Why Do Our Modern Trains Look So Old?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- Watch this video ad-free on Nebula: nebula.tv/vide...
In North America, there is a strange habit of ordering new trains that look... old. In today's video I make the case for ordering new trains that not only are equipped with modern features, but also actually look new.
As always, leave a comment down below if you have ideas for our future videos. Like, subscribe, and hit the bell icon so you won't miss my next video!
=PATREON=
If you'd like to help me make more videos & get exclusive behind the scenes access and early video releases, consider supporting my Patreon! Every dollar goes towards helping my channel grow & reach more people.
Patreon: / rmtransit
=ATTRIBUTION=
Epidemic Sound (Affiliate Link): share.epidemic...
Nexa from Fontfabric.com
Map Data © OpenStreetMap contributors: www.openstreet...
Thumbnail image courtesy of Alan Fisher
=COMMUNITY DISCORD SERVER=
Discord Server: / discord
(Not officially affiliated with the channel)
=MY SOCIAL MEDIA=
Twitter: / rm_transit
Instagram: / rm_transit
Website: rmtransit.com
Substack: reecemartin.su...
=ABOUT ME=
Ever wondered why your city's transit just doesn't seem quite up to snuff? RMTransit is here to answer that, and help you open your eyes to all of the different public transportation systems around the world!
Reece (the RM in RMTransit) is an urbanist and public transport critic residing in Toronto, Canada, with the goal of helping the world become more connected through metros, trams, buses, high-speed trains, and all other transport modes.
![[UA] NAVI проти G2 Esports | Blast Premier Fall Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWlIm4FGESQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Same with American buses, they still have framed windows instead of the more streamlined look on the Europeans
I swear the most recent New Flyer models make Champaign-Urbana look like it's living in the future while Chicago is back in the 80s
Not everywhere in America. There are some wonderful examples of excellent, modern buses in Mexico City. The e-buses being introduced are even another step up.
Not only side windows, but they still use the center divider on the front window (don't know what it's called), last time I saw that on a bus here was 20 years ago. It just looks really really old.
@@inodesnetMexico city isn’t USA
@@yungrichnbroke5199But, for a lot of people, it _is_ in America - because to them, America is the name of the continent, not an alias for the USA.
Something you missed is the colour. US trains are very often gray, unlike European ones: lightgreen in Paris, yellow in Berlin, red-white-blue in London and Moscow etc.
That’s mostly the old trains. Now a days the new trains are colorful.
I love how in Canada there are hints of blue in many respective rail systems. Vancouver Skytrain, Toronto Subway (old and new Line 3), Montreal Metro, Edmonton LRT, ION Light Rail in Kitchener-Waterloo. So much for a country that has red and white on the flag
Stainless steel is easier to maintain and inspect. Plastic/composite skims tend to bend & crack and hide flaws over time.
The Tube was Grim until they started painting the trains in the 1990s - combined with new interiors even 50 year old trains in London look newer inside and out than those T1s
@@MJofLakelandX there are trains in europe 30+ years old and only have some color fading. No cracking or bending
Large windows are nice, but more and more often I see windows covered entirely by ads. Usually they have thousands of holes to still see whats outside, but those holes let 30% or less of the light through and make taking photos out of the train very hard. There is an example of that at 2:30 in your video.
Or worse than a coffin, Elton Musk's stupid hyperloop gadgetbahn.
@@crowmob-yo6ryI think there's a reason he gave it away to others to play with. None of the current hyperloop offerings have anything more to do with him than the original idea.
@@KaiHenningsen - Is there even a functional "hyper loop" (to include test/demonstration) out there?
@@GilmerJohnnot something remotely practical. There are obviously some small tests that are a few meters long and go at super slow speeds, but nothing concrete
Here in Cologne (Germany?) there's actually regulation on how much window area can be covered with ads. Usually the ads go around the ads here with only small parts where the windows are covered
Brightline is a good example here - the original service uses the same locos as many Amtrak services and does the same speeds, but people think it's high-speed rail because they stuck a flashy looking nose cone on the front! The concept has has a long history too - for example streamlining steam locomotives was partly about aerodynamics sure, but also about making them look cutting-edge.
This phenomenon extends to other vehicles in the US too, like their fire engines still look like they're from the 1950s and car design was a decade behind in the 1980s thanks to the automakers being forced to use sealed beam headlights for way too long.
I suspect the main cause for framed windows in the USA, is NA using removable seals for emergency egress and EU using break glass hammers.
Note that Stadler for the most part still uses rubber framed windows in most rolling stock.
We should be using break class hammers too but I don’t trust people to not use them responsibly.
@@DanTheCaptain How are your people not capable to be trusted with emergency equipment
Easy way for vandals to use it to break windows or people who aren't quite there to assault other riders.@@zathary564
I don't think that's true - the van hools in York region and the vicinitys in BC have frameless windows with removable seals
I have to say I strongly disagree with you on this one: curved glass is stupid: you have to get it custom made, so it's more expensive, and you are dependent on the manufacturer for replacements, while flat glass can be made by independent shops for far cheaper and with almost no capital costs.
no, cleaning flat glass is easier than curved? think about squeegeeing a window on your house vs when you have to do it on your car's curved windows: the flat surface is just better.
functional things like window size, floor height, and walk through trains are important, but I would say getting them wrong is a problem with design unrelated to transit's "asthetics".
The "NY subway/Chicago L" car asthetic is copied here because it is shorthand for utilitarian, functional transit that is trying to get things done: people think "they must be serious, because they aren't doing this for the asthetic"; it makes it clear that you are moving people, not installing some unneeded system because you got conned by a monorail salesman.
you showed a picture of the london underground trains as an example of a modern look, but that asthetic is as old as the NY subway car one; that it looks like a "modern" train is the result of making a good design (large windows, etc), and is unrelated to the British asthetic.
I think we can focus on the looks once we have a system that actually works. He mentioned it in the video but I think he confused train reliability with *system* reliability
A good case study for this video would be Liverpool with their new BR Class 777 trains on the Merseyrail Rapid Transit network. They used a public inquiry to design our new trains, and since they have gone on to receive numerous prestigious national transportation awards. They also look futuristic and cool.
Those trains have so many good user features. I like the level boarding and the giant lights around the doors. I’d love to see them come to Glasgow (though they’d probably be blue rather than yellow!)
Love them 777s. Stadler rarely disappoints too!
Complaining about framed windows seems like nitpicking to me, and advocating that they go to flush seamless panels also feels like advocating for engineered obsolescence as it would make the costs of replacing the windows far higher down the road
Correct! That's why such 'ribbon glazing' is no longer used on new trains in the UK.
One of the places that the perception of new trains that look old kicks in is when reliability issues kick in. The moment an old looking train breaks down, regardless of how new it is, people are going to start forming a perception that the trains (and by extension the route they're operating on) are old and falling apart
I think that’s definitely true, and it’s not an unnatural reaction!
On Boston's Green Line, the problem is that the trains start breaking down even well before the deliveries have finished (and with the new CRRC cars, this characteristic may be spreading to the Red and Orange lines as well -- although _maybe_ that's just early teething troubles -- sure wasn't the case on the Green Line, though). This has been a problem ever since the Boeing USSLRVs in the 1970s, with a partial exception for the Kinki-Sharyo Type 7s (but those thoroughly thrashed the track and threatened to jump off it when run up to their originally intended speed of 50 mph = 80 km/h -- I know, because I was on one before they reduced the speed limit to 42 mph = 67 km/h -- fortunately, it didn't actually carry out its threat, whereas the Type 8s don't threaten it, they just do it).
Exactly. But if a modern looking train breaks down people (usually) assume “teething troubles” or “glitches to work out”.
Especially because in some cases it is just a software bug - like the door sensors in the S-stock London Underground trains which were programmed just a little too sensitive and got triggered by a leaf being caught in the door. Fixed purely by a software update (though they added “don’t lean on the door” signs too).
@@kaitlyn__L And then our Type 8s and Type 9s (and before those, the Boeing USSLRVs) proved that perception wrong, because they kept on breaking down, with only modest amelioration after the T had to spend a LOT of money and time on the problems.
“Modern” and “old” are purely subjective. The “new” BART trains look like the first ones put into service. Functionality and reliability are the only things that should matter. A PCC, in my view, “looks” better than the MBTA’s type 8 and 9 cars.
The looks and the functionality are not disconnected
I was pretty shocked when I found out that the Toronto T1 trains are the same age as the Berlin S-Bahn class 481 trains (the iconic "mask" trains). Two different worlds clashing. Also, I liked that you talked about stainless steel trains. They don't have to look old, Tokio and Stockholm do it and so does Hamburg. All of them have very modern metro systems with modern stainless steel trains
Please have a look at Paris MF 88 and MP 89 trains - as the number implies, it's the year of order. They're even older, being ordered in 1988 and 1989, yet so much more modern.
@@paname514_bis just did it, and you're right, they look pretty cool (just like the old French trams from the 80ies). They are from the same year as Hamburgs DT4
The key to keeping a train timeless is the interior. Absolutely the exterior of a train is part of changing public opinion about riding transit, but rather it's about an interior's functionality too! Whether it's having flip seats for wheelchairs or open gangways! If an interior is improved and updated, even if the rolling stock itself is older, then the passengers riding wouldn't care. The average person riding the MTR for example wouldn't notice the differences between the MTR rolling stock because their interiors are upgraded! Meanwhile, you can easily tell the difference in NYC between the R46 and the R211! The MTR keeps its identity while still modernizing at the same time! M-Trains were very modern when they debuted, and they've held up into the 2020s!
While it's sadly not of course the entire R211 fleet, some R211s having open gangways is still a huge step in the right direction that they even have open gangways in the first place. They got 20 as an experiment, and the R211 order includes an option of purchasing over 400 of them after they fully commit. Open gangways not only improve train capacity of course but also provide more space for people who use wheelchairs, bikes, strollers, or luggage, with the luggage part being a big plus for those going to JFK! I appreciate its LED displays, the LCD screens and that they tell you which car you're in, and the cool headlights. The seats are colored deep blue and yellow after the New York state flag.
The interiors of trams and especially trains are relatively easy and cheap-ish to refurbish.
Bro, I see you comment everywhere on UA-cam! Much love ❤️ 😘🐇🫶
Even the Pyongyang Metro has trains that look newer than North American trains! While the Pyongyang Metro has used old Class D rolling stock from the Berlin U-Bahn starting in 1997, the DPRK government has since built new rolling stock in house starting in 2015 at Kim Chong-t'ae Electric Locomotive Works, called the Underground Electric Vehicle No. 1! It features a VVVF control and initially fitted with an asynchronous motor but later replaced with a permanent magnet synchronous motor developed by the Kim Chaek University of Technology. Not only do the new trains have screens, but the stations themselves have been renovated as well.
This modernization of the Pyongyang Metro system restores the youth of the system and improves the cultural sentimental life of the people. I feel as though North American transit agencies try to stick with an identity when it comes to their rolling stock by saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" and keeping their signature look. Which I get! Part of appealing to new people to take trains is the look of the trains, and if a train appears to look old, then people are gonna assume it's old.
I like the older looking trains. The denver RTD airport line is fucking awesome and feels modern I really like the timeless silver look vs trying to make it look like elon musk esque glass panel.
Purely aesthetically speaking, the SEPTA and RTD Silverliner V's are great. It's understandable to criticize the actual design, but soley based off looks, they're very similar to Japanese and Korean stainless steel trains, which still look sleek and modern while also paying homage to the classic trains most people are used to.
So true about the T1s. I was chatting with friends the other day and they were all “yeah about time we replace those old line 2 trains, they look so bad, like they’ve been around since the 70s”. They were surprised when I told them they were actually from the mid 90s, and they only looked similar to the older H series. I think perhaps transit systems want to keep the vehicles looking “old” for uniformity, but then I think the lay person never even realizes they’re riding a new vehicle, contributing to the perception that transit is old, slow and unreliable.
A secondary realization was that I’m the only nerd among them who knows the names of the car series.
A transit nerd like me could point out all the differences between the T-1s and the old H-series vehicles from the 60s and 70s. But I won't. The T-1s were an upgrade in the '90s when TTC finances were tight. They have another decade or so in them.
The majority of a transit riders' experiences are on the inside of the train. If the interior is outdated - as it was on the T1 and arguably still is - then of course they think it feels old. Many European and Asian systems still retain the same or similar aesthetics as they did at inception, and manage to avoid that particular issue by actually keeping the interiors modern.
@@GintaPPE1000I’d argue that there are also notable differences in other countries in things like the car body construction and front fascia’s that you CAN see.
I totally agree on the holistic point, but I do find it (autistically) amusing how some of the London trains you show as better examples also have framed windows and fairly small door windows.
The only thing which personally stood out to me was that cowcatcher (“anti climber”?). Otherwise I think this new tram is a great step up for Boston! (The green and red lines are the only ones I’ve personally ridden. Plus one of the commuter rails but I forget if it was purple or silver.)
So all of MBTA's commuter trains are labelled by their suburban town/small city terminus (ex: Lowell Line, Fitchburg Line, etc.). The rapid transit has some colors like Red, Green, Orange, and Silver I think, but typically the colors are reserved for the MBTA's light rail and subway lines.
I have to disagree here. The T has been spending on glitzy trains, but they don't work right, and they don't seem to be able to maintain them properly (which in the specific instance of framed windows, means that if framed windows saves them on maintenance, they're good even if they looks worse). I would rather have transit vehicles that look like they're from the 1920's but work and stay working rather than these glitzy contraptions that cost much more, keep breaking down, and keep derailing.
In the 1920s, Boston had a great invention only repeated elsewhere to a limited extent: the Center-Entrance cars. They were single-unit with no articulation junctions to break, with low-floor parts in the middle (high-floor over the bogies) and REALLY BIG doors to let people in and out quickly, and very good capacity for 48'(?) vehicles, such that they were known as "crowd-eaters". They did have the disadvantage of requiring a conductor in each car that was separate from the driver in the front car, but if Boston would ever finish the job on modernizing its fare system (they keep making moves but then NEVER DOING IT), this would solve that problem. If you made a technologically modernized version of Center-Entrance cars (with modern fare collection), these would serve as both trams and city-trains, but with low-floor boarding, and they would likely be amenable to design for safe operation at much higher speeds than anything articulated, thereby making them also suitable for suburban service. But it seems that ever since the 2000s, the MBTA is the home of excuses for why things cannot be done, and is the repeated power-child for how NOT to do procurement.
Absolutely agree on the timelessness point. We in Hong Kong love the M-train so much because how revolutionary they were when first introduced (to train fans) and how young they still feel to the regular passenger. It’s always amazing to hear tourists commenting on how new MTR trains feel, while in actual fact they’re much older than many trains in the West. The mainline loading gauge, the wide open gangways, 5 doors per side and full longitudinal seating were really features ahead of the time in the 70s.
The mid-90s refit certainly help visually, but the usability from the old design still surpass US cities of today. I'm actually surprised the M-train are still in service. I thought the K-Train on the TKO would replace the entire fleet when they were first introduced. They are so quiet to ride on.
The same can be said for the MLRs too. They look awesome and quite sad to see them go due to the Sha Tin to Central Link Project
That's British engineering for you, 40 or so years is nothing.
@@azuma892Go ride some 2000s tube trains in London.
I love the trains in Japan because they look so modern and so ahead of their time that they can age gracefully for decades.
1:57: “these are going to be the vehicles you’ll have for for the next thirty years.” I see you’re an optimist.
Beyond that I’m not completely convinced. First off: the new trains don’t look old to me. And secondly, (and perhaps this is in part because my expectations of the MBTA are lower than low) but to the extent that aesthetics go beyond functional requirements-door width, open passages, seating, etc.-sure, it’s nice, but not something worth spending too much time bikeshedding. You mention that some of the things we do in North America could raise costs, but without specifically mentioning some of them, and explaining _why_ they would be more expensive than, say, contemporary European designs, it feels vague and handwave-y.
I was quite specific in this video, old looking is bespoke these days and for obvious reasons bespoke is expensive!
Living in Chicago I really dig the aesthetic of our L trains and I think they’re an iconic part of the city, but I hate that 90% of the fleet are older trains that don’t even have onboard wayfinding. The CTA just introduced newer trains to their fleet but it’s only select trains on select lines. I don’t mind how our trains look on the exterior, but the insides can use a massive overhaul.
Conversely, my hometown of Portland just introduced new trains to replace their oldest fleet which they’ve been using since creation of MAX in the 80s. That was a long overdue change.
I'm surprised PDX has the money to do that with the mass exodus out of the city. And very low ridership due to the extreme homeless problems in the city.
Umm... Apart from choosing the wrong livery and that anti-climber causing injuries to pedestrians this tram looks perfectly contemporary.
Fundamentally I disagree with a lot of these opinions, but most prominent of my objections is the idea that the MP89 looks anything short of ancient. The Toronto trains look way newer. And in terms of design, American designs may not win any awards, but some of the worst designs come from Europe. London's hideous red, white & blue paint scheme lacks any cohesion. Berlin's all-canary-yellow consists are tasteless.
It’s almost as if the transit authorities in the US in charge of making decisions about the designs of these trains are saying “Don’t expect anything from us in terms of a ‘rider experience.’ We’re just here to get you from Point A to Point B.”
I recently visited London and Paris and was impressed by them having directional route maps at the stations. I went the wrong way in NYC so many times and it turns out all they had to do was put up a poster that only had the stops possible on that side. They even had fully functional screens that told you what the next stop. In the US you're lucky if you get a 1970's red led map in the train.
I actually really like the appearance of the older American trains, I much prefer the retro-modern look of stainless steel over modern shells, and I think we can have modern features while preserving the classic Budd car style. I think the Toronto rocket, the new R211Ts, and Tokyo Metro 1000s strike a nice balance between modern features and classic styling.
"Timeless" design definitely is the best option, but it's also the most difficult to acchieve. Just look at cars: how many car models are really "timeless" or even close to that? If we can't get timeless design, at least it should be somehow attractive: if we build a hundred-million-dollar system, we really want people to use it, right? I think there are two ways to make a new system look attractive: it must either be ultra modern or retro. And if we choose retro, it must be cute kind of retro, no ugly kind.
But right now the designs are outdated, they’re not modern nor timeless which is bad.
I'd say Toyota was pretty good at making rather timeless designs, if even bland. Like early 2000s Corollas and Camrys look very similar to the way they look today
@@scottanno8861 Toyota's are very bland. You want timeless look at Honda in the 80s and 90s and BMW in the late 90s and early 00s.
Making something timeless is much easier when you don't follow modern trends and instead stick to classic design rules - even making something look Retro. Look at the Fiat 500 for example.
@@shraka Honda is bland as well but does just as well at making contemporary cars!
@@scottanno8861 You think the ED civic, EG6, DC2, DC5, 3rd Gen Accord, 7th Gen Accord Euro, JDM 6th Gen Accord look bland?! Are you feeling alright?
2 points:
I still don't understand why you care about the ability to walk between cars on rapid transit. When I get on the subway I pick a spot and stay there, I don't go walking around the train.
I would argue that "timeless" is very city-dependent. Subways shaped like stainless steel bricks *are* timeless if you're in New York. That style of subway is what everyone thinks about when you say "NYC subway". A lot of the more modern body styles would look weird and out of place there. I also don't think very many of the new designs are particularly timeless either; a lot of them have looks that are very firmly rooted in specific present-day trends that are going to be very out of fashion by the time the trains are halfway through their service lives.
Walk-through trains can help with capacity, and make a more average crowding throughout the train instead of some trains being more crowded than others. If someone sees a much less crowded area near them, they’d most likely move
This!! Modern looking trains will end up dated, guaranteed. Older designs that have been hanging around become a comforting part of the scenery.
I lived in Boston for over a decade without a car. While I agree with you that looking modern and being reliable are not, in general, mutually exclusive, when it comes to the MBTA, that combination is probably more than they can handle.
Well, the bus windows are down in the noise when it comes to transit. Cost (fares) are near the top along with quality/quantity of service.
I feel like its a really weird hill to die on. I love the look of most of the trains he's bashing here. Especially the Denver RTD suburban rail trains. As someone who works on cars for a living they appear super modular and easy to work on. I prefer a timeless silver train to some futurist glass and panels formed in such a way that they're irreplacable
@@joshdoeseverything4575 -- The true "bottom line" is public transit systems is functionality. Riders want a clean and reliable service. If good market research can demonstrate that a "modern" look either is less expensive OR that riders are willing to pay for the extra cost, give it a pass.
The Stockholm example makes a good point. Our old rolling stock, with trains consisting of eight separate carriages, was not designed for easy maintenance or even cleaning. The two newer types with three segmented carriages are 20 years apart in age, but they have a common set of design features that allows for much better durability, maintenance and cleaning. Screws instead of rivets, smooth floors instead of rubber grooves (!), more room to get on and off, etcetera. More "modern" looking, sure, but it's also a clear case of "form following function".
I don’t live in Toronto but I think the T1 looking “old” is a deliberate design choice. If you look closely at the older subway trains in Toronto before it, they essentially have the same design and features and it continued until the TTC decided to come up with an entirely new Toronto Rocket design
Considering Boston can barely maintain the track, they've got bigger things to deal with than making larger windows. Although I totally get your point.
I also think you could do this same video for U.S. Busses. Most systems in the U.S. use Gillig vehicles, that are boxy and not stylistic or modern looking at all.
oh the MBTA is an absolute disaster all around, to which is embarrassing that they cannot even handle doing more than one task at a time. I wish there was more careful consideration to the new GL trains... but after the news about the GLX extension tracks, I think all I can do is pray that the new trains don't break down when they enter service in 2056.
The problem with that is that Boston is specifically spending time and money to get small windows. If it didn't matter either way, then they could just tell CAF to give them the same trams as Luxembourg or the ones currently being delivered for the new tram in Liège. Both are CAF products, both look great and very futuristic, and both feature huge windows. If Boston prefers more conservative, Utrecht's CAF trams are right there, also using the same general design. CAF has to specifically change their default tram constructions to use small framed windows, and they are not going to do that for free.
@@dda40x They have to build a custom train anyway since the MBTA curves are not standard. It's not like they can just order a generic train. But yes, they are paying for smaller windows which is weird
Yeah the Gillig buses look exactly the same as they did in the 80s, the only difference is they went from the deafeningly loud detroit 2 stroke engines to modern diesels that are actually quiet and have emissions controls and many run CNG. Then you have those BYD EV buses which are just a disaster waiting to happen
Puhleeez... Enough with this ridiculous defeatist attitude of "Boston has bigger fish to fry". The T has to procure the vehicles now and it's something they can resolve quickly given CAF is still just in the design phase. It's not even as if the T itself really needs to do much here on this either. Eng: "CAF...make the Type 10s more modern looking".
I do think a lot of the stuff you're showing really *is* new-looking in a trendy way. I also think an important thing to note is that the aesthetic of the existing system and of the city matters a lot; while I definitely think the Chicago L rolling stock could be modernized, I don't think that means they should look futuristic. It's a historic industrial system and trains on it should *look* industrial and their aesthetics should primarily use a form-follows-function design philosophy. The streamlined bubble-shaped fascia and brightly-colored trains of the Paris Metro would simply look terrible if you dropped them into that system, and they'd look horribly out of place in general in Chicago. Grey, beige, and industrial will always describe the L rolling stock, and that is more than just fine, it's a *good thing*.
However, that's the exception for me. Most cities don't have such a strong aesthetic that would be badly hurt by modern-looking trains. The ones that would be have an interesting design problem on their hands; how do you make trains look modern while still fitting them into the context of the aesthetics of their city and infrastructure?
On a service like the Chicago Transit Authority's "L" (and by extension their ground and subway lines as well, since it's all the same network), it would be best for them to maintain some preserved units while upgrading to modernized units. A big trend in the US is making new things look like modernized versions of their predecessors, and the new CTA trains do a good job of that.
But running direct exterior replicas should be limited to "working heritage" lines like the South Shore Line.
I don't really think it's a big deal at all but then again I think older vehicles generally look better than all modern vehicles, from trains to planes to personal automobiles.
I gotta be honest I really don't care if the trains look old. Like as long as they run reliably, and the windows are large and don't have ads on them, why should anyone care what they look like. Replace the trains because they don't run anymore, not just because they look old. I would put this issue as a pretty low priority on my Urbanism/Georgism list of priorities.
I don't know how familiar you are with Boston, but "New Things That Feel Old" is kind of Boston's motto.
That’s why this old house was made there loved that programme 😊
London and Paris are centuries older than Boston but they can look new when they choose to :)😅
@@johndwilson6111That's the point I was making. This is a weird cultural thing about Boston. It chooses to do this.
I really enjoy your videos and respect your vast knowledge of transit. However, in this case I have to strongly disagree. If I hear the word "sleek" another time I think I'm going to scream! I remember about 25 years ago riding on a old Amtrak heritage car, and feeling (if I'm remembering correctly) how the darker wood interior, with individual glowing lights and smaller windows felt cozy and luxurious. In houses, people rip out walls to make an open plan, and then they put them back in when they regret the lack of privacy. Cars go from boxy to rounded, and back to boxy, over and over again. Each time when people modernize, they look back at the previous design from 10 years ago and marvel at how sensless and inept the previous one was, only to rip it out again 10 years later with the same disdain. We've lost countless priceless ornate train stations for this very reason. Many of our finest architectural treasures are anything but sleek, and very old. The beautiful 100 year old subway stations in New York are another example, where the tile and iron work and vaulted ceilings, so old and un-sleek, create a fantastic historic amazing atmosphere. I don't think that we need everything to look new and modern to attract riders, or cater to the disposable mentality that feels the need to constantly rip up and reinvent everything. I think that we need stations and trains that are functional, beautiful, durable, and timeless, like the 100+ year old stations that are being restored and adapted to serve us today as well as the day that they first opened.
The loss of the 1911 Pennsylvania Station in New York is truly sad. Same with countless other transportation terminal buildings and city halls in the mid-20th Century.
Modern trains are so ugly compared to old ones.
don't confuse modern looking with good looking. they just happen to do neither.
Personally I like the look of older North American trains. Surely we can have classic styled trains while having modern features as well.
Thing is you can have something that looks "classic" while still looking fully modern. Take any Mini Cooper as an example. Nobody will mistake any new model for anything from the previous century. It has all the latest tech, all LED lighting and updated styling and technological features yet it still looks very similar to previous Minis and the original. It's still "retro". Whats currently going on is that the US is starting to order 1990s Minis now replacing their 1960s looking models, the rest of the world is ordering the latest and greatest tech and design.
Can we have our Berlin tram system explainer, please, please, please!!!
At some point perhaps!
I love the crunchy old fashioned designs, for the same reason I like the look of old steam locomotives. I don't agree at all that streamlined=better, the "old fashioned" designs are more tactile and they feel more "real" somehow, while streamlined designs often look kind of plastic-y.
But perception wise, they face the same problem, the average user sees an 'old' looking train and thinks the service feels unloved/slow. I love steam locomotives but I wouldn't feel like I was getting anywhere in a fast and efficient manner if my daily commuter rail was hauled by one!
It’s ok to be a hipster about trains, but most people aren’t. Old looking things aren’t appealing to 90% of people.
@@Riddlinrussell”Old looking” doesn’t come solely from styling though. It also comes from livery and especially upkeep. The original Acela Express is newer than most of Amtrak’s rolling stock, but sit someone uninitiated down in an Acela coach versus a refreshed Amfleet, and they’ll probably tell you they’re about the same age or that the Amfleet is younger - when in reality they’re over twice the Acela’s age.
I’d argue the main argument for “modern” styling is a actually monetary one: it costs more and adds more risk of problems to commission a manufacturer to design a custom carbody rather than just adopting what everyone else is buying costs more. Sure, it’s all the same tech underneath, but someone still needs to figure out the new packaging arrangements.
All that is opinionated but feelings don’t override the fact that modern built vehicles are still quality builds but are more attractive.
@@HesJustSteven LMAO. CRRC's garbage for the MBTA isn't even as reliable as the stock it's replacing. Siemens' ACS-64s for Amtrak are having so many issues they're being replaced by Airos halfway through their designed life, and their Chargers struggle to match the reliability of the 30-year old GEs they're replacing. BYD's electric buses have half the MTBF interval of the "old" looking New Flyer EV buses.
There are manufacturers capable of building good equipment, but it is absolutely not a given that modern equipment is quality.
wasn't gonna comment since i largely agree with you and have nothing to add besides a "thanks again for another great video" but you kind of called me out-as a Caltrain rider I can definitely say I would prefer frequent, dependable, reliable service over fancy new trains any day-I got places to be, I don't care how nice the train is, if I have to wait 30 minutes for it (+trip time, +last mile travel time), given the option, I'm gonna drive to my destination, especially considering it won't even take 30 minutes to drive the whole way there. Sure good service and new trains aren't mutually exclusive per se, but they both require resources and funding, and I would prefer resources be allocated to improving frequencies than to buying fancier new trains.
I think in this case it's kind of a moot point since our trains were so old we needed new ones in order to be able to increase frequencies-I've honestly just been really frustrated with Caltrain frequencies lately, so your comment just kinda triggered me, sorry-in any case thanks again for another great video, keep it up!
For the heavy rail networks that must run with Freight trains they have to comply with Federal Railroad Administration standards which are used in United States and Canada. Which explains why trains ordered from a European platform must meet 800k lbf crush test
That's why Siemens Mobility and Stadler now builds their train sets here in the USA for models that better comply with FRA safety standards.
@@Sacto1654 No, that is due to insanely high import taxes on trains built outside the US. It is a political tax wall to have manufacturers set up shop in the US, and not just import trains from overseas.
No. Its express Buy America laws. @@sjokomelk
All trains are beautiful!
Istanbul has some newer Star Trek esque U-Bahn cars with video ads. It is pretty wild because you go from mosaic stations to cyberspace.
I disagree with framed windows looking dated. Anything could be made to look good. JR East's E235 series is a good example, I think.
...
... But your main point is right though. Feels like US likes to purposely ruin transit vehicle exterior designs.
Sydney keeps buying their buses with framed windows because of the vandalism risks.
I wonder if the design of US-market rollingstock is due to legislation, kinda how US-spec cars had to have sealed beam headlights for many years after Europe allowed composite headlights. I'm not against safety regulations, but the US seems to do it in an arbitrary manner. I'm probably wrong because better designed vehicles are now entering service in the US and Canada.
Europe safely moves many multiples as many people on transit, if the regs are misaligned I’m generally going to say go with the Euro ones
@@RMTransit I fully agree with you. I guess I mean safety in a more sarcastic way, like how the US bans Kinder Surprise.
It could also be due to a combination of local content laws and local manufacturers not upgrading equipment.
Meanwhile Japanese trains checks all the requirements to be qualified as old trains. I guess that is an exception to that video
They still look and feel modern. Nothing seems dated even if they’re not designed streamlined.
But then, Japanese trains aren't designed to be built like heavyweight coaches to comply with FRA safety requirements.
Everything that Japan does should be imitated
Sorry, 'old' isn't bad. The PCC streetcars look a lot better than the Flexity Outlooks here in Toronto, for example. Plus, the PCCs (and later CLRVs) rode a lot better than the Flexity Outlooks, which are very unpleasant going around curves.
And those new cars that Boston are getting do not look old, sorry.
The PCC streetcars are 70 to 90 years old. You can't use the same style of design for a tram that fits modern requirements.
And those Boston trams do look old and very dated
At 4:00 - You need to understand: in Boston, the entire system has become so dysfunctional, people honestly don't care what the trains and busses look like - we just want them to run! Our system is badly broken right now and people are mad. You could do a multi-episode series on things wrong with the Ⓣ .
I think the new ones look good but I still like the old style
I would have to disagree with your point on the T1s versus the Paris trains. The jagged straight front of the train with the sharp corner reminds me of the british intercity 125s and look so dated, like they’re from the 60s. The bogeys also look so wonky - I can see your point but maybe some trains from the London Underground or something wouldve been a better comparison to make.
The smaller windows may make for less greenhouse effect in the typically hotter climate of the US vs Europe. Less greenhouse = less energy needed to run AC units, especially important on diesel powered lines like Metrolink, which runs in temps over 100F routinely. The difference between the smallish windows on Metrolink vs Euro style huge windows could be a several hundred horsepower difference in how much HEP that locomotive has to generate to run the AC units in summer, which could make a big difference in both train performance and fuel consumption. Same could be said for Brightline in Florida, it operates in the oppressive heat and high humidity of Florida, and the Brightline Chargers actually have a larger cooling system and bigger side vents than other Chargers so smaller windows = easier to keep cool and less fuel consumption from running AC units.
Plenty of systems in Asia (e.g. Singapore, Shanghai, Taipei) operate outdoors in temperatures just as hot and humidities just as high as those seen in the hottest / most humid parts of the US, yet they still have large windows. They just go with dark tint / mirroring to reduce the greenhouse effect.
Australian cities regularly get much hotter than the average NA city with trains, yet all the windows on both train and tram alike are enormous and have been for a long while.
It's not just trains, it's the lack of design culture in the US. For a European point of view everything in the US looks old-fashioned.
What's wrong with old? There's sort of a hubris assumption that new=better. My theory is that we're regressing. So many years of the CIAM garbage has really taken it's toll.
I found the New York subway very depressing, the trains are so basic and don't get me going about the stations
Dear RM, don’t necessarily agree on all the design aspects of the ‘new.’ For instance, when talking Berlin, the newer ‘Icke’ liveries, may look their new part, however their design doesn’t live up to the iconic quality of the A3 liveries. As a rider it adds so much more to the experience of riding the U-Bahn when taking a route where the older rolling stock is still common.
What I miss in contemporary transit design is that very level of iconicness, which doesn’t come with the generic streamlined nose design, or the flat mounted windows. Most often the design parameters are set way back, by the initial dig of the tunnel structures. Berlin, yet another great example of such a feat, where they know their Kleinprofil, and Großprofil. Let’s similar to the difference of IRT and BMT/IND lines.
And yes, Paris does a good job, but may I remind you that new liveries for the older metro lines also look more design restricted, compared to newer lines!
It’s not just the new that counts, I do get your point on the MBTA green line. But also take into account that changing from coupled cars to articulated ones brings along an entire incentive to change yards, maintenance facilities, maybe even platforms. Plus, when we’re talking railroad design in North America, we’re talking ANSI norms and specific Federal, State, Province and City requirements to which designs have to live up to.
That may be one of those obviously visual advantages of EU norms and regulations, which lead to standardization. However, there’s also a side effect which isn’t to be appreciated in my humble view. That’s the fact that this standardization makes those new trains look the same almost everywhere. Cheerio
I like the classic style a bit, but it should look STYLISH old, CLASSY old, not junky run-down old.
Sydney's Tangara sets were an amazingly modern looking design for something from the 1980s
I like old. If I had it my way all trains would be stainless steel coaches pulled by old F series diesel engines. All trolleys and trains would be very large and wide like the ones in Baltimore and Dallas, although I like what dart did by putting the low floor module in the middle as apposed to getting new centipede looking ones.
When it takes forty years to get a new rail vehicle and the manufacturer's parts support ends after about 20-25 years...the shop needs to be able to cut and mount new window panes and fabricate replacement components itself...plus the vandals just go after everything so you just can't have nice things.
I'd like new modern things, but...there's no *money*. The %$&# state spends more money mowing highway medians.
Love every video you make.
That being said, please edit if you accidentally say “digest” instead of “digress”.
I enjoyed the game inadvertent laugh, I stumbled upon as the pedant I am.
Laugh aside, keep up the awesome work bro!
Am I the only one who thinks the type 9s look cool and modern?
I think so. Aesthetically they look more like a trolley bus.
They look better, but I think we should aim for more than that
What do you mean those NY trains are new built? They look like someone jammed a new cab on the front of a 50 year old train...
The bus at 01:46 looks like from 1980s. Definitely not modern looking.
Tokyo's new Ginza line trains are both modern and have features that are a nod to the past. In particular, the horn.
Meanwhile, Hong Kong trams all look 100 years old, despite generations apart. I think it's more important for transit to be safe and clean. New design is just a cherry on top.
First problems I see is the single door at the end, which is very bad, even Alstom quit that. Lots of people want to leave at the front or back, to cross the station.
Also, why so little windows? The city is beautifull, let people watch it and has a bit of sun. Glass is hard to make?
I think that transit should be seen as an extension of the architecture of a city, so more work should be put into designing transit that either reflects or continues design themes present in the city overall. Obviously this can't always happen when it comes to aerodynamics, but it's still something to consider. In any case, functions should always take precedence over form when it comes to transit, also once function is maximized, extensive public awareness campaigns should be run to draw attention to the work that has been put in.
A lot of old stuff is aesthetically nicer, even if they're functionally not good. I'm a designer. Design trends come and go - you might even get more aesthetic longevity out of the older design rather than an aggressively contemporary one .
The new york metro cars and ALL the fire trucks in US looks old as hell...
Every civic politician (of a major city) and transit planner in the world should subscribe to your videos. If they don't know who you are, they shouldn't be in their respective lines of work.
Some designs just aren't old enough, at least for trams. There is something about old pre-WW2 style street cars design that are very classy looking. If they want to make things look old, actually make them look old with more ornate designs while keeping modern features such as good lighting, air conditionings, and accessibility. These classic looking tram would complement old downtown area or touristy area. The entire fleet doesn't need to look like that, but one or two on certain lines will be an eye catcher.
Packaged nostalgia will only convey the message "this is not a serious way to travel, just a thing hoping to attract tourists." Classy is also in the eye of the beholder. You see classy, I see fussy.
To be honest those historical streetcar routes aren’t that much useful compared to their actual routes on their respective or comparable systems like the New Orleans Streetcar, Silver Line San Diego, Kenosha Streetcar. Though the Ashmont-Mattapan High Speedline will be replaced by Type 9 LRV when the Type 10 comes in, so that’s an outlier but using more modern vehicles than the PCC
I would absolutely love trams in a historical style (but obviously only in small amounts and modern technical specs), but really nearly anything is fine as long as they're kept clean and up to date just a bit (like small overhauls every 10 years or so). Even a 50 year old train can look great if feels as if it was just delivered because it's clean
The North American transit vehicles look older probably because it is significantly cheaper to spec them that way. It is probably cheaper because it is easier to build them that way. Yes, even if I were a daily rider, I'd very much take a 50-year-old looking design for the next 30 years as long as I pay lower fares and lower taxes and safety, energy efficiency, and functionality isn't compromised for the vehicle. After all, Boeing 737 airplanes have looked the same since the 1960s too, and they're perfectly good besides the safety shortcoming of the fatal MAX flaw and the functionality shortcoming of lack of glass cockpit.
As a result, I'd very much take Toronto's T1-Series, Boston's 2018 LRV, 2021 Amtrak Viewliner II, and even Chicago L's 5000-Series over much more sleek designs if I get to pay substantially less. After all, the regular person does not care how the trains look, and would very much rather spend even the moderate amount of money on vacations, including local staycations that may involve riding those outdated-looking vehicles to get to the tourist destination. As for why transit vehicles cost much more in North America than those in Europe and Asia, it is probably because of safety regulations rather than framed windows being a niche option. After all, North American vehicles, especially mainline ones which are required to follow FRA crashworthiness standards, and significantly heavier than those elsewhere from being much sturdier. One is probably paying for the tons of extra structural material rather than the window frames.
Of course, if a society overall were flush with money, then the transit agency should get the newest-looking highest-performing vehicles without exception. However, the reality is that not a single society overall on the planet, not even Norway, has too much money to spend.
-Except you probably aren't paying less (NYC's R211s are only slightly cheaper per metre than London's new picc stock, despite the picc stock being essestially fully custom and full of weird (and expensive) solutions due to their small size)
- Potential riders probably aren't going to want to use trains that look like they're 50 years old over their much newer looking cars
- Alot of passenger railways in the US don't have to follow FRA standards
- and even if the badly designed trains end up cheaper, you aren't going to see much, if any reduction in taxes or fares
Oh and most of the flaws of the 737 MAX come from them trying to make an old design as efficent as a new one
Am I the only one here who thinks the European trains actually look worse than the North American ones? You talk a lot about making trains that look timeless and then show as examples of this several trains that to my eyes at least look dated. At least with the North American trains, they can be said to look retro which seems a lot closer to being timeless for me.
And why should every train have the same colorful 2000s looking design. I personally would like my transit to be unique and full of character so long as it is also functional. Also, not everyone wants to be next to a window as some of us are trying to use a computer and don't want the glare or the heat.
Yes you are. 99% of US trains look terrible and they do not look retro or timeless. They just look old and dated
In train design form should never take precedence over function. A well engineered train can last 50 years with necessary refits. One of the best underground trains ever was the London Underground 1938 stock, which ran on the underground until 1988 & refurbished units ran on the Isle of Wight until 2021. That's 83 years!
The worst offender here is the silverliner V imo, like can you believe that it was introduced in 2010 in Philadelphia and 1016 in Denver?
They may be bulky and rugged but she runs like a horse on steroids.
Nah the T1's are definitely worse, you could have told me they were from the 60's and i wouldn't have qustioned it
@@AphonseD_The T1s don’t have the multilevel boarding and are also quite a bit older though!
New trains should just *work* and work well
Budd don't break
Probably because big car and other lobbyist want to reinforce the North American idea that transit is for poor people. Can’t have it look too nice.
Why do we always complain about our transit? We are blessed! Most countries do not have as good transit as usa
It's about a transit agency saying "Look at us, we're investing in the system". Spending millions on new trains but layperson doesn't even realize it is such a waste.
I can also add that non-nerds who've never once thought about trains or their design, engineering and manufacture in their life notice these things. If you visit a new city with a normie and a sleek train with big glass windows and a cool LED headlights swoops into the platform, they notice and say "oh, that's fancy!". Once first impressions are out of the way, they do look around and pay attention to the interior and note how nice it feels.
Also it's impossible to understate how much LEDs have revolutionised industrial design. As well as being smaller and far more energy-efficient, they've allowed designers to be far more creative with the the frontend design of vehicles beyond "circle on the left, circle on the right". Car designers have used them to give their brands a unique looking "face" using the LED DRLs and the same principle can apply to other vehicles. You can already recognise a Stadler train or Alexander Dennis bus just from the frontend design, and even though passengers aren't the direct customers of these vehicles they do notice and start building positive associations with the brand if they enjoy the experience. Eventually, that'll lead to them persuading their local transport agency to buy more of that brand in future.
You see, old looking vehicles are cuter, thus making them superior by any means. Case closed.
My main problem with modern trains is they are designed for uni set service so to take one out means taking a whole train down. Personally i prefer single car or mated pair sets with door ways between cars so you can run all sorts of train lengths and people are not locked into 1 box. Then make these cars into cab’ed atleast on 1 end MU cars so there is always a leader available. Sure they would be flat faced but who needs the next shiny trying to be a sports car or a knock off of something else when you got a car that does the job it needs too and is already fitted with the most modern comfort inside with a easy to change design.
New York has to stick with the look they have mostly, since the stainless steel models are necessary to keep graffiti off the trains. I don't think you'll ever see a train with painted livery every again on any MTA railroad for that reason, so they'll never have that cutting edge look. The R211's are the best you're gonna see (and even those are a step backwards aesthetically with the smaller "picture windows", necessitated by the larger doors of the model.
And knowing the NYC subway... open gangways are going to be a nightmare the moment someone defecates or vomits in a car (an unfortunately common occurrence in the NYC subway). Passengers can flee to an adjacent car at the next stop and I've seen conductors seal off a car in such situations to keep the train operating until the end of the run. With Open gangways they'll probably need to take the train out of service, causing delays. Some things that work great elsewhere are a poor fit for NY.
Eh, I doubt if NYC is the only city in the world that has ever had this happen. Unless you are implying that New Yorkers are uniquely badly behaved or that other cities have uniquely well-behaved citizens.
@@1978dkelly as a New Yorker, yes, yes I am.
Not uniquely but amplified compared to elsewhere, but its a city of 8.5 million people, and as such everything is multiplied, including the people that like to reek havoc. Some kid a few months back decided to go on a window smashing spree on the subway that cost almost half a million dollars to repair. (and this kind of thing happens in the NY subway all the time). Not saying other places don't run into issues, but NY gets more of them than many others just on the numbers of people alone. NY's MTA spends more than any other transit agency in the world dealing with the remediation of things like graffiti, and they moved to the stainless steel look they have today back in the 1980s in order to combat it, and to their credit it has worked. But this necessity limits the aesthetics.
Lastly, my point about open gangways... I lived there and commuted on the NY subway for decades, the point is valid. Don't ask me why Tokyo or London doesn't have the same issues, but the NYC subway has always had them and it is what it is.
Wait... Someone... Vomit and defecate in trains???? And it's a common occurence???? Wth?? 😦.. NYC is more developed than any cities in Indonesia, yet I've never seen people defecate, or even vomit inside a commuter/local/metro train here.
@@kanojune5754 sadly, yes it's a common enough occurrence to be a genuine concern.
In London our buses and trains look really modern some American ie new,New York subway trains look like our PEP units which are just being withdrawn after nearly 50 years and the C stock which was scrapped 10 years ago ,our buses too are futuristic and sleek ,American designs are very rugged and utilitarian in design
Merseyrail rider here: RIP to the PEPs, I'm going to miss them. 😢
_I think they're beautiful..._
@@suave-rider horses??
@@suave-riderhow come?
@@suave-riderin what way pray tell uncle so you’ve not seen the electric ones mind you the black cabs are a rip of mate
It’s mostly really outdated regulations and design manuals.
Sydney trains and trams look pretty shmick.
I have 3 things to say: yes YES and YESSSSS
Europe is returning to framed windows however. Look at the London Elizabeth Line trains in the video. Here in Cologne and neighbouring Düsseldorf the new light rail trains (they bought the same model, delivered 2 years ago) have small, rubber sealed windows instead of the large glued ones of the previous series. Several trains in the quite recent past (e.g. Bochum Tango light rail, Hamburg DT5 subway car) have rubber sealed, framed windows. If a city is prone to vandalism like scratching or stone throwing (unfortunately Cologne, Bochum and Hamburg all are) the indeed more expensive to build framed windows can become cheaper long term by their cheaper replacement.
Not really.
Also the class 345s can have very big windows with frames, thats much harder on tram/light rail, expecially with the design of Boston's
I feel like railroads in America have a sort of nostalgia factor because the national rail system has declined immensely since its golden age before World War II. American railroads were starved for funding, causing the remaining lines to continue to use equipment well past its intended service life. Many pieces of American equipment like the GP40 locomotives and the NY subway cars appear timeless because they've been in service for so long, and it's formed the image of what a train should look like. I personally find the modern, sleek designs with full-length windows to be jarring, simply because it's not how trains appeared when I was younger. However, this 'old' look even to modern equipment has bolstered rail's poor reputation in the American public eye. Because it doesn't like shiny and sleek like the latest cars, and with America's unique obsession with the automobile, people will prefer to drive.
America also has the unique issue, compared to Europe that major cities are spaced further apart and there are large regions with sparse population, particularly in the center of the country. Due to this, outside of dense regions where the cities are close to together, like the Northeast and California, long-distance passenger rail simply isn't practical. No high-speed train is going to run faster than an airplane, and those don't require tracks to be built and maintained.
They're not old they are just american
Anachronous trains kind of feel like the idea that public transit should be absolutely free, in that they both make transit seem like something only the "poor" need to use. Though to be fair, at least people benefit from free fares. lol
It is really backwards, provide a service so poor that free fares feel justified
One problem N. America needs to overcome is the stereotype that "public transit is just for poor people". When trains and busses look old, dirty, or neglected, it further reinforces the idea that these are low quality options to be avoided whenever possible.
I've noticed that on any post about transit "What about the homeless murderers vomiting all over the floor" - is that really so common over there, because it's rare here.
I've only seen in once in my entire life.@@railotaku
Well for once, I like that the US is not like everywhere else.
No real commitment to public transport in the US
None of this is meant as disagreement or saying “you forgot…”. I agree with your points. I’m just riffing because you got me thinking.
Aesthetics also affect people’s desire to use or avoid public transit, consciously or otherwise. So modern appearance can help increase ridership, even if on the margins. Fresh and appealing appearance can also add to their appeal when folks see them pass while stuck in rush hour traffic.
I say this as someone who recently moved to Chicago. I personally love their cars’ vintage look and feel. But I’m new here so it’s still novel to me. Live here one’s whole life and it can be stale, leading to an undesirability.
I moved from Maryland and ride the Metro regularly from 2002-2010. I wasn’t around enough for the newer de-browned cars to suit me - but the change was I believe still a net positive.
Maybe some systems just feel that archaic is “their brand.” MYC comes to mind. And many may simply be coasting on if it ain’t broke don’t fix it, don’t want a years’ long transitional period or, dunno, they’re in long contracts with no incentive to upgrade. I’m sure each city has different hurdles alongside the common ones. And I suspect many of them are, frankly, kinda dumb, short-sighted, and/or backward. Or just lazy “I don’t like change.” Who hasn’t faced all of these professionally.
Also, never underestimate the unstoppable power of entropy.
Canadian transit systems also took on big changes that the public might have not liked at first. Toronto streetcars finally being low-floor, Montreal’s REM being automated with PSDs and running outside compared to the Metro, and the metro having new trains with all three being derived from European designs. Maybe it’s a less of a Canadian thing to complain about it not following through much of nostalgic designs for trains
1:35 I agree, low floor means virtually nothing. I live in vienna, and the ultra low floor trams are from a technical point of view really nice, but have so many flaws and require a lot of maintenance. (1 day of repairs for every 3 days of operation, that's not really sustainable). furthermore, they destroy the rails.
The ULF is an attempt to get low floor as much as possible; the issue with that is that it leads to complicated suboptimal designs. And as soon as you have non-axle running gears, wear and tear increase a lot.
@@maxwyss7447 yes. and all that just because they wanted to avoid the need to raise the stations by a few centimeters (which would be great, because the old trams are still in use).
@@robertheinrich2994 Well, Weana… says it all…
@@maxwyss7447 happens...
;-)
(steirer in wien)
I know I'm probably in the minority, but I honestly like the old designs. But for most people, having something look modern affects how much they want to use it. So I do get the push for modernization of rolling stock.
I also like the old designs ... I've ridden the older MBTA Green line trains plenty; they have a 1930s retro feel to them. [And if you look at the tunnel system ... it looks straight out of a steampunk fantasy novel. Very cool!] But the trains stink for accessibility - no level boarding.
There's also a psychological impact of new designs. In most of the USA, the battle is getting non-poor people to use transit, so there's justification to spend money and improve it. Most non-poor people are more likely to use clean, shiny, **new** looking transit. I'll happily sacrifice my love of steampunk retro transit vehicles for increased ridership and service.
Same and im european
An old looking old train is beautiful. An old looking new train is disgusting.