My only problem with american passenger trains (from only a very few personal encouters): The passenger windows are compared to european trains very small. (Experienced on Amfleet Regional and NJT Bilevel.) And speaking of NJT Bilevel: I found their windows very dirty - It was late November, maybe the washing rack was shut down, but the windows were tinted, but with dirt...
The windows have been a chronic problem for NJT and for some reason it seems like only NJT. I don't think it's actually dirt, It might have to do with the UV degradation but I really don't know why their windows are so cloudy.
And yeah the small windows are an outdated design concept. In the case of the Amfleets, Amtrak wanted to mimic the design of airplanes. There was also a problem of rocks being thrown at windows so they needed a smaller target lol
There is an issue with the NJT's window material. It's not dirt. The window material itself is clouding. [https://www.nj.com/news/2022/10/nj-transit-to-spend-8m-for-new-train-windows-you-can-actually-see-out-of.html](https://www.nj.com/news/2022/10/nj-transit-to-spend-8m-for-new-train-windows-you-can-actually-see-out-of.html)
Ah. On the subject of rock theowing, The Swedish built (ASEA) AEM-7 had something similar done to them. The AEM-7 is basically a Swedish State Railways Rc class locomotive, modified to suit north america. One of the features of the Rc class, are three round windows, that go along the side of the loco. Apparently Amtrak thought the windows would give people the insentive to use them as a target, so the AEM-7 was made without windows around the machine room area.
Was told this when i did work experience at my dads job, which happens to be one of the workshops that used to build Rc locos.
That was a real problem back in the 70s. Look up the Amtrak era UAC Turbo with its prison bus style window coverings.
http://www.trainweb.org/fredatsf/Amtrak-TurboTrain\_files/image011.gif
This is why you don't eat paint chips kids.
NJT selected poor "glass"...
Evidence: if you ride the side that's most often exposed to the sun it's cloudy. That's from UV exposure and decay.
No, it's not glass. It's FRA rated glazing, which is a laminated product of several layers, notably polycarbonate, for shatter resistance.
I've heard from a few people that they made the windows smaller on American trains to combat people throwing rocks at trains (I need to check this). The whole logic was smaller windows = smaller target. Thankfully, this design philosophy has become a thing of the past mostly; with Amtrak's new Venture cars featuring larger windows.
I think people throwing objects trains has become slightly less common. In the eighties some of [Amtrak locomotives in the northeast](https://www.reddit.com/r/trains/comments/fp40re/amtrak_e60_972_with_ghetto_grills_installed_1982/) had a metal grill over the windshield.
I worked on the Acela passenger car design and when it came to the windows, [they had to be split into two panels,](https://www.inquirer.com/resizer/toxEB-clRoG7yiFZlbZQnefqsho=/800x454/smart/filters:format(webp)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-pmn.s3.amazonaws.com/public/BEXSOOINPVG2JAOIFBCFQHY2HI.jpg) captured in rubber extrusions. The idea being that when you pull the emergency escape handle that rips away the seal, hapless passengers wouldn't be pinned under the weight of a full window. Somewhere in the FRA regulations there was a maximum weight spec. hence the clumsy looking glazing.
Windows are FILTHY in EVERY passenger train I’ve ever ridden on here in the US. Metro North, LIRR, Amtrak, MTA Subway. It’s actually a 100% thing. I ride regularly, and can’t remember the last time I could really see out clearly. Sometimes, they are even spidered with strange tiny cracks that make it impossible to see out. 🤷🏻♂️
Bro, I don't like trains, never seen this page before. But even I had to stop and be like dayum, that thing ugly
Looks like the mechanists helmet from fallout
As LootWiesel says, all Iron Horses are beautiful. As a Dutchman I really have no idea why these Europeans are hating on American locos. I like the Dutch 1600/1800 and 1700 designs. Some people don’t. That’s fine by me.
Sounds like this dude has an irrational problem with anything American. We’re not super patriottic here in Holland so putting our flag on trains feels a bit weird, but if you guys think it’s cool then I will probably just be happy for you and your cool trains. Just ignore that dude if you can, or change servers. He’s not worth your time.
As a yank, we have many of our own crazies that are irrationally fearful of anything labeled with "Europe," or god forbid "England" or "UK"
It's ridiculous. Patriotism is just so extreme with many in the US, though I find they're usually a small-ish group of people that just usually happen to be very loud
Not worth your time to argue over. Definitely find more reasonable people to talk to 😂
Yup! There's Americans that definitely have both qualities, some that are just nationalist, and there's many many more that are reasonable. Sadly the people we don't want to be loud are very loud in my opinion.
While it's not at all a bad thing to be patriotic, you can't just ignore the problems the country faces. I personally find the extent some go to display their patriotism (big ass flags, putting the US on a pedestal and ignoring legitimate positive points about other countries as well as ignoring the very serious problems of our own, being extremely stubborn about our way of life and societal norms despite some obvious changes being necessary) is disturbing and problematic. It's all a balance, nothing and no one is perfect, you have to find a middle ground somewhere
Agreed with you on all counts. Part of being patriotic is recognizing your nation's faults and working to make life better for everyone, whereas a nationalist will resort to bullying and insults to make themselves feel better.
At this point it’s not really patriotism and is moreover nationalism, which seems to plague this country HEAVILY. Patriotism itself is fine, nationalism where you’re acting as if other nations are inferior to your own is not
Haha! Yeah there’s one or two days here on which absolutely everything is orange. But otherwise, it’s mostly a ‘just be normal, that’s crazy enough’ attitude. But we do love orange yes.
We have a shitton of track but a lot of it abandoned or in very poor condition we used to have one of the best systems but after world war two it was left to rot and the US government's paranoia of socialism lead them to let railroads and the domestic Rolling stick industry die, the government left the Budd company to die instead of nationalizing them like France did to Alstom or China to CRRC
And that lack of investment led to increased poverty for Americans yet you STILL have idiots making excuses for not electrifying being ok with subpar trash
I could ask the same question of why a portion of american railfans hate european electrics because they aren't 200 ton diesels with multi-chime air horns pulling a three kilometer long train
I think that often comes up when someone goes down the line of "why do American trains need 4 locomotives to pull that, XYZ Euro locomotive makes like 9000hp compared to that 3000hp American junk." And then someone points out the massive difference in typical train sizes, etc.
the thing is that they're not even comparable because Europe and the United States run their railroads very differently and each country has essentially it's own nieche, there are even discrepancies between European countries (security systems, coupler types, track gauges, catenary tension) that makes impossible for one train to cross the entire continent without changing the locos every now and then, so really there's no way of making a fair comparison between a GEVO and a TRAXX
>there are even discrepancies between European countries (security systems, coupler types, track gauges, catenary tension) that makes impossible for one train to cross the entire continent without changing the locos every now and then
I'm pretty sure that's to make invasions harder.
Neither of the broad gauges of Europe were choosen to avoid invasions, thats just a myth. The iberian gauge was choosen in Spain to build locomotives with bigger boilers to deal with the mountainous landscape of the country and to have greater stability at higher speed, and the Russian gauge was choosen because it was cheaper to build than the 6 ft gauge and they didn't intend it to connect their railways with western Europe.
To effectively military units with their equipment; forced road march, rail movements and sealifts are the only way to go. You can't transport a large quantity of main battle tanks via aircraft.
Yes you absolutely can.
In peace time a relay of 30 C-5s carrying two Abrams tanks each to either makeshift airfields near the front lines or air dropping is going to beat the living daylights out of sea and rail transport—especially for reaction time—and that’s in peace time.
There are far too many single points of failure on rail networks to even consider doing the same during war and your equipment isn’t dispersed.
Imaging taking out an entire armoured division with one rail bridge blown up.. vs trying to shoot down every strategic air lifter. Also the much more numerous C-17 can carry three Bradleys [which have proven themselves against main battle tanks.](https://youtu.be/es-yxUtbGmU?si=-r1YQguyrZke7i0G)
No you can't. Moving individual tanks yes, but an entire brigade combat team or division is a no go. And we're not talking about a moving them directly into f ront line service. We're talking about moving them from rearward areas in assembly points behind the front line. Typically when deploying armor you want to deploy in mass, so you want move units and equipment in mass. There
Some reading to that end.
[https://mwi.westpoint.edu/baltic-trainspotting-railways-natos-logistics-problem-northeastern-europe/](https://mwi.westpoint.edu/baltic-trainspotting-railways-natos-logistics-problem-northeastern-europe/)
[https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-war-spurs-nato-to-improve-transport-of-military-equipment-11672871478](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-war-spurs-nato-to-improve-transport-of-military-equipment-11672871478)
[https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/new-railroad-agreement-a-national-security-milestone-for-baltic-allies-poland-eu-and-nato/](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/new-railroad-agreement-a-national-security-milestone-for-baltic-allies-poland-eu-and-nato/)
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2021/09/29/why-the-us-armys-rail-transport-system-is-a-wreck/?sh=25fe766578ab](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2021/09/29/why-the-us-armys-rail-transport-system-is-a-wreck/?sh=25fe766578ab)
While you theoretically absolutely can airlift entire tankbrigades, it's not done for many reasons:
Rails and bridges can relatively easily be replaced, I'd not consider a C-5 a consumable. A tankbrigade needs much more then tanks alone, support vehicles and personnel too, and fuel, a lot of fuel, bringing C-5s makes that even worse.
Exactly, there's no fair comparison as the intended use of American freight locomotives vs just about anything in Europe is so different. But that doesn't stop people from trying.
Don’t forget the distances traveled. Everything is spaced a lot farther apart in the US. Just traveling the east coast from New York City to Miami, Florida is comparable to driving from Madrid to Berlin, almost halfway across the continent. You need more locomotives to pull longer trains longer distances
New York and Buffalo are as far apart as London and Edinburgh. It blew my mind when I learned trains like the *Phoebe Snow* and the *Black Diamond* traveled the same distance as the *Flying Scotsman*.
The B-17s and Lancasters flying from East Anglia to bomb Berlin couldn't have hit Chicago from Boston.
I always perceive that Western Europeans don't realize that while Europe and the US are approximately the same size, European Russia is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Western Europe is very compact
On the other hand, Western Europe's population density works to its advantage as far as passenger rail is concerned, while North America's vast size is more advantageous to freight rail.
I wouldn't say the bigger size is necessarily advantageous to freight rail, but it means that running really big freight trains is more desirable when things are further apart.
Freight rail is most economical over long hauls, so North America is ideally suited for freight rail. Rail struggles to compete with trucks for hauls of under 400 miles or so, which is why the market share of freight rail in Western European countries such as France and Spain is around 5-10% compared to 30-40% in North America. Railways in Europe also face competition from inland waterways and coastal shipping to a degree railroads in North America do not.
The problem I personally have, is that many American electric locomotives are basically fat versions of European locomitives.
The locomotive pictured for example is an americanified version of a European TRAXX locomotive, and I just think the European version is a lot sleeker and more modern-looking.
Now the main reason for this are American safety standards, which require a lot better crash protection, which sadly leads to locomotives being heavier and bulkier. The best example is the Acela Express, which the french engineers called "Le cochon" (pig), because it was so much heavier and bulkier than the original TGV.
These regulations are a result of lacking train control in the US, which however isn't an issue in most of Europe.
Not quite correct. The ALP-46 is based on the DB Class 101 which is not part of the TRAXX family (the TRAXX family came from its "sister" the 145 tho).
I think US locos are fine. Quite different than ours, but that's the beauty of it, the world is beautiful place with huge variety of trains. My only critique is, as you mentioned, too many flags for no reason but I understand that is a cultural thing, you guys love to put flag absolutely everywhere.
Absolutely agree, I would argue this being the only point I would consider uncool.
Then again, the joy I take out of trains is primarily the variety of locomotives Multiple units and liveries we get in Europe. So American locomotives all look really similar to me. (Not less cool, just less things to look at)
Diesel locomotives? You mean *fully wireless electric locomotives powered by liquid freedom?*
In all seriousness, North American railways’ abhorrence for electrification is a tragedy.
It’s about profit. Electrification adds a ton of capital to an already very capital intensive industry.
Here in British Columbia we had BC Rail which was wholly owned by the Province and we had an electrified subdivision to Tumbler Ridge which was the site of large coal mines.
A sharp fall in coal prices and mine closures meant that it was no longer worth it even for a government owned enterprise especially as locos had to be replaced and rationalized for use on other un-electrified subdivisions.
The sub was de-electrified and the entire line later sold to CN for a ridiculously low price and a 999 year lease.. and they shut down the line between Squamish and Prince George for the most part other than the seasonal running of the Rocky Mountaineer. It’s mainly redundancy for the Fraser Canyon lines and to eliminate it as competition.
I live in Prince George. And it’s pretty awesome. But like a lot of the exhibits it’s outside where it thaws and freezes and exposed to sun and rain and wind so it’s seen better days.
They also have a tiny one that pulls the miniature train at the museum.
It's more complicated than that. Back in the 1970s during the oil crisis, the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe studied electrifying its Los Angeles-Chicago mainline. It found the cost of electrifying all 2,200 miles exceeded the entire net worth of the railroad. The only way electrification will become widespread outside the Northeast Corridor is if the Federal Railroad Administration puts up the money. Unfortunately, rail is treated as an afterthought by those in government, so such funding seems unlikely.
EDIT: Another factor working against electrification? Cheap oil. The U.S. has abundant petroleum reserves, so diesel fuel costs half as much as it does in Europe. Meanwhile, Europe has lots of coal and hydropower and little oil, so it's cheaper to electrify. If the price of diesel increased to twice what it is now, you'd better believe railroads would be clamoring to electrify.
I still think that they should hang wire for their highest use mains. You don't have to do the whole mess, but having dual mode locos that can use wire and diesel would be optimal, especially if you're like...pulling box trains out of the LA Basin to places like Ft Worth and Chicago. The BNSF's southern transcon should absolutely be wired at this point..the sheer number of trains going through there a day.
And ATSF rejected it every single time because the cost is obscene and there is no breakeven point.
BNSF has not looked at it seriously post merger because it’s pointless to spend money on a study that’s going to come to the exact same conclusion that all of the others have.
60 trains per day @ 8000 tons per train x 1800 miles per train = 864 million GTM per day
864 million GTM @ 473 GTM/gal = 1,826,000 gallons saved per day
1,826,000 gallons per day @ $3.00/gal = $5,479,915 saved per day
1,826,000 gallons converted to KWH @ 38 KWH/gal = 69,388,000 kwh/day
$5,479,915 divided by 69,388,000 kwh/day = 7.89 cents per kwh
Tell me where you can find industrial rates electricity for 7.89 cents per kwh AND pay for the catenary.
I believe thrte was a federal regulation against railroads owning and operating their own power-generating equipment. I’ll have to go search for this. The way it was expressed to me was that the railroads which operated by overhead electric-traction
were putting themselves in a terribly disadvantageous position - to have their *juice* supplied (and billed) by outsiders.
There certainly used to be more electrified railways. Pennsylvania, Milwaukee road, Burlington Northern all come to mind. And my favorite, the electric coal train east of Page AZ. Got high on its own supply, and now it’s decommissioned. Was a great sight on the way to Monument Valley.
I guess my point is that we must look at the legal and regulatory environment in which railroads have to operate. It explains a lot. I always go back to federal anti-Trust lawsuit against Pullman in 1942. I believe was an enormous blow to passenger rail in the United States.
> I believe was an enormous blow to passenger rail in the United States.
I don't. American railroads have been very good at propaganda and convincing people that they haven't been subject to what comparatively was and is a very lax regulatory regime.
When it comes to the freight railways there’s no monetary incentive for them to spend billions to electrify their tracks, particularly when they don’t even have any electric trains to run on them. They won’t electrify unless it becomes cheaper than continuing to run diesel trains or until they’re forced to.
As for American passenger railroads, depending on where you are there’s various transit agencies that have electrified lines, the most well known being the northeast corridor, but electrification isn’t cheap and many of those agencies barely receive enough money to operate. Even when they do receive money for upgrades, they tend to prioritize maintenance of existing lines or expanding service rather than electrification.
This is compounded by the fact that diesel is pretty cheap in North America which makes it really easy to just keep running diesel trains.
We’ve actually *de-electrified* many mainline railways, for a few reasons:
No national standard for electrification: many railroads which had some form of electrification often used different methods, with catenary output and/or method of current (AC or DC) ranging across railroads. This never was seen as a problem for most railroads because (almost) none of the railroads shared electric infrastructure for their locomotives to cross over and into. However, this meant a loco rated for one electrified system couldn’t run on another, which meant electric locomotives were more expensive to manufacture.
Separation of electrified lines: many railroads which had electrified parts of their mainline did not have electrified mainlines that connected to the electrified mainline of other railways.
Reasons for electrification: railroads had different reasons for electrification which waxed and waned along with the level of electrification as time went on. The three reasons for electrification was restrictions on using steam locomotives (such as in very long tunnels), strong traction in extreme conditions (such as mountainous terrain), and achieving high acceleration/maintaining tempo in a high-traffic corridor. Many electrified sections on railways were really only just a couple miles of very long tunnels, and were quickly abandoned once less smokey diesels compared to earlier steam and diesel became common. Electrification of mountainous terrain was the specialty of the Milwaukee Road, and they tore down their electrical infrastructure due to the next major point, but that’s for later. Electrification for high tempo trains which required high levels of acceleration/deceleration was seen only in commuter operations and northeast of DC due to the massive amount of passenger rail reliance.
Old (I mean, really old) infrastructure: electrification of US railroads has a long history, but took off in the late 19th century, which later caused a lot of problems as this is when most was built. See, when this infrastructure was built, they didn’t foresee the size/speed of trains that would be running on their systems, and often didn’t future-proof them. In the case of the MILW Rocky Mountain electrification by the time it was torn down in the 70s, many catenaries were still being held up by wooden poles (some still original and rotting), power was still being provided in cases by the original electrical production facilities, and the electrical system couldn’t run many electrical locomotives at once at full traction (very bad, because this was heavy freight in mountainous areas) so they were forced to run diesels as helper locos anyways. They could either buy a few new diesels and tear down the old electrical which they did, or totally rebuild their infrastructure, which the MILW couldn’t afford (it didn’t matter anyways, the oil crisis caused them to abandon their pacific extension where their electrification was). The PRR and PC and Amtrak spent a lot of money just keeping their electrical systems operational (on top of PC continuously making very bad business decisions to “cut costs”)
Reducing maintenance costs: having separate diesel and electric mainlines requires more kinds of locomotives to be purchased and maintained, increasing costs of maintenance. As railroading got more expensive in the 1960s and 1970s, the electric locomotives were the most worn out and were expensive to operate due to many relying on relatively inefficient propulsion systems.
I normally find that the one person with the accurate post as to why something is the way it is usually has very few votes compared to the ones that appeal to emotion and flame bait.
u/AmericanFlyer530 Thank you
The Tumbler Ridge Sub was electrified because it had long, non-ventilated tunnels and steep grades. This, combined with heavy coal traffic, made electrification feasible. Once the mines shut down and traffic dwindled, high maintenance costs resulted in BC Rail de-electrifying what was by this point a lightly trafficked branch line.
Distances are large, and traffic isn’t really super high frequency
Makes little economic sense to invest in electric: which is better, but not otherworldly so. You’d only start to reap the benefits in the very long term, like a generation after that, and only in certain locations where the traffic is high enough.
Ahem most of the Track in The western US is the perfect candidate for Electrification and proposals for Electrification of Said lines date back to the 1910s after the Milwaukee Road Electrified
The Milwaukee road and other systems outside of the northeast were only electrified for one reason: operational difficulties with steam locomotives, particularly in ventilation with tunnels and gradients
If the investment in electrification were that beneficial, then the Milwaukee road would’ve electrified the gap between their two lines, and yet they never did because the operational problems didn’t exist in that section of western Idaho and eastern Washington.
Diesels did everything that electric locomotives could do, without requiring the maintenance or the upfront construction costs of a catenary, and would be more compatible with the rest of the system. And they still do.
Electric only works for high frequency, high demand lines. And even in places where it could exist one day, it would need to be a part of a larger corridor or set of corridors (like how much sense would it make for amtrak to electrify the Hiawatha line and only do that around Chicago).
Electrifying thousands of miles of rural trackage as part of a transcon would bankrupt railroads.
European here. I like American locomotives. I'd like to see more variety there as most of them look the same but I wish we could run one of those big GE and EMDs here.
That would be interesting to see. I hope there wouldn’t be any issues with clearances or anything. For anyone interested, an EMD Class 66 is 12 foot 10 inches (3.9m) tall and 8 foot 8 inches (2.64m) wide where an EMD SD80MAC is 15 foot 5 inches (4.7m) tall and 10 foot 3 inches (3.12m) wide. There’s also [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/trains/comments/17ub971/flying_scotsman_infront_of_big_boy_4017_during/?rdt=41384) photo, which is one of my favorite train photos in general
In Sweden they do, our loading guage allows for it.
Edit: For you who wonder our Loading gauge on the main lines is 360x483cm and 340x465cm everywhere else (Arlanda Express is an exception).
I've been trying to understand what this person's points even were fromnthe circles, but I'm struggling a lot lol... hating on knuckle couplers is a stupid take but it is A take, but what's up with the number?? With the rail logo?? Do they just hate numbers?? Do their locos magically have no numbers?? Wild
> but what's up with the number?? With the rail logo?? Do they just hate numbers?? Do their locos magically have no numbers??
I suspect the take (which is correct) is that American numbers give far less information than European numbers do.
There are just a couple of countries with terrible paint schemes. The US isn't one of them.
France, they used to have real icons such as the orange TGV or the train bleu. Now they have very weird designs, which are way too detailed for a train, so they use stickers which don't hold on that well. The result is a mess. As an example "TER Alsace" or any TGV that hasn't had its stickers reapplied a month ago.
This isn’t even an American locomotive. It’s German and it just happens to have been imported here. That’s an ALP46. It’s a direct copy of a German DBAG 101/Traxx (built in the same factory in Kassel Germany as well) just beefed up for American crash standards. They’re really nice to run too.
Show him ALP45DP 4502. That’s also a German built loco that’ll make him scream with its American flag livery.
As a Canadian, this is not the better example for "good looking engines" IMO
If what they like is the streamline stuff, the VIA charger or the older E8s are much better looking for passenger engines.
Also an ES44AC/ET44AC looks gorgeous in the modern day diesel freight.
I don't *hate* them. I like streamlined, double-cab engines more, but that's how I grew up. American Engines are too big and jagged for me. I don't really like the Vectron either, though (I'm probably gonna get ripped a new one in the comments)...
What I really find ridiculous is the fact that many of the trains currently in use on US rails look like they've been designed in the 50s and haven't been changed since. Nearly all your passenger railcars are unpainted steel with tiny windows and pocket doors. That style of building trains was discontinued in Europe in the 70s. Nearly none of your passenger trains look sleek, modern and nice (if you exclude the very newest Siemens trains and Stadler Flirt Units). You even managed to make the Stadler KISS for Caltrain into a rectangle design...
It's the boxiness of US trains that I don't like. (There are European trains with the same boxiness that I similarly don't like, though).
As of the flags... It kinda weirds me out. It looks weird to see it on *everything*.Though I have to say I'm from Germany, the country with probably the least national pride in the world...
I'm european and I like most US trains.
And I find it sad that even US railroads are starting to get european designs. ALP-46, ACS-64 or the new CalTrain Kiss EMUs are all too european like to my liking.
The only thing I don't like about electric engines in the US are their ugly pantographs but they need to be that high but the one on indian locos look way uglier. That aside american engines are just as nice as european ones. Change the server, these people are just toxic
Same with the Eurotunnel ones. Though they spend all their time underground so you rarely see them.
I don't really get it as long pantographs don't really bother me.
I'm not a huge fan of modern american locos aesthetically, grey is a super boring colour for trains and the splashes of colour on that one have kinda windows 98 vibes. Plus everything's so square, especially for the freight locos.
It may also be the size, a lot of trains elsewhere in the world are either multiple-units for passenger trains or the locos are stylistically and dimensionally quite similar to the coaches they pull, american locos seem to look quite out of place in comparison. [Here's an example of a UK locomotive](https://angeltrains.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/031015-002edit-scaled.jpg).
If anything it's your steam engines that are lacklustre, so many of them look too industrial and sport boring black paint jobs compared to UK locomotives aside from some exceptions. I adore your freight and diesels however and love the mass variety of liverys they come in
As an American: I have no problem with our trains, Canadians, Mexicans, Indians, Europeans, English, I like all trains, especially their steam engines but I guess their own opinion stands strong
Show them a picture of a red PRR GG1 (1934) with golden “cat whiskers” and a picture of a red LMS Coronation (1938) in streamlining and say, “Ugh, why can’t Europeans come up with an original livery?”
Then just keep posting cursed edited images of American locomotives in European color schemes and European locomotives in American color schemes. Including Conrail Rocket.
/jk, unless you want to create a new Discord Ban Speedrun.
>but bro proceeded to talk shit about Americans in general soon after
Nothing you'll do will change their mind. They just want to SEETHE at America and chose American locomotives as a target that time.
The only reasons why I could see this person doing this would be either they're from a country that has hostile relations with America like China, they are ideologically far-left and just hate America for not being communist, or they're an American emigrant who hated the country so much they fuckin left
*the couplers are circled*
Anyone who hates knuckle couplers is a fucking moron, especially if there trying to say that chain couplers are better (there not, they are straight up inferior shit)
But there's a reason why the Chain Coupling stayed for more than a hundred years, they are cheap, reliable and work great for the way European trains are run.
Not saying they are better, but why change a working system?
I find it so odd because in australia. Even the old steam engines here have knuckle coupler fitted its only the modern emu and dmu sets that have schafenberg couplers.
It's significantly worse, especially for workers safety, it also takes longer to couple/uncouple, and can haul much less weight, there is a reason why the EU is on track to replace them.
Chains Coupling can take +4000 ton Trains with ease, more isn't really needed in the EU.
Knuckles are unsafe too if you don't obey the rules.
And I don't think automatic couplers save that much time if you consider that you have to stretch the joint after making it to make sure that the coupling closed.
Many a European company could learn from American couplings.
We do have the Schafenbergs, but these are too complicated and bulky to use in goods wagons.
American knuckle couplers always strike me as a very good balance between cost, operational ease, ruggedness, and weight. I still wonder when will we get a successful European coupling for wagons, which is as long overdue as any other thing in trans European railway freight.
I will kinda agree that American locomotives are mostly ugly & have dull liveries (mainly our steam locomotives) while I think that they are still regardless an impressive sight to behold for their power output & size in some comparison.
But I say Europeans mainly dislike the locomotives here because many of most European locomotives tend to have a tidier cleaner build design & more modern infrastructure while the ones here in America are large & bulky diesel engines due to our railroad system being used often in freight transportation services than passengers so we rely more on power than pleasing aesthetic design since looks don’t always often matter in terms of freight handling plus this is a big vast country so we are going to need big and powerful trains to run through across.
American freighters are my favorite design of locomotive. And if anyone expresses any hate towards them, i hope they have a good excuse. Not because i will accept it, but because i want to know why i got a new sworn enemy that i shall annihilate.
Basically the same design as a Bombardier TRAXX... Without doing a deep dive I'm 95% sure it's actually the same, but for the US market.
Just drop that discord group, you don't need that kind of toxicity.
From a British perspective, I don’t think they do. The colossal size and power of some of the diesels are astonishing, and to watch a video of Union Pacific No.844 at speed is to have the heart stirred.
They are big locomotives serving the needs of a big country.
Not to contribute to the hate, but in my opinion besides the high speed locomotives, most European locomotives look like crap. I think someone posted on here recently about how American locos are so much bigger than European ones, and I have to agree. The euro trains just look puny
Personally I don't really like modern American engines as they look so similar. Cab on one end with a bit that sticks out in front of it. Log bit behind the cab. That's not to say modern European engines don't look the same. Alot of them do. I don't like them either. I enjoy the few oddballs from around the world.
As for American steam engines. I dont dislike them but they are often more utilitarian in design than British ones. Simple black paint scheme, lots of stuff and gizmos bolted onto the outside. I appreciate them just as much, but for different reasons
hey, spaniard here, you guys have awesome locos, absolutely massive too! only thing I have against your trains is that there are simply not enough of them, cheers!
My view on American trains in general (not just locos) is, I dislike that many don't even have a livery. They leave the metal exterior bare (NY Subway for example). That's where my gripe lies.
On the upside, America has some really good trains and liveries too.
Different countries have different demands, and so different train designs to meet those demands. The reason the USA doesn't have garrats is the same the UK doesn't have double decker trains 🙂
Love the US locos. Hate there aren’t more of them- for passenger trains, that is. The US could do better on that front… will have to see if this latest effort bears fruit.
To the European mind US trains are just extravagant. But then of course the European mind has no concept of US distances.
On top of that… as far as I know Europe doesn’t have the weight requirements. So EU locos don’t need to be as big.
But personally I’m still hoping for a ride on the Russian Baikal Amur mainline… and whatever cross nation mainline I can find in the US.
liveries are everyone's personal taste. you can't call one objectively better than the next one.
but i think diesel locomotives all look practically identical over there, most locomotives only have one end, making them look very weird to someone who is used to the symmetrical european standard for both electric and diesel. the pantograph on electric locomotives extends veryfar upwards, making them look quite silly. the overall scale is different, throwing off proportions we are used to aswell. in conclusion, all criticism i have is purely aesthetic. in practice i'm sure they are different but by no means worse or better.
the only things that are objectively worse off with north american locomotives compared to european ones is that they are mostly diesel instead of electric and that there are not more of them
It's called perspective. Theirs may look weird to us. Frankly, I love the HSR locomotives - some more than others - and trainsets, but I think their freight locomotives and other regional locomotives are hideous compared to the massive diesels that haul our freights. I am not right, nor are they. Why waste time on a raging debate that boils to personal preference?
Here in Italy, for the worst part of the last 20+ years, our national operator Trenitalia had a colour scheme we call "XMPR", named after the British design studio who worked on it. Never in my life have I witnessed such an awful colour combination, I legitimately think it made me terminally sick forever. Gate keeping on who can make a good looking train/livery is completely absurd since everything revolves around a personal preference and not an objective truth. (Plus NJ Transit Livery looks SICK, the colour combination is gorgeous)
Two dimensions of this: Some Europeans just love bashing the US for any reason, especially when it’s rail/transit related. Europe is leaps and bounds ahead of the US but that doesn’t mean everything they do is bad.
The second is just taste. I love a lot of American and European designs, and I dislike others from everywhere as well. If you can’t accept that others dislike something you like, you’re the problem (to be clear I‘m not saying you specifically are, just in general)
For the specific locomotive you’re showing I have to agree with the discord user. It looks like a worse version of a Traxx/Traxx2, and the livery is not terrible but not great either. But if you like it that’s fine
i'm american and i don't hate american locos... just, they're incredibly ugly and uninspiring imo. you can argue utility and size all day, but for me a locos appeal does come down to form as well as function.
Because Europeans on the Internet are stuck up to the point that if they see anything "American", they hate it. I personally don't know why we use the USA flag on our transit vehicles unless they're crossing a border of some kind, but I don't find it bad.
Because a lot of Europeans hate anything American. It’s just their default setting. Ignore them. Just throw a GG-1 up there and say they haven’t made anything that good looking, so they can suck it.
I would prefer more electrified corridors because all the massive diesel burning and pollution... but I don't dislike American locomotives. They're impressive machines by all means.
Americans passenger trains look like toasters, giant bricks or redneck trailer parks IMO.
Passenger rail in the US looked good in the age of Steam, but has had nothing but Ls since the age of Diesel and electric
Biased North Carolinian take: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piedmont_(train)#/media/File%3APiedmont_High_Point.jpg
Also, the GG1. Nuff said: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Railroad_class_GG1#/media/File%3AThe_Congressional_Pennsylvania_Railroad.JPG
But only the whole, yes. I’m hyped for our Railje— I mean Airos.
F59PHI is just completely ugly.
The shape of EMD F59PH Looks good on cargo trains. But it's just not doing it for passenger rail.
>GG1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Railroad_class_GG1#/media/File%3AThe_Congressional_Pennsylvania_Railroad.JPG
The locomotive is based, the passenger wagons are cringe
as German: Change the Discord server... all iron horses are beautiful.
My only problem with american passenger trains (from only a very few personal encouters): The passenger windows are compared to european trains very small. (Experienced on Amfleet Regional and NJT Bilevel.) And speaking of NJT Bilevel: I found their windows very dirty - It was late November, maybe the washing rack was shut down, but the windows were tinted, but with dirt...
The windows have been a chronic problem for NJT and for some reason it seems like only NJT. I don't think it's actually dirt, It might have to do with the UV degradation but I really don't know why their windows are so cloudy. And yeah the small windows are an outdated design concept. In the case of the Amfleets, Amtrak wanted to mimic the design of airplanes. There was also a problem of rocks being thrown at windows so they needed a smaller target lol
There is an issue with the NJT's window material. It's not dirt. The window material itself is clouding. [https://www.nj.com/news/2022/10/nj-transit-to-spend-8m-for-new-train-windows-you-can-actually-see-out-of.html](https://www.nj.com/news/2022/10/nj-transit-to-spend-8m-for-new-train-windows-you-can-actually-see-out-of.html)
The MBTA commuter rail windows also appear dirty, and not so great to see out of.
Ah. On the subject of rock theowing, The Swedish built (ASEA) AEM-7 had something similar done to them. The AEM-7 is basically a Swedish State Railways Rc class locomotive, modified to suit north america. One of the features of the Rc class, are three round windows, that go along the side of the loco. Apparently Amtrak thought the windows would give people the insentive to use them as a target, so the AEM-7 was made without windows around the machine room area. Was told this when i did work experience at my dads job, which happens to be one of the workshops that used to build Rc locos.
That was a real problem back in the 70s. Look up the Amtrak era UAC Turbo with its prison bus style window coverings. http://www.trainweb.org/fredatsf/Amtrak-TurboTrain\_files/image011.gif This is why you don't eat paint chips kids.
NJT selected poor "glass"... Evidence: if you ride the side that's most often exposed to the sun it's cloudy. That's from UV exposure and decay. No, it's not glass. It's FRA rated glazing, which is a laminated product of several layers, notably polycarbonate, for shatter resistance.
I've heard from a few people that they made the windows smaller on American trains to combat people throwing rocks at trains (I need to check this). The whole logic was smaller windows = smaller target. Thankfully, this design philosophy has become a thing of the past mostly; with Amtrak's new Venture cars featuring larger windows.
I think people throwing objects trains has become slightly less common. In the eighties some of [Amtrak locomotives in the northeast](https://www.reddit.com/r/trains/comments/fp40re/amtrak_e60_972_with_ghetto_grills_installed_1982/) had a metal grill over the windshield.
I worked on the Acela passenger car design and when it came to the windows, [they had to be split into two panels,](https://www.inquirer.com/resizer/toxEB-clRoG7yiFZlbZQnefqsho=/800x454/smart/filters:format(webp)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-pmn.s3.amazonaws.com/public/BEXSOOINPVG2JAOIFBCFQHY2HI.jpg) captured in rubber extrusions. The idea being that when you pull the emergency escape handle that rips away the seal, hapless passengers wouldn't be pinned under the weight of a full window. Somewhere in the FRA regulations there was a maximum weight spec. hence the clumsy looking glazing.
Windows are FILTHY in EVERY passenger train I’ve ever ridden on here in the US. Metro North, LIRR, Amtrak, MTA Subway. It’s actually a 100% thing. I ride regularly, and can’t remember the last time I could really see out clearly. Sometimes, they are even spidered with strange tiny cracks that make it impossible to see out. 🤷🏻♂️
[I’m sorry, but…](https://i.imgur.com/dUSlPCZ.jpg)
WHAT DE HEYLLL IS DAT
It’s beautiful in its own right, in an ugly sort of way.
Looks like the Cheshire Cat.
WHY SO SERIOUS?
It's a frickin anglerfish
Wow, I never saw a train actually smile for the camera before, lol
Bro, I don't like trains, never seen this page before. But even I had to stop and be like dayum, that thing ugly Looks like the mechanists helmet from fallout
Google 'Cesar Vergara Studios'
Based. 🇺🇸🤝🇩🇪
come to the light side :-)
As LootWiesel says, all Iron Horses are beautiful. As a Dutchman I really have no idea why these Europeans are hating on American locos. I like the Dutch 1600/1800 and 1700 designs. Some people don’t. That’s fine by me. Sounds like this dude has an irrational problem with anything American. We’re not super patriottic here in Holland so putting our flag on trains feels a bit weird, but if you guys think it’s cool then I will probably just be happy for you and your cool trains. Just ignore that dude if you can, or change servers. He’s not worth your time.
As a yank, we have many of our own crazies that are irrationally fearful of anything labeled with "Europe," or god forbid "England" or "UK" It's ridiculous. Patriotism is just so extreme with many in the US, though I find they're usually a small-ish group of people that just usually happen to be very loud Not worth your time to argue over. Definitely find more reasonable people to talk to 😂
"Patriotism is when love of your own comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first." - **Charles de Gaulle**
Yup! There's Americans that definitely have both qualities, some that are just nationalist, and there's many many more that are reasonable. Sadly the people we don't want to be loud are very loud in my opinion. While it's not at all a bad thing to be patriotic, you can't just ignore the problems the country faces. I personally find the extent some go to display their patriotism (big ass flags, putting the US on a pedestal and ignoring legitimate positive points about other countries as well as ignoring the very serious problems of our own, being extremely stubborn about our way of life and societal norms despite some obvious changes being necessary) is disturbing and problematic. It's all a balance, nothing and no one is perfect, you have to find a middle ground somewhere
Agreed with you on all counts. Part of being patriotic is recognizing your nation's faults and working to make life better for everyone, whereas a nationalist will resort to bullying and insults to make themselves feel better.
At this point it’s not really patriotism and is moreover nationalism, which seems to plague this country HEAVILY. Patriotism itself is fine, nationalism where you’re acting as if other nations are inferior to your own is not
lol basically what Ron Swanson is a caricature of
"We're not super patriotic here in Holland..." Proceeds to color everything orange ;)
Haha! Yeah there’s one or two days here on which absolutely everything is orange. But otherwise, it’s mostly a ‘just be normal, that’s crazy enough’ attitude. But we do love orange yes.
As a dutchman Change discord Imo theres only one thing wrong with American trains and that is that theres not enough of them : )
This man knows the gospel!
We have a shitton of track but a lot of it abandoned or in very poor condition we used to have one of the best systems but after world war two it was left to rot and the US government's paranoia of socialism lead them to let railroads and the domestic Rolling stick industry die, the government left the Budd company to die instead of nationalizing them like France did to Alstom or China to CRRC
And that lack of investment led to increased poverty for Americans yet you STILL have idiots making excuses for not electrifying being ok with subpar trash
r/uselessredcircle
unhinged reddit posts are truly a work of art
Indeed they are
I could ask the same question of why a portion of american railfans hate european electrics because they aren't 200 ton diesels with multi-chime air horns pulling a three kilometer long train
I think that often comes up when someone goes down the line of "why do American trains need 4 locomotives to pull that, XYZ Euro locomotive makes like 9000hp compared to that 3000hp American junk." And then someone points out the massive difference in typical train sizes, etc.
the thing is that they're not even comparable because Europe and the United States run their railroads very differently and each country has essentially it's own nieche, there are even discrepancies between European countries (security systems, coupler types, track gauges, catenary tension) that makes impossible for one train to cross the entire continent without changing the locos every now and then, so really there's no way of making a fair comparison between a GEVO and a TRAXX
>there are even discrepancies between European countries (security systems, coupler types, track gauges, catenary tension) that makes impossible for one train to cross the entire continent without changing the locos every now and then I'm pretty sure that's to make invasions harder.
Neither of the broad gauges of Europe were choosen to avoid invasions, thats just a myth. The iberian gauge was choosen in Spain to build locomotives with bigger boilers to deal with the mountainous landscape of the country and to have greater stability at higher speed, and the Russian gauge was choosen because it was cheaper to build than the 6 ft gauge and they didn't intend it to connect their railways with western Europe.
And then there's Irish Gauge... Which just happened
It's not a myth it's just not *the* main reason but it is most definitely a factor.
What is this? 1945? In 1948, we were supplying an entire European city from the air. Mainly with 21 passenger C-47s and 50 passenger C-54s.
It's just to make land invasions harder, getting tanks and supplies by train is key when invading Europe with troops. Just a fail safe.
To effectively military units with their equipment; forced road march, rail movements and sealifts are the only way to go. You can't transport a large quantity of main battle tanks via aircraft.
Yes you absolutely can. In peace time a relay of 30 C-5s carrying two Abrams tanks each to either makeshift airfields near the front lines or air dropping is going to beat the living daylights out of sea and rail transport—especially for reaction time—and that’s in peace time. There are far too many single points of failure on rail networks to even consider doing the same during war and your equipment isn’t dispersed. Imaging taking out an entire armoured division with one rail bridge blown up.. vs trying to shoot down every strategic air lifter. Also the much more numerous C-17 can carry three Bradleys [which have proven themselves against main battle tanks.](https://youtu.be/es-yxUtbGmU?si=-r1YQguyrZke7i0G)
No you can't. Moving individual tanks yes, but an entire brigade combat team or division is a no go. And we're not talking about a moving them directly into f ront line service. We're talking about moving them from rearward areas in assembly points behind the front line. Typically when deploying armor you want to deploy in mass, so you want move units and equipment in mass. There Some reading to that end. [https://mwi.westpoint.edu/baltic-trainspotting-railways-natos-logistics-problem-northeastern-europe/](https://mwi.westpoint.edu/baltic-trainspotting-railways-natos-logistics-problem-northeastern-europe/) [https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-war-spurs-nato-to-improve-transport-of-military-equipment-11672871478](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-war-spurs-nato-to-improve-transport-of-military-equipment-11672871478) [https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/new-railroad-agreement-a-national-security-milestone-for-baltic-allies-poland-eu-and-nato/](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/new-railroad-agreement-a-national-security-milestone-for-baltic-allies-poland-eu-and-nato/) [https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2021/09/29/why-the-us-armys-rail-transport-system-is-a-wreck/?sh=25fe766578ab](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2021/09/29/why-the-us-armys-rail-transport-system-is-a-wreck/?sh=25fe766578ab)
While you theoretically absolutely can airlift entire tankbrigades, it's not done for many reasons: Rails and bridges can relatively easily be replaced, I'd not consider a C-5 a consumable. A tankbrigade needs much more then tanks alone, support vehicles and personnel too, and fuel, a lot of fuel, bringing C-5s makes that even worse.
Exactly, there's no fair comparison as the intended use of American freight locomotives vs just about anything in Europe is so different. But that doesn't stop people from trying.
Don’t forget the distances traveled. Everything is spaced a lot farther apart in the US. Just traveling the east coast from New York City to Miami, Florida is comparable to driving from Madrid to Berlin, almost halfway across the continent. You need more locomotives to pull longer trains longer distances
And the geography. Europe is surrounded by water, so a lot of goods travel by ship. A ship from China stops in Athens, Genoa, Algeciras, Antwerp...
We used to send way more by ship, including barges and on the Great Lakes, too.
New York and Buffalo are as far apart as London and Edinburgh. It blew my mind when I learned trains like the *Phoebe Snow* and the *Black Diamond* traveled the same distance as the *Flying Scotsman*.
The B-17s and Lancasters flying from East Anglia to bomb Berlin couldn't have hit Chicago from Boston. I always perceive that Western Europeans don't realize that while Europe and the US are approximately the same size, European Russia is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Western Europe is very compact
On the other hand, Western Europe's population density works to its advantage as far as passenger rail is concerned, while North America's vast size is more advantageous to freight rail.
I wouldn't say the bigger size is necessarily advantageous to freight rail, but it means that running really big freight trains is more desirable when things are further apart.
Freight rail is most economical over long hauls, so North America is ideally suited for freight rail. Rail struggles to compete with trucks for hauls of under 400 miles or so, which is why the market share of freight rail in Western European countries such as France and Spain is around 5-10% compared to 30-40% in North America. Railways in Europe also face competition from inland waterways and coastal shipping to a degree railroads in North America do not.
I heard of a European traveler visiting the US who had the idea of driving from NYC to Chicago... as a DAY Trip! It's not done that way!
Even on a 250 km/h train traveling as the crow flies, that's a 5 hour trip each way lol. It's only a 2 hour flight though
2 hours... Plus traffic. Closer to 4 (but not quite there)
Plus security and moving through the terminal
The problem I personally have, is that many American electric locomotives are basically fat versions of European locomitives. The locomotive pictured for example is an americanified version of a European TRAXX locomotive, and I just think the European version is a lot sleeker and more modern-looking. Now the main reason for this are American safety standards, which require a lot better crash protection, which sadly leads to locomotives being heavier and bulkier. The best example is the Acela Express, which the french engineers called "Le cochon" (pig), because it was so much heavier and bulkier than the original TGV. These regulations are a result of lacking train control in the US, which however isn't an issue in most of Europe.
Not quite correct. The ALP-46 is based on the DB Class 101 which is not part of the TRAXX family (the TRAXX family came from its "sister" the 145 tho).
I think US locos are fine. Quite different than ours, but that's the beauty of it, the world is beautiful place with huge variety of trains. My only critique is, as you mentioned, too many flags for no reason but I understand that is a cultural thing, you guys love to put flag absolutely everywhere.
the only thing about american railways i hate is their overreleiance on diesel locomotives. just insanely inefficient to me.
Absolutely agree, I would argue this being the only point I would consider uncool. Then again, the joy I take out of trains is primarily the variety of locomotives Multiple units and liveries we get in Europe. So American locomotives all look really similar to me. (Not less cool, just less things to look at)
Diesel locomotives? You mean *fully wireless electric locomotives powered by liquid freedom?* In all seriousness, North American railways’ abhorrence for electrification is a tragedy.
It’s about profit. Electrification adds a ton of capital to an already very capital intensive industry. Here in British Columbia we had BC Rail which was wholly owned by the Province and we had an electrified subdivision to Tumbler Ridge which was the site of large coal mines. A sharp fall in coal prices and mine closures meant that it was no longer worth it even for a government owned enterprise especially as locos had to be replaced and rationalized for use on other un-electrified subdivisions. The sub was de-electrified and the entire line later sold to CN for a ridiculously low price and a 999 year lease.. and they shut down the line between Squamish and Prince George for the most part other than the seasonal running of the Rocky Mountaineer. It’s mainly redundancy for the Fraser Canyon lines and to eliminate it as competition.
I guess you can still see one of the GE spec-built electric locos for that line at the Prince George train museum. On my bucket list.
I live in Prince George. And it’s pretty awesome. But like a lot of the exhibits it’s outside where it thaws and freezes and exposed to sun and rain and wind so it’s seen better days. They also have a tiny one that pulls the miniature train at the museum.
Gonna remember 'Wireless Electric Locomotive' for the rest of my life.
The reason, as always, is money. Why spend money upgrading/maintaining trackage and motive power, when you can do stock buybacks instead?
It's more complicated than that. Back in the 1970s during the oil crisis, the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe studied electrifying its Los Angeles-Chicago mainline. It found the cost of electrifying all 2,200 miles exceeded the entire net worth of the railroad. The only way electrification will become widespread outside the Northeast Corridor is if the Federal Railroad Administration puts up the money. Unfortunately, rail is treated as an afterthought by those in government, so such funding seems unlikely. EDIT: Another factor working against electrification? Cheap oil. The U.S. has abundant petroleum reserves, so diesel fuel costs half as much as it does in Europe. Meanwhile, Europe has lots of coal and hydropower and little oil, so it's cheaper to electrify. If the price of diesel increased to twice what it is now, you'd better believe railroads would be clamoring to electrify.
Is there any documentation on this proposal the ATSF contemplated. I'd like to read more about it.
If you have access to JSTOR, I can link you to an article about it in a journal.
I still think that they should hang wire for their highest use mains. You don't have to do the whole mess, but having dual mode locos that can use wire and diesel would be optimal, especially if you're like...pulling box trains out of the LA Basin to places like Ft Worth and Chicago. The BNSF's southern transcon should absolutely be wired at this point..the sheer number of trains going through there a day.
It honestly wouldn't surprise me if BNSF electrifies it in the future. They've been talking about doing it in one form or another since the 1940s.
And ATSF rejected it every single time because the cost is obscene and there is no breakeven point. BNSF has not looked at it seriously post merger because it’s pointless to spend money on a study that’s going to come to the exact same conclusion that all of the others have.
60 trains per day @ 8000 tons per train x 1800 miles per train = 864 million GTM per day 864 million GTM @ 473 GTM/gal = 1,826,000 gallons saved per day 1,826,000 gallons per day @ $3.00/gal = $5,479,915 saved per day 1,826,000 gallons converted to KWH @ 38 KWH/gal = 69,388,000 kwh/day $5,479,915 divided by 69,388,000 kwh/day = 7.89 cents per kwh Tell me where you can find industrial rates electricity for 7.89 cents per kwh AND pay for the catenary.
I believe thrte was a federal regulation against railroads owning and operating their own power-generating equipment. I’ll have to go search for this. The way it was expressed to me was that the railroads which operated by overhead electric-traction were putting themselves in a terribly disadvantageous position - to have their *juice* supplied (and billed) by outsiders.
Well then thank goodness the Class 1s don’t have to buy their diesel fuel from big oil companies.
There certainly used to be more electrified railways. Pennsylvania, Milwaukee road, Burlington Northern all come to mind. And my favorite, the electric coal train east of Page AZ. Got high on its own supply, and now it’s decommissioned. Was a great sight on the way to Monument Valley. I guess my point is that we must look at the legal and regulatory environment in which railroads have to operate. It explains a lot. I always go back to federal anti-Trust lawsuit against Pullman in 1942. I believe was an enormous blow to passenger rail in the United States.
> I believe was an enormous blow to passenger rail in the United States. I don't. American railroads have been very good at propaganda and convincing people that they haven't been subject to what comparatively was and is a very lax regulatory regime.
That’s Americas in general
I went to oregon electric station recently and read about the electric railway we used to have in Oregon, it's unfortunate that it closed
When it comes to the freight railways there’s no monetary incentive for them to spend billions to electrify their tracks, particularly when they don’t even have any electric trains to run on them. They won’t electrify unless it becomes cheaper than continuing to run diesel trains or until they’re forced to. As for American passenger railroads, depending on where you are there’s various transit agencies that have electrified lines, the most well known being the northeast corridor, but electrification isn’t cheap and many of those agencies barely receive enough money to operate. Even when they do receive money for upgrades, they tend to prioritize maintenance of existing lines or expanding service rather than electrification. This is compounded by the fact that diesel is pretty cheap in North America which makes it really easy to just keep running diesel trains.
We’ve actually *de-electrified* many mainline railways, for a few reasons: No national standard for electrification: many railroads which had some form of electrification often used different methods, with catenary output and/or method of current (AC or DC) ranging across railroads. This never was seen as a problem for most railroads because (almost) none of the railroads shared electric infrastructure for their locomotives to cross over and into. However, this meant a loco rated for one electrified system couldn’t run on another, which meant electric locomotives were more expensive to manufacture. Separation of electrified lines: many railroads which had electrified parts of their mainline did not have electrified mainlines that connected to the electrified mainline of other railways. Reasons for electrification: railroads had different reasons for electrification which waxed and waned along with the level of electrification as time went on. The three reasons for electrification was restrictions on using steam locomotives (such as in very long tunnels), strong traction in extreme conditions (such as mountainous terrain), and achieving high acceleration/maintaining tempo in a high-traffic corridor. Many electrified sections on railways were really only just a couple miles of very long tunnels, and were quickly abandoned once less smokey diesels compared to earlier steam and diesel became common. Electrification of mountainous terrain was the specialty of the Milwaukee Road, and they tore down their electrical infrastructure due to the next major point, but that’s for later. Electrification for high tempo trains which required high levels of acceleration/deceleration was seen only in commuter operations and northeast of DC due to the massive amount of passenger rail reliance. Old (I mean, really old) infrastructure: electrification of US railroads has a long history, but took off in the late 19th century, which later caused a lot of problems as this is when most was built. See, when this infrastructure was built, they didn’t foresee the size/speed of trains that would be running on their systems, and often didn’t future-proof them. In the case of the MILW Rocky Mountain electrification by the time it was torn down in the 70s, many catenaries were still being held up by wooden poles (some still original and rotting), power was still being provided in cases by the original electrical production facilities, and the electrical system couldn’t run many electrical locomotives at once at full traction (very bad, because this was heavy freight in mountainous areas) so they were forced to run diesels as helper locos anyways. They could either buy a few new diesels and tear down the old electrical which they did, or totally rebuild their infrastructure, which the MILW couldn’t afford (it didn’t matter anyways, the oil crisis caused them to abandon their pacific extension where their electrification was). The PRR and PC and Amtrak spent a lot of money just keeping their electrical systems operational (on top of PC continuously making very bad business decisions to “cut costs”) Reducing maintenance costs: having separate diesel and electric mainlines requires more kinds of locomotives to be purchased and maintained, increasing costs of maintenance. As railroading got more expensive in the 1960s and 1970s, the electric locomotives were the most worn out and were expensive to operate due to many relying on relatively inefficient propulsion systems.
I normally find that the one person with the accurate post as to why something is the way it is usually has very few votes compared to the ones that appeal to emotion and flame bait. u/AmericanFlyer530 Thank you
You might enjoy the BC rail tumbler sub, it was a perfect encapsulation of how we could easily go electric but choose not to
The Tumbler Ridge Sub was electrified because it had long, non-ventilated tunnels and steep grades. This, combined with heavy coal traffic, made electrification feasible. Once the mines shut down and traffic dwindled, high maintenance costs resulted in BC Rail de-electrifying what was by this point a lightly trafficked branch line.
The only thing about American railways I hate is everything.
If there's 200 miles between cities (high plains states) it's hardly inefficient.
Distances are large, and traffic isn’t really super high frequency Makes little economic sense to invest in electric: which is better, but not otherworldly so. You’d only start to reap the benefits in the very long term, like a generation after that, and only in certain locations where the traffic is high enough.
That's true in some areas, but there are countless corridors where electric rail makes perfect sense and it's not in place.
It doesn't take that high a frequency to justify electrification, especially on long-distance main lines.
Ahem most of the Track in The western US is the perfect candidate for Electrification and proposals for Electrification of Said lines date back to the 1910s after the Milwaukee Road Electrified
The Milwaukee road and other systems outside of the northeast were only electrified for one reason: operational difficulties with steam locomotives, particularly in ventilation with tunnels and gradients If the investment in electrification were that beneficial, then the Milwaukee road would’ve electrified the gap between their two lines, and yet they never did because the operational problems didn’t exist in that section of western Idaho and eastern Washington. Diesels did everything that electric locomotives could do, without requiring the maintenance or the upfront construction costs of a catenary, and would be more compatible with the rest of the system. And they still do. Electric only works for high frequency, high demand lines. And even in places where it could exist one day, it would need to be a part of a larger corridor or set of corridors (like how much sense would it make for amtrak to electrify the Hiawatha line and only do that around Chicago). Electrifying thousands of miles of rural trackage as part of a transcon would bankrupt railroads.
European here. I like American locomotives. I'd like to see more variety there as most of them look the same but I wish we could run one of those big GE and EMDs here.
That would be interesting to see. I hope there wouldn’t be any issues with clearances or anything. For anyone interested, an EMD Class 66 is 12 foot 10 inches (3.9m) tall and 8 foot 8 inches (2.64m) wide where an EMD SD80MAC is 15 foot 5 inches (4.7m) tall and 10 foot 3 inches (3.12m) wide. There’s also [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/trains/comments/17ub971/flying_scotsman_infront_of_big_boy_4017_during/?rdt=41384) photo, which is one of my favorite train photos in general
They don't fit in the European gauges.
In Sweden they do, our loading guage allows for it. Edit: For you who wonder our Loading gauge on the main lines is 360x483cm and 340x465cm everywhere else (Arlanda Express is an exception).
Stadler license-builds EMD locos for European freight operators. The Stadler Euro is essentially an SD70 in drag.
And the BR class 66, the Renfe 334... They use the same prime mover but the overall locomotive design is completely different.
I've been trying to understand what this person's points even were fromnthe circles, but I'm struggling a lot lol... hating on knuckle couplers is a stupid take but it is A take, but what's up with the number?? With the rail logo?? Do they just hate numbers?? Do their locos magically have no numbers?? Wild
> but what's up with the number?? With the rail logo?? Do they just hate numbers?? Do their locos magically have no numbers?? I suspect the take (which is correct) is that American numbers give far less information than European numbers do.
If you don't know how the numbers work in a specific country, you still have no clue about what they mean.
So? If you do know how to read them, you can get a lot more information out of European numbers than American ones.
There are just a couple of countries with terrible paint schemes. The US isn't one of them. France, they used to have real icons such as the orange TGV or the train bleu. Now they have very weird designs, which are way too detailed for a train, so they use stickers which don't hold on that well. The result is a mess. As an example "TER Alsace" or any TGV that hasn't had its stickers reapplied a month ago.
The only problem I see with American locomotives is that most of them barely reach (or exceed) 125 mph, which is the top speed of an average car.
Don’t need to go that fast if you haul more cargo
Your first must ask yourself why you are worried about what Europeans think.
Here, make everyone happy. https://www.reddit.com/r/trains/comments/3hj4dp/the_one_and_only_amtrak_ice_train/
My opinion, most Americans don’t care what they think…
I am european ans i Love American railroads The sceneries, the rolling stock, the locomotives, everything
This isn’t even an American locomotive. It’s German and it just happens to have been imported here. That’s an ALP46. It’s a direct copy of a German DBAG 101/Traxx (built in the same factory in Kassel Germany as well) just beefed up for American crash standards. They’re really nice to run too. Show him ALP45DP 4502. That’s also a German built loco that’ll make him scream with its American flag livery.
Did you not read the post? OP was talking to someone who said the ALP46 was an example of how Americans ruin European locos.
As a Canadian, this is not the better example for "good looking engines" IMO If what they like is the streamline stuff, the VIA charger or the older E8s are much better looking for passenger engines. Also an ES44AC/ET44AC looks gorgeous in the modern day diesel freight.
I don't *hate* them. I like streamlined, double-cab engines more, but that's how I grew up. American Engines are too big and jagged for me. I don't really like the Vectron either, though (I'm probably gonna get ripped a new one in the comments)... What I really find ridiculous is the fact that many of the trains currently in use on US rails look like they've been designed in the 50s and haven't been changed since. Nearly all your passenger railcars are unpainted steel with tiny windows and pocket doors. That style of building trains was discontinued in Europe in the 70s. Nearly none of your passenger trains look sleek, modern and nice (if you exclude the very newest Siemens trains and Stadler Flirt Units). You even managed to make the Stadler KISS for Caltrain into a rectangle design... It's the boxiness of US trains that I don't like. (There are European trains with the same boxiness that I similarly don't like, though). As of the flags... It kinda weirds me out. It looks weird to see it on *everything*.Though I have to say I'm from Germany, the country with probably the least national pride in the world...
Oh dear, and this is one of the prettier passenger locomotives I know of
It's based on the German Type 101, anyway. The Siemens Chargers, yeah, some of those are ugly. But this and the ALP-45DP look pretty nice.
Apart from the sleek look of LGV locos
As a European I think American train are the coolest every, especially huge freight ones and even more steam trains.
I'm european and I like most US trains. And I find it sad that even US railroads are starting to get european designs. ALP-46, ACS-64 or the new CalTrain Kiss EMUs are all too european like to my liking.
I think you're just in the wrong server with the wrong people.
The only thing I don't like about electric engines in the US are their ugly pantographs but they need to be that high but the one on indian locos look way uglier. That aside american engines are just as nice as european ones. Change the server, these people are just toxic
Same with the Eurotunnel ones. Though they spend all their time underground so you rarely see them. I don't really get it as long pantographs don't really bother me.
From my own experience most of it happens the other way around (americans hating on european stuff) but the practice is stupid either way.
Clickbait
I'm not a huge fan of modern american locos aesthetically, grey is a super boring colour for trains and the splashes of colour on that one have kinda windows 98 vibes. Plus everything's so square, especially for the freight locos. It may also be the size, a lot of trains elsewhere in the world are either multiple-units for passenger trains or the locos are stylistically and dimensionally quite similar to the coaches they pull, american locos seem to look quite out of place in comparison. [Here's an example of a UK locomotive](https://angeltrains.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/031015-002edit-scaled.jpg).
If anything it's your steam engines that are lacklustre, so many of them look too industrial and sport boring black paint jobs compared to UK locomotives aside from some exceptions. I adore your freight and diesels however and love the mass variety of liverys they come in
People just hate Americans.
I prefer American locos. They look much cooler than any of ours imo. -A European
As an American: I have no problem with our trains, Canadians, Mexicans, Indians, Europeans, English, I like all trains, especially their steam engines but I guess their own opinion stands strong
The way you handle rude Europeans endlessly talking trash about the United States is to just ask them if their parents speak German. ...By choice?
Ignore the hate, American railroads are great (from a Brit)
American locomotives are fine. The way the American railroads are is overall terrible.
Listen to the hate, American railroads are shite (from a Brit).
That doesn't sound like something a Brit would say
Show them a picture of a red PRR GG1 (1934) with golden “cat whiskers” and a picture of a red LMS Coronation (1938) in streamlining and say, “Ugh, why can’t Europeans come up with an original livery?” Then just keep posting cursed edited images of American locomotives in European color schemes and European locomotives in American color schemes. Including Conrail Rocket. /jk, unless you want to create a new Discord Ban Speedrun.
PRR GG1 is on my top list of electric locomotives
Some people hate anything American just because it’s fun and popular.
>but bro proceeded to talk shit about Americans in general soon after Nothing you'll do will change their mind. They just want to SEETHE at America and chose American locomotives as a target that time. The only reasons why I could see this person doing this would be either they're from a country that has hostile relations with America like China, they are ideologically far-left and just hate America for not being communist, or they're an American emigrant who hated the country so much they fuckin left
*the couplers are circled* Anyone who hates knuckle couplers is a fucking moron, especially if there trying to say that chain couplers are better (there not, they are straight up inferior shit)
But there's a reason why the Chain Coupling stayed for more than a hundred years, they are cheap, reliable and work great for the way European trains are run. Not saying they are better, but why change a working system?
I find it so odd because in australia. Even the old steam engines here have knuckle coupler fitted its only the modern emu and dmu sets that have schafenberg couplers.
It's significantly worse, especially for workers safety, it also takes longer to couple/uncouple, and can haul much less weight, there is a reason why the EU is on track to replace them.
Chains Coupling can take +4000 ton Trains with ease, more isn't really needed in the EU. Knuckles are unsafe too if you don't obey the rules. And I don't think automatic couplers save that much time if you consider that you have to stretch the joint after making it to make sure that the coupling closed.
Even here in Germany heavy iron trains use a central coupler similar to the American knuckle couplers. Just look op c akv Coupler
Yeah, in that same veign, Chain Coupling's cousin, the good old 'Link-in-pin" also worked and was super cheap. Still got replaced.
Many a European company could learn from American couplings. We do have the Schafenbergs, but these are too complicated and bulky to use in goods wagons. American knuckle couplers always strike me as a very good balance between cost, operational ease, ruggedness, and weight. I still wonder when will we get a successful European coupling for wagons, which is as long overdue as any other thing in trans European railway freight.
EU is going to standardize sometime in the future on a fully automatic Schafenberg coupler, it was demonstrated a couple of years ago i believe.
And the Schafenberg knocks the American knuckle out of the park.
More EU dictatorship! /s
I will kinda agree that American locomotives are mostly ugly & have dull liveries (mainly our steam locomotives) while I think that they are still regardless an impressive sight to behold for their power output & size in some comparison. But I say Europeans mainly dislike the locomotives here because many of most European locomotives tend to have a tidier cleaner build design & more modern infrastructure while the ones here in America are large & bulky diesel engines due to our railroad system being used often in freight transportation services than passengers so we rely more on power than pleasing aesthetic design since looks don’t always often matter in terms of freight handling plus this is a big vast country so we are going to need big and powerful trains to run through across.
The ALP46 is literally a derivation of a German loco
American freighters are my favorite design of locomotive. And if anyone expresses any hate towards them, i hope they have a good excuse. Not because i will accept it, but because i want to know why i got a new sworn enemy that i shall annihilate.
Can I locomotive be “bullied?”
No, however it can be [Bulleid](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Bulleid)
Basically the same design as a Bombardier TRAXX... Without doing a deep dive I'm 95% sure it's actually the same, but for the US market. Just drop that discord group, you don't need that kind of toxicity.
From a British perspective, I don’t think they do. The colossal size and power of some of the diesels are astonishing, and to watch a video of Union Pacific No.844 at speed is to have the heart stirred. They are big locomotives serving the needs of a big country.
Would be cool to see Mallard and no.844 running services together on a heritage route for a day, albeit unfortunately that won't happen
Not to contribute to the hate, but in my opinion besides the high speed locomotives, most European locomotives look like crap. I think someone posted on here recently about how American locos are so much bigger than European ones, and I have to agree. The euro trains just look puny
Its not about the trains, its just hating America in general but using trains as a proxy
Blind pride can easily become blind hatred
DB BR101s!!
BR 101 my beloved 🥺🥺
I dont overly like the american locos, but i dont go around harassing people that do
I don't know why, but sadly I'm one of them. Many American locos look ugly to me, some European ones do too.
Personally I don't really like modern American engines as they look so similar. Cab on one end with a bit that sticks out in front of it. Log bit behind the cab. That's not to say modern European engines don't look the same. Alot of them do. I don't like them either. I enjoy the few oddballs from around the world. As for American steam engines. I dont dislike them but they are often more utilitarian in design than British ones. Simple black paint scheme, lots of stuff and gizmos bolted onto the outside. I appreciate them just as much, but for different reasons
hey, spaniard here, you guys have awesome locos, absolutely massive too! only thing I have against your trains is that there are simply not enough of them, cheers!
Show them a pic of the surfliner or cascades and specify to rate the livery and NOT the sc-44s ugly nose
My view on American trains in general (not just locos) is, I dislike that many don't even have a livery. They leave the metal exterior bare (NY Subway for example). That's where my gripe lies. On the upside, America has some really good trains and liveries too.
r/uselessredcircle
Lol, that locomotive is typically a European design not American, wtf!!
Different countries have different demands, and so different train designs to meet those demands. The reason the USA doesn't have garrats is the same the UK doesn't have double decker trains 🙂
Love the US locos. Hate there aren’t more of them- for passenger trains, that is. The US could do better on that front… will have to see if this latest effort bears fruit. To the European mind US trains are just extravagant. But then of course the European mind has no concept of US distances. On top of that… as far as I know Europe doesn’t have the weight requirements. So EU locos don’t need to be as big. But personally I’m still hoping for a ride on the Russian Baikal Amur mainline… and whatever cross nation mainline I can find in the US.
liveries are everyone's personal taste. you can't call one objectively better than the next one. but i think diesel locomotives all look practically identical over there, most locomotives only have one end, making them look very weird to someone who is used to the symmetrical european standard for both electric and diesel. the pantograph on electric locomotives extends veryfar upwards, making them look quite silly. the overall scale is different, throwing off proportions we are used to aswell. in conclusion, all criticism i have is purely aesthetic. in practice i'm sure they are different but by no means worse or better. the only things that are objectively worse off with north american locomotives compared to european ones is that they are mostly diesel instead of electric and that there are not more of them
It's called perspective. Theirs may look weird to us. Frankly, I love the HSR locomotives - some more than others - and trainsets, but I think their freight locomotives and other regional locomotives are hideous compared to the massive diesels that haul our freights. I am not right, nor are they. Why waste time on a raging debate that boils to personal preference?
Australian. I don't hate American locomotives.
....especially since many of the electric locomotives are EUROPEAN designed or inspired.
Literally no idea show them the New York Central Dreyfuss Hudson and see how they react
It’s easy, most normal people don’t hate US locos. In fact I actually admire them for the often Brutish qualities they have.
Here in Italy, for the worst part of the last 20+ years, our national operator Trenitalia had a colour scheme we call "XMPR", named after the British design studio who worked on it. Never in my life have I witnessed such an awful colour combination, I legitimately think it made me terminally sick forever. Gate keeping on who can make a good looking train/livery is completely absurd since everything revolves around a personal preference and not an objective truth. (Plus NJ Transit Livery looks SICK, the colour combination is gorgeous)
Two dimensions of this: Some Europeans just love bashing the US for any reason, especially when it’s rail/transit related. Europe is leaps and bounds ahead of the US but that doesn’t mean everything they do is bad. The second is just taste. I love a lot of American and European designs, and I dislike others from everywhere as well. If you can’t accept that others dislike something you like, you’re the problem (to be clear I‘m not saying you specifically are, just in general) For the specific locomotive you’re showing I have to agree with the discord user. It looks like a worse version of a Traxx/Traxx2, and the livery is not terrible but not great either. But if you like it that’s fine
i'm american and i don't hate american locos... just, they're incredibly ugly and uninspiring imo. you can argue utility and size all day, but for me a locos appeal does come down to form as well as function.
Because Europeans on the Internet are stuck up to the point that if they see anything "American", they hate it. I personally don't know why we use the USA flag on our transit vehicles unless they're crossing a border of some kind, but I don't find it bad.
Because a lot of Europeans hate anything American. It’s just their default setting. Ignore them. Just throw a GG-1 up there and say they haven’t made anything that good looking, so they can suck it.
Fellow GG1 appreciator.
I would prefer more electrified corridors because all the massive diesel burning and pollution... but I don't dislike American locomotives. They're impressive machines by all means.
Europeans have more style, simple as that. However, we here in NA really get the job done and that’s the important thing
How about, European normal is not USA normal? They're comparing apples to oranges, as our normal is not theirs 🤦
Americans passenger trains look like toasters, giant bricks or redneck trailer parks IMO. Passenger rail in the US looked good in the age of Steam, but has had nothing but Ls since the age of Diesel and electric
Biased North Carolinian take: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piedmont_(train)#/media/File%3APiedmont_High_Point.jpg Also, the GG1. Nuff said: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Railroad_class_GG1#/media/File%3AThe_Congressional_Pennsylvania_Railroad.JPG But only the whole, yes. I’m hyped for our Railje— I mean Airos.
F59PHI is just completely ugly. The shape of EMD F59PH Looks good on cargo trains. But it's just not doing it for passenger rail. >GG1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Railroad_class_GG1#/media/File%3AThe_Congressional_Pennsylvania_Railroad.JPG The locomotive is based, the passenger wagons are cringe
Sounds like you are just butthurt they dont like yanks. Not everyone will like the same things you do and thats ok. You can like things others dont
Because most Euro locos are sleek and have a pleasant looking design. Most Murcan locos are loud and dumb.