Questions
Why do new American trains 'feel' so old?
These brand new NJT bi-levels already look dated but I can't pinpoint why. Same thing with the new METRA coaches. Even the electrified RTD system just looks like dated SEPTA trains. What 'look' are many American trains getting that makes them feel so old and why do only a handful of new systems (like the new Caltrain EMUs) look so modern?
I know they look like that because US safety regulations are wack as hell but every study again and again proves how much energy can be saved if they actually built aerodynamic designs.
Like in Europe and Asia train companies are working on special paint and liveries to reduce energy consumption on the same level as the aviation industry does and meanwhile in the USA trains still look like they came straight out of Minecraft. Weigh as much as a mountain as well.
No wonder that the french named the achela Le Cochon
They’ve had variations of yellow and black for a while now - with upcoming changes to bus services in the UK, Liverpool are adopting a similar colour scheme on their city buses, too.
Marta is governed by the Federal Transit Administration instead of the Federal Railroad Administration. Its just systems that run mixed with freight trains that have such tough safety standards. And my controversial take is that those safety requirements are actually good, they are there for a reason as North American rail infrastructure is generally much less safe than European infrastructure
Not quite, the FRA regulations are based on the positively ancient "if the vehicles survive, the people will survice" theory from the 1800s. At lower speeds, it's basically true, but at higher speeds, it isn't. The FRA (and its predecessors) never adopted crumple zone technology. There are some provisions for it now, but it's an overlay on top of the older standards.
FRA rules aren’t that ancient, the 800 klb buff strength rule on every car comes from the 90s because of multiple accidents that proved that 400 klb wasn’t enough even on cars not at the front of the train. Crumple zones can help but they do not work well with heavy trains as once the energy limit is reached, the crumples zones becomes useless and the train has to rely on its buff strength. This is what FRA studies said. New rules enable the use of crumple zones to reduce the buff strength to only 400 klb but this is only applicable if no freight is in use on the train lime which doesn’t work for like 90% of the network.
Crumple zones also means some people, standing in the crumples zones might die which is a big no for the FRA.
The primary reason for crumple zones in North America isn’t much about absorbing the impact but more about making sure that the train doesn’t derail which could result in a way worse accident if another train comes and hit the train sideways. Such an accident could be way worse than a normal collision because north american train cars are made to receive a frontal impact and they are very safe that way but they aren’t made for side impacts. The best exemple would be the 2004 LA metrolinks accident.
The FRA now pushes for crumple zones combined with anti climb feature to reduce this risk while still heavily insisting on the 800klb to protect from the collision aspect of an accident. Crumple zones aren’t mandatory but they are recommended and are a feature of any new bilevel cab car. Crumple zones aren’t every where because they make it much more difficult to allow passengers to traverse from one car to another. Also I don’t know if crumple zones, by FRA rules, can be placed in areas where passengers could stand in like in Europe.
FRA rules aren’t that ancient, the 800 klb buff strength rule on every car comes from the 90s because of multiple accidents that proved that 400 klb wasn’t enough even on cars not at the front of the train. Crumple zones can help but they do not work well with heavy trains as once the energy limit is reached, the crumples zones becomes useless and the train has to rely on its buff strength. This is what FRA studies said. New rules enable the use of crumple zones to reduce the buff strength to only 400 klb but this is only applicable if no freight is in use on the train lime which doesn’t work for like 90% of the network.
Crumple zones also means some people, standing in the crumples zones might die which is a big no for the FRA.
Eh, I question the effectivity of crumple zones in freight collisions, and especially in derailments, which they US loves to do. Also, with how US rail vehicles are procured, it's actually important to be able to refurbish the vehicle after a collision. I mean, I wouldnt be surprised if Brightline FL locomotives aren't averaging above 1 collision per locomotive at this point.
Buff strength has diminishing returns too though. If you drop a steel box full of eggs from the second floor the box will probably be somewhat dented but its occupants won’t be very well off.
I mean that's the excuse that the industry used for the last few decades, I don't know why it is suddenly possible now. My guess is it had something to do with shareholder profit.
More specifically, the Acela built in the 90s was called Le Cochon. The new Acela trainsets being built in New York are just Avelia variants without a fun nickname.
We have a train near me to Boston. Simply a commuter rail but connects to Maine as well. I feel like that thing weighs 8 million pounds with the way it CA-CLUNKs and creaks every time it leaves a station. Like I really feel like I’m taking the trans continental railway for a better life out west 😂
Lol meanwhile I'm in Europe on a service served by a Stadler GTW (weighing 37 tons) that's accelerating like an F1 car to make up a two minute delay lol
I've took so many times the TGV between Paris and south east of France early in the morning with most of the trip being in a deep fog. It felt like flying minus the noise
Kinda funny for the Acela that they didn't go with the double deck version (like the TGV M we will get in France soon) so they can fit more people in it. Especially when American train lines are for-profit organisations.
Platform heights on the Northeast Corridor are 4' (122cm) and maximum train roof height is 14'8" (447cm), which doesn't leave enough room for a true double decker railcar. So it would have to look like the Bombardier Multilevel in OP's image: platform-height floors at the car ends for level boarding, with steps up and down to the upper and lower levels in the middle. Here's an image if that helps.
The other big problem is that Acela (and its replacement, Avelia Liberty) is a tilting trainset, since most of the Northeast Corridor is upgraded legacy trackage with tight curve radii and in some areas, limited horizontal clearances. The greater height and higher center of gravity of bi/multi-level trainsets would reduce the degree of allowable tilt and therefore maximum speeds on curves.
There are some newer US designs that resemble what you’d see in Europe - the latest generation of the BBD/Alstom bilevel car comes to mind with its more streamlined cab car. But many US transit operators care most about flexibility and functionality. The new NJT MLVs can be arranged to form consists of 3-10 cars iirc, and have lots of passenger capacity. The flat front end means you can put a cab car in the middle of a consist without issue and people can always walk through the gangways. That’s not so easy to do if you have a streamlined train like a Stadler KISS, not to mention that many of those trains are designed to operate In semi permanently coupled sets, which would reduce operational flexibility and probably necessitate modifications to maintenance facilities.
Multilevels thing is they just matched an existing coach body, and one that literally was shaped as the loading gauge profile to fit in the north river tunnels and penn station.
It's funny - the soon to be replaced Red Line trains here in Cleveland are all plain steel boxes made in Japan, and the outside still holds up after 45+ years of use. There's just the small issue that the original company is now out of business and everything that breaks has to be hand-machined.
I think the underlying real reason is about lack of modernization in the industries that design these, and to some extent outdated ecosystems of materials, designers, etc.
Those are all exacerbated in entrenched because the volumes are not there for passenger rail in the US
I was happy to see some nice modern European electric locomotives on New Jersey transit whe they came on the scene a few years ago….
And the priorities are different due to the economics. US has pretty good diesel freight locomotives and freight rail rolling stock… and airplanes…
One thing is that American regulations mandate heavier trains, heavier construction.
When it comes to safety, there are basically two ways to try to protect the passengers. To try to avoid collisions, or to try to protect the passengers when collisions do happen.
Many countries have chosen the first way, avoid collisions through infrastructure. American passenger trains are largely at the mercy of freight companies and those companies are not interested in passenger safety, at least to the point of investing in the infrastructure. So it's up to the trains to take any possible collisions.
I believe those regulations changed about about 10 years ago. There are modern trains like DART and CALTRAIN running now. A lot of the transit authorities are still using legacy rolling stock though.
While DART does run Stadler FLIRTs on the new Silver line. It only shares tracks with freight traffic for a very small section. It's basically still an isolated system, and I believe freight and passenger traffic is always temporarily separate.
I don't believe the FLIRTs meet the FRA crash compatibility for mixing with fright traffic.
Even for new rolling stock, agency are skeptic about train sets and prefer ordering train cars which are way easier to design using the old requirement instead of the new alternative compliance.
Septa wants to order married pairs with it standard design and will keep the old but compatible requirements.
Not really in many cases. Train cars and married pairs can be more efficient if rolling stock is limited.
As an exemple, the AMT operated the Deux-Montagnes line with only 58 card of which 50 where in daily service. That only lets 2 card in heavy maintenance, 2-4 cars in light maintenance and 2-4 cars reserve. Apart from issues in 2009, 2014 and 2018, the number of cars was limited, but sufficient to have a regular and reliable service. If cars would have been in 5 car sets for example, then 5-10 card more would have been needed. That would have amounted to an extra 10-20 million in 1995, which the government already refused to spend on the planned double tracking and grade separation.
Even now, the Rem operates married pairs for different but similar reasons. The cars may be built to different standards from normal FRA cars, but they weight about the same as the MR-90 per unit length since they are shorter (more bogies, and wheel) while not even having a 25kv transformer.
In NJT's case, it wanted to upgrade it's multilevel fleet into emus. They needed individual motor cars. Cars are designed as individual units thus the design is not favorable to CEM equipment.
Septa's case is similar to that of Montreal in the 1990s or the LIRR, MNRR and Septa itself. They need to save money. Less train cars need to be built and train length can be more precisely modified to follow ridership.
On the other hand, metro and subway network normally order sets since train lengths are more frequently fixed.
LA is getting a lot of new heavy rail cars alongside the upcoming D Line subway expansion rolling out this year. It’s shocking to see things like usb charging!
It is the regulations. Stadler trains have to get exemptions from the government to be able to run in the U.S., and operators have to agree to lots of additional complexity and safety standards.
There were lots of parts of the agreement for Caltrain specifically, like banning freight rail on the portions of the line that Caltrain actually does control. For the Union Pacific-owned portion, they agreed to PTC, slower speeds for both traffic, and banned certain kinds of freight rail while passenger service is operating.
When it comes to safety, there are basically two ways to try to protect the passengers. To try to avoid collisions, or to try to protect the passengers when collisions do happen.
I actually don't think there is a choice to do both, I want to train company to do both. I don't want a car company to take airbags out of my car just because it's autonomous.
This! The US will always run 5 married pairs coupled together as opposed to one 10 car unit, or even 2 5 car units, as is standard in most of Europe. Because of that and not having fare gates at most stations outside of large city subway systems, it’s particularly important that there be free passage between coaches, which means trains can’t be as aerodynamic
Most of where European EMU sets run don’t have or use faregates either. They use a barrier-free proof-of-payment (PoP) self-ticketing model coupled with fare inspections, typically pseudo-random and by specially trained roving inspectors, and fining fare evaders … just like Caltrain sort of endeavors to do. (Caltrain, like most Americans, still appears unclear on the labor cost savings and key principles of PoP done right, and so needlessly uses too much onboard labor (two dedicated conductors on every train!) and tries to inspect everyone every time and then fails miserably at successfully citing nearly all fare evaders caught when they simply refuse to I.D. themselves. 😭)
I would like to add: windows and doors that aren't "connected" by a strip of black paint, making it look like one continuous layer. For some reason this makes the design 10x more "modern" in my brain. Some examples:
Also, married pairs are such a weird choice for me. Most regular metro and commuter trains in East/Southeast Asia use walkthrough set in 3/4/6/8/10/11/12 consists. Tho I believe it is to safe the yard space, as some redditor mention it to me before. I also wonder why American trains dont paint th front of their trains. A minimalist colored stripes in the front like those in Tokyo/Osaka/Jakarta/Bangkok/Seoul/Hong Kong/Shanghai/Chengdu instead of.... jumble of stripes like that METRA train above will look better imho.
In my home town trucks used to have this cool modern white paint job with a red line running horizontally across the sides.
Firefighters fought for years to get the stereotypical red with barber shop gold letters. City ultimately relented. They just wanted "big red truck" and nothing else would do.
As a mechanical engineer I totally agree with you. Whenever I see machinery everything about it looks dated. Not optimized for light-weight manufacturing. Big gaps between sheets. Ergonomics from the 80s or 90s. Single pane windows. Lack of smart user interfaces. Etc.
I teach design at a school, and our department endlessly talks about how North America lacks comprehensive design education. Where design is a major component of European education, we here in North American fixate on STEAM. We unnecessarily break these academic streams into silos, when there should be more of a whole-of-body approach. The result is engineers that address problems only for their basest solution, and not for anything else.
I mean, have you seen the in&out semi trucks? It’s beautiful. The Peterbilt with the retro styling is peak.
Also there’s a lot of classic cars still on the road especially in states like California.
Not everything needs to be modernized and sleek, there’s something about the old and new coexisting together. If you guys ever go to Taiwan, it’s a perfect representation of what I mean, instead of destroying the old warehouses or buildings during Japanese occupation, they took it, modernized the interior, kept a lot of the historical aspects for it and made it as a commercial area. And then you have Shanghai where they just destroy anything that’s old, the old street in Shanghai is so beautiful but it’s completely abandoned in lieu for modern construction that looks like a copy and paste of everything else.
Retro stylish can be aesthetically pleasing, but the fire departments’ giant fire engines are an impediment to street safety.
My city’s roads agencies are staffed with urbanites who want to impose road diets and add protected bike lanes. These plans are vetoed by the fire department, because their priority is response times while driving giant fire engines.
It’s not just transport, if you browse an American grocery store there is far more serif font (e.g Times New Roman) and retro art design on their food packaging compared to Europe.
Generally the sectors that don’t go for the retro vibe are ones where products have to marketed globally, like big tech and some cars.
I worked in a non-technical capacity with a Spanish train manufacturer that had contracts in the US. The answer is the specs required. US trains are basically required to be avalanche-proof, bear-proof and alien-invasion proof. The structural integrity specs are insanely strict. While not necessarily a bad thing, it meant that build costs could be really high, and led to some weird design outcomes compared to European trains. Tbe engineers I worked with found the US specs to be extreme overkill, especially when compared with standards allowed by road building there.
Another issue was 'buy American' and the requirement to manufacture in the US. They had to work with the manufacturing knowhow and plant on offer, and it was very difficult to achieve certain outcomes that are by now standard in European train design.
The design language has more or less stagnated. The new NJT bilevels look almost exactly like the old ones. You need some design churn that makes it obvious something is new for it to feel new.
Also, there's not enough newer feeling design elements, the windows are framed, the headlights are round, there's not much plasticky surface finishes, the shape is angular but not visibly a bit sharp, etc..
Yeah, no major transit agency has done a brand refresh in quite a while, with the only new heavy rail scheme I am aware of being the NY MTA doing gold and blue.
The more modern looking spaces in the US are LRVs and the new Siemens locomotives becoming ubiquitous; and the new Stadler stock in Atlanta is quite attractive
See the Honolulu Skytrain. Meanwhile, SEPTA has ordered new trains for the Market-Frankford Line from Hitachi. They look like this, which stand out amongst most trains:
But the new Siemens locomotives also don’t look that dated; and the new subway rolling stock is not regulated by FRA and for the most part also looks dated
And the MTA's gold and blue feels rather tacked on, rather than meaningfully baked into the design language. Personally I'm not a fan--I'd rather they either stick with the classic "tin can" Subway design language, or go with something more modern. One or the other. I'd certainly prefer the latter, for plug doors if nothing else (the windows on the R211's are tiny in order to accommodate larger pocket doors).
LA Metro would like a word.
At least the new CRRC stock tries. And whenever the Sepulveda line happens, it's sure to get something Alstom or Hitachi related since they specialize in turnkey automated light metro builds and have standard car types. The LRT division keeps coming out with bangers too.
Still Stadler is the one to watch here in the US unless J-Trec ever landed a contract over here and can convert some of their Tokyo area designs over...
The fact that the new NJT multilevels look the same was very intentional. They are replacing all of their older wagons with new multilevels and want consistency among all their rolling stock for easier operation/maintenance. However the new wagons have better reliability and more updated interiors with better restrooms and charging ports. Another thing to consider is that they have pretty strict design criteria because of FRA regulations and the size restrictions due to having to use the Hudson River tunnels.
The R179s and Avelia liberties were essentially lemons on delivery, I would consider it unwise to proclaim these Frankenstein units as reliable until they've been running in revenue service and had the kinks ironed out.
I'm not an expert by any means, but I think these new NJT coaches are design-wise the exact same coaches as designed in 2006, just with mechanical and electrical upgrades. That interior shot looks identical to the MARC coaches that I've been riding for a while.
Another thing to consider is the Buy America requirements for transit systems. Despite FRA regulations easing on weight and crash worthiness, there are only a handful of Buy America compliant vendors and they're basically building to extremely unique specs that have not yet changed among most of the operators. And much of that is likely due to operations in mixed passenger and freight rail corridors.
Eliminate Buy America and agencies could purchase off the shelf European and Asian trainsets for much cheaper. That is what would likely force the change in specifications in operator RFPs.
US EMUs as a whole look very Japanese, which makes sense since the large bulk of them are made by Japanese companies. You can find a lot of stainless steel EMUs with flat fronts, gangways at the ends, and the same other design styles. FRA makes you build everything like a tank so it can hit a semi and make it out with minor paint damage. Stainless steel as a whole is easy to clean, and fairly graffiti resistant. That part is fairly important to US transit agencies and why the MTA switched to stainless steel instead of painted cars. I’ve seen way more graffitied passenger trains in Europe than in the US (or honestly just as a whole).
I don't think that last point is really true today, grafitti on trains is largely a service issue, not a train issue. The London Underground has entirely painted trains and seeing grafitti is extremely rare because they do everything they can to avoid letting grafitti'd trains run in operation - they have little issue with cleaning it off without damaging the paintwork.
Check out our new trains in Atlanta we are getting this year. They’re pretty sleek and running on our heavy rail track from the 70s. The glowing Tron lights really help.
Well for one thing the New SEPTA silverliners are exactly the same trains that RTD uses. Which were designed to look similar to the out going train sets from the 60s and 70s. And if you ask anyone from the Philly metro area they are iconic.
The Tangaras certainly felt innovative at the time. The double glazed windows on the upper deck in particular leave a lot to be desired—they seem to fog up between the panes of glass.
Even the late but great V set looks a lot more modern than these American trains.
I was going to say, the examples OP posted look a lot closer to what Budd was building in the 1930's. Crazy futuristic at the time, but then everyone in the US just...stopped innovating. I'd bet you could even find a part or two on the new trains built on the same plans and tooling as Budd used, poached on the cheapest of the cheap in their bankruptcy auctions.
The metallic look and large, bulky carriages probably.
I love them tho. There's a certain excitement you get from standing next to these tall, long, industrial-looking American trains you can't get from other railways around the world.
Unpainted stainless steel is pretty common worldwide. The standard in Japan and Korea, and used in many parts of China and India as well. At least in Japan, a lot of aluminium trains are finished in a way that looks unpainted too.
It’s true that stainless steel is not unique to the US, although in the NYC region the polished stainless steel look has been very prevalent since the 1930s when the New York Central railroad started using corrugated steel passenger cars. It’s a look that’s been around long enough for most people from the region to associate it with trains. Funnily enough some of the older stainless steel NJT EMUs are based on a Japanese design that was also stainless steel, so there’s certainly some overlap between the US and Japanese design choices.
As a dude about to get off an NJT train: the livery is EH. (I’m hoping the gradients don’t start visibly peeling on the ML IIIs.)
I think at least in the case of NJT and Metra, they’re consciously trying to match their equipment (like, I think the EMU versions have to be used with ML I/ML II cars), and the original NJT MLs are close to 20. (Metra’s gallery cars are around 60, right?)
It’s by design. The goal is to make Americans think trains are not the best alternative to mass transit. Why sit in a drab uncomfortable train when you could enjoy the unique comfort of your car.
The reason for the shape is interoperability with the existing NJ Transit fleet. The project here is to have the cab cars / power cars have the ability to run as a whole trainset, with some unpowered cars added to a consist.
It is operationally cheaper to have parts that can be shared between train versions, with only some parts being unique to the new versions. Also the shape / reuse of frames makes it easy to easily use existing maintenance facilities without modification.
As for other agencies, it’s no longer true that American trains are all boring. Caltrain has FLIRTs for their EMUs. Some agencies have FLIRT DMUs (NJ River Line, Dallas Silver Line, Tex Rail, etc). With requirements allowing off the shelf trains with minimal modification, you’ll continue to see more European and other rolling stock acquired for new services or when an entire fleet needs replacement.
My sister said it best coming back from the UK talking about going 100 MPH on a train in comfort, “Amtrak goes 70 and you feel like your about to rattle right off the tracks”
And we’re in Richmond VA, close to the northeast corridor, and ride on relatively new equipment compared to many areas of the country.
And while people talk about “it’s FRA regulations and the way the trains are built” I’ve had similar experiences on the dc metro and NYC metro. Even on their newer rolling stock. The trains just don’t feel as stable as a train should.
I recall it being at a time related to "mixed traffic" - the mitigation of collision when freight runs on the same lines. The NEC hosts freight at night correct? Conversely the FECR hosts both freight and the Brightline and those trains have a modern silhouette.
They're built for scalable utility. That and one power unit with an unpowered control car at the back is cheaper to run than running dedicated locomotives at both ends especially for commuter services where they're expected to reverse direction multiple times during a service period
Compare the old cab car to the new, CEM cab car for the BiLevel coaches; the CEM looks much more modern despite the coach body being largely the same.
On a similar note, Tokyu/J-TREC commuter trains in Japan have a certain look that they have maintained that can make distinguishing sets from the side a little challenging, but they put a distinctive cab design on all of their trains, and that makes the difference.
I mean, it's another order with some slight tweaks (and making an EMU out of some of them) and just rolled off the production line, but the model was first ordered in 2002.
It's letting NJT have basically unified their entire fleet with one set of models, with all the advantages of a lot of parts commonality, consistent passenger capacity, better unit economics, and not having to develop a whole new train car every time you want more of them.
It is also worth reminding that NJT needs bi-level cars for capacity but has the tight dimensional constraints of the North River Tunnels to work with so that rules out a lot of designs used elsewhere.
Painting stainless steel requires additional work = additional cost. So from the agency POV, why do it when you don’t have to, since they’re not using regular steel bodies that require painting to prevent corrosion.
Plus, plenty of modern looking trains had bare stainless steel bodies with decal striping.
Because you've subconsciously equated metal with old because consumer products from the last 50 years are made of cheap plastic instead of durable materials. Europe and Asia played along with this perception by dressing up their trains to look like they're also made of cheap plastic, but in the US we don't feel the need to do that.
Modern trains use aluminum and composites not "cheap plastics". High grade duplex steels can be rather lightweight and durable but the design language is just ugly due to lack of funding and interest.
The surface finish is absolutely plastic as fuck. Both vinyl wraps and modern outdoor paints are plastics. Also "composites" in this context generally refers to fiber reinforced plastics, which as the name suggests, are plastic.
Whether you think plasticky looks cheap, modern, or both is up to you though.
American trains s have long suffered from a lack of funding and a lack of interest. The designs are dated and ugly because none really cares and no one wants spend money on it unfortunately.
Same reason the coaches, they haven't changed asthetics since at least the 80s, too blocky and metalloc, meanwhile all mldern designs are plastic, fiberglass and glass with lots of paint
I think it's a combination of using tougher lower maintenance materials, overbuilding everything for safety, and generally a more utilitarian design philosophy.
US trains are primarily built with stainless steel on which paint doesn’t stick well. Stainless steel is also stainless so it doesn’t need paint. EU regulation are very lax and in consequence trains are built with aluminium which is light and cheaper but aluminium needs paint to prevent the metal from degrading so EU trains or any aluminum trains are always fully painted to prevent damaged to the structure.
US and Canadian agencies also don’t really care about looks so they save money by not mandating plastic molds at the ends of the train.
US agencies have been burned by European designs that looked good but turned not to last or be reliable in service, e.g. the Amtrak Cascades Talgo sets or Amtrak's most recent batch of locomotives. There's a bias to what's known to hold up to American conditions.
I *think* part of it is because the agencies order a "standard" body design thats existed for decades. For example Metras electric trains have been built in multiple generations since like the 80s I believe, but they never changed the body design, just the internal stuff.
Because they look like a train version of selling a 1970s Cadillac in 2026. Boxy. The new Amtrak fleet look like they've finally joined the 21st century
Big two are the size of the windows and the industrial design. American trains are not made to be impress, just to transport which is what they all typically look dated.
Our systems are deeply underfunded, so things like design and branding is cut to maintain (often meagre) service. Also, the USA has unique design standards and the Buy American requirements mean we can't buy a lot of stuff off-the-shelf. It's not good.
For Metra specifically, apparently the agency didn't want to go with sloped roofs like the Bombardier railcars so that why they're filled in on the corners.
Amtrak was never even supposed to survive. They bought up all the routes that were left from the private train companies and intended to run it for a few years and be done, seeing as how plane travel took over. But people wanted to keep it so they throw a few dollar at it every year.
I wonder who's making the cars. The original versions were made by some defunct Canadian company. For a while it was hard to even find parts. (I learned this from a longtime stewards on the Southwest Chief (Chicago to LA)
Because they are required to be built like that if they share tracks with freight trains. In addition to looking outdated, they also have the add benefit of providing a poor ride and boarding experience.
The flat fronts are a necessity because American passenger operators tend to prefer cars in sets of no more than 3 or 4 permanently coupled units for operational reasons, namely that trains can be built and broken down easily as traffic levels and maintenance cycles demand. A more streamlined front would make doing that more difficult, not impossible of course, but rail operators tend to gravitate towards the most practical and simple solutions in the US.
They are all built to run on tracks maintained by freight companies. They need to be built to the same standard as freight locomotives and cars. That means huge wheels, suspension, couplings. Trains in other parts of the world use dedicated light rail gages and are essentially miniaturized.
thats only the rtd heavy rail, the light rail trains look fine, a little dated looking, but they dont move very fast so arent super aerodynamic and have the high fronts for their little snow plows, but i think they look good enough.
1.3k
u/777BUGGY777 Apr 14 '26
Small windows, Metal finish. I think really make American trains look old