeast Corridor.  The speeds weren't anything to brag about, but the fact that we regularly ran heavy freight and 125 mph passenger on the same track amazed them.  They didn't think it would work.

[dougnelson]

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

Honey, I forgot to hire the designer.

[Point353]

Honey, I forgot to hire the designer.

Or, they went with the lowest bidder.

[Hawghead]

I would think it is more an issue of form following function.  I think in this country 95% of people riding a train don't care what it looks like.

Scott

[peteski]

Now that is just wrong!

Just to be clear, I was comparing SR-71 to the  1942 Talgo nkalanga brought up, not to the latest Acela abomination.  You have to admit that the Talgo's "cockpit" window shape and arrangement is quite similar to the SR-71s. Even more so than to a F-102. 

[peteski]

I would think it is more an issue of form following function.  I think in this country 95% of people riding a train don't care what it looks like.

Scott

But form doesn't have to follow function. You can have functional vehicles, which also have a eye-pleasing appearance.  And with everything nowadays designed in CAD, this is easier than ever to achieve.

The shape mismatch between the loco and cars is inexcusable (especially for supposedly high-speed train).  Lets hope that this is going to get worked out before they roll out the production units.

[CBQ Fan]

Just to be clear, I was comparing SR-71 to the  1942 Talgo nkalanga brought up, not to the latest Acela abomination.  You have to admit that the Talgo's "cockpit" window shape and arrangement is quite similar to the SR-71s. Even more so than to a F-102. 

I understood it that way and I maintain my position of calling a foul on the play!

[nkalanaga]

Peteski:  I got your comparison, and yes, there is a distinct resemblance.  I wonder if the SR-71 designers ever say a picture of the Talgo I?

And I agree, regardless of ones opinion of the new Acela's appearance, the mismatch between the loco and cars is inexcusable.  Since they are designed to be a set, and it isn't intended to run with different types of locomotives, they should match.  After all, even if "form follows function", part of the "function" of the loco body is give the product the desired appearance!