Industrial Design

While now is more of a time to be thinking about practicality than beauty, aren't we almost to the point where we need to be thinking about making our new trains (both HSR and conventional) more appealing to the American people? I don't know about you but I am a bit sick of the ugly superliner + baggage combination. Or should compatability come first?
other questions:
what should the future of passenger rail in America look like?
Should we bring back the concepts of the past (domes, round end observations)?
Should we create an entirely new concept that combines maximum revenue potential with maximum comfort?
Bi-level or single level?
I think these are all questions Amtrak should ask when it gets more equipment.

I don't mean to sound snide but, other than a paint scheme, how many ways can you 'dress up' the basic box of a rail car?

I'm a big fan of industrial design, but really good design costs money. To have a modern locomotive adopt the compound curves of a GG1 or E6 is serious money. A compound curve is a curve in sheet metal that adopts two different directions of curvature. It requires lots of hours of hand work or extra stamps in a press compared to simple curves. When there's a profitable railroad out there paying for that extra styling, as happened in the prewar era, they can pay for as much stying as the board of directors wants. When you're talking about a public entity, there's got to be some restraint, which is why we have simpler design at Amtrak.

I don't dislike the current state of Amtrak's style. It's not all amazing, but certain pieces are designed by Caesar Vergara, a noted industrial designer.

Tadman wrote: I don't dislike the current state of Amtrak's style. It's not all amazing, but certain pieces are designed by Caesar Vergara, a noted industrial designer.

... who was clearly having an off day when he came up with the P40/P42 design, which looks like the aftermath of a collision with a large immovable object.

But you're right that due to costs we won't see anything like the classic E-unit profile again. Ugly pulls as well as graceful.

Have you seen the new version of the genesis design? It looks worse.

Kaback9 wrote:Have you seen the new version of the genesis design? It looks worse.

New version?

Lucius Ameri wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2009 3:46 pm

Kaback9 wrote:Have you seen the new version of the genesis design? It looks worse.

New version?

This concept. Spoiler alert: it wasn't built.

While we're on the topic of industrial design for the rail sector (an area which I'm greatly interested in), what would be some advice or prospects in the field, especially as rail transport in the U.S. is receiving more funding and general interest?

Why are you digging up 12 year old threads?...

eolesen wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 5:12 am Why are you digging up 12 year old threads?...

In this case, I'm particularly interested in the industrial design field for the rail sector, and I didn't want to start a new topic if one already exists.

Pensyfan19 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 5:43 am

eolesen wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 5:12 am Why are you digging up 12 year old threads?...

In this case, I'm particularly interested in the industrial design field for the rail sector, and I didn't want to start a new topic if one already exists.

"I've got a great idea, let's make the front of the locomotive look like Iron Man's mask".
Now that I've mentioned it, look at one of the 90s/2000 passenger locomotives, and you'll see it , too.

How much does the general public care what the locomotive looks like? That's not a snide question, just an honest one. Do liveries and such that match current design fashions or fads attract more passengers, or will anything clean and generally well-maintained do? Even inside, would the superliners repel repeat customers if they'd been redone in the same 70s colors they had to begin with, or would that be irrelevant as long as the seats and walls and such were in good condition? I assume the branding-and-advertising people -- the same people who make their money on the "new-logo-every-decade" model of branding everything from cereal to colleges -- would tell us that "an up-to-date, energetic livery will build up Amtrak's brand and positive recognition among the travelling public", but the number of different styles of business card and stationery and website color schemes I've seen brought in and later tossed out at my own job without any noticeable change in the actual work we do makes me a little suspicious of those claims. I'd have thought running comfortable trains on time was all that mattered. Personally, I can't quite see why "they" keep changing the way things look except when it makes them work better -- but I also still wear some clothes I had in 1992 and miss the oak leaves on the National Geographic cover, so I am probably kind of out there on the other end. That's what makes this an honest, not-snide question.

But I do agree that superliners with v-bags look weird.

Geometry basically answers the proper shape of things.
If you want the highest volume, a cube is a great choice. If you want the highest volume with the smallest surface a sphere is a great choice.
Physics basically answers the proper shape of things.
If you wish to avoid stress cracking at corners avoid sharp angles and use rounded corners.
Hence, why railcars look like rectangular cubes with rounded edges at corners.

The FP45/F40 design was functional, exuded power, and belonged on the front of a modern diesel train.

The GE P series design is was and will always be butt ugly.

Ironic that an E unit looks more contemporary today in 2021 than when it debuted in the late 30s. You can say same for the Alco PAs too.

Although I haven't experienced it yet, there are many calling Amtrak's new Viewliner II interior design as being very attractive Art Deco like. That is great news and kudos to the Amtrak design team.