Why Do Our Modern Trains Look So Old? 

Something you missed is the colour. US trains are very often gray, unlike European ones: lightgreen in Paris, yellow in Berlin, red-white-blue in London and Moscow etc.

Same with American buses, they still have framed windows instead of the more streamlined look on the Europeans

Large windows are nice, but more and more often I see windows covered entirely by ads. Usually they have thousands of holes to still see whats outside, but those holes let 30% or less of the light through and make taking photos out of the train very hard. There is an example of that at 2:30 in your video.

This phenomenon extends to other vehicles in the US too, like their fire engines still look like they're from the 1950s and car design was a decade behind in the 1980s thanks to the automakers being forced to use sealed beam headlights for way too long.

I suspect the main cause for framed windows in the USA, is NA using removable seals for emergency egress and EU using break glass hammers.

A good case study for this video would be Liverpool with their new BR Class 777 trains on the Merseyrail Rapid Transit network. They used a public inquiry to design our new trains, and since they have gone on to receive numerous prestigious national transportation awards. They also look futuristic and cool.

One of the places that the perception of new trains that look old kicks in is when reliability issues kick in. The moment an old looking train breaks down, regardless of how new it is, people are going to start forming a perception that the trains (and by extension the route they're operating on) are old and falling apart

I have to say I strongly disagree with you on this one: curved glass is stupid: you have to get it custom made, so it's more expensive, and you are dependent on the manufacturer for replacements, while flat glass can be made by independent shops for far cheaper and with almost no capital costs. no, cleaning flat glass is easier than curved? think about squeegeeing a window on your house vs when you have to do it on your car's curved windows: the flat surface is just better. functional things like window size, floor height, and walk through trains are important, but I would say getting them wrong is a problem with design unrelated to transit's "asthetics". The "NY subway/Chicago L" car asthetic is copied here because it is shorthand for utilitarian, functional transit that is trying to get things done: people think "they must be serious, because they aren't doing this for the asthetic"; it makes it clear that you are moving people, not installing some unneeded system because you got conned by a monorail salesman. you showed a picture of the london underground trains as an example of a modern look, but that asthetic is as old as the NY subway car one; that it looks like a "modern" train is the result of making a good design (large windows, etc), and is unrelated to the British asthetic.

Complaining about framed windows seems like nitpicking to me, and advocating that they go to flush seamless panels also feels like advocating for engineered obsolescence as it would make the costs of replacing the windows far higher down the road

Absolutely agree on the timelessness point. We in Hong Kong love the M-train so much because how revolutionary they were when first introduced (to train fans) and how young they still feel to the regular passenger. It’s always amazing to hear tourists commenting on how new MTR trains feel, while in actual fact they’re much older than many trains in the West. The mainline loading gauge, the wide open gangways, 5 doors per side and full longitudinal seating were really features ahead of the time in the 70s.

Brightline is a good example here - the original service uses the same locos as many Amtrak services and does the same speeds, but people think it's high-speed rail because they stuck a flashy looking nose cone on the front! The concept has has a long history too - for example streamlining steam locomotives was partly about aerodynamics sure, but also about making them look cutting-edge.

The Stockholm example makes a good point. Our old rolling stock, with trains consisting of eight separate carriages, was not designed for easy maintenance or even cleaning. The two newer types with three segmented carriages are 20 years apart in age, but they have a common set of design features that allows for much better durability, maintenance and cleaning. Screws instead of rivets, smooth floors instead of rubber grooves (!), more room to get on and off, etcetera. More "modern" looking, sure, but it's also a clear case of "form following function".

The key to keeping a train timeless is the interior. Absolutely the exterior of a train is part of changing public opinion about riding transit, but rather it's about an interior's functionality too! Whether it's having flip seats for wheelchairs or open gangways! If an interior is improved and updated, even if the rolling stock itself is older, then the passengers riding wouldn't care. The average person riding the MTR for example wouldn't notice the differences between the MTR rolling stock because their interiors are upgraded! Meanwhile, you can easily tell the difference in NYC between the R46 and the R211! The MTR keeps its identity while still modernizing at the same time! M-Trains were very modern when they debuted, and they've held up into the 2020s! While it's sadly not of course the entire R211 fleet, some R211s having open gangways is still a huge step in the right direction that they even have open gangways in the first place. They got 20 as an experiment, and the R211 order includes an option of purchasing over 400 of them after they fully commit. Open gangways not only improve train capacity of course but also provide more space for people who use wheelchairs, bikes, strollers, or luggage, with the luggage part being a big plus for those going to JFK! I appreciate its LED displays, the LCD screens and that they tell you which car you're in, and the cool headlights. The seats are colored deep blue and yellow after the New York state flag.

“Modern” and “old” are purely subjective. The “new” BART trains look like the first ones put into service. Functionality and reliability are the only things that should matter. A PCC, in my view, “looks” better than the MBTA’s type 8 and 9 cars.

So true about the T1s. I was chatting with friends the other day and they were all “yeah about time we replace those old line 2 trains, they look so bad, like they’ve been around since the 70s”. They were surprised when I told them they were actually from the mid 90s, and they only looked similar to the older H series. I think perhaps transit systems want to keep the vehicles looking “old” for uniformity, but then I think the lay person never even realizes they’re riding a new vehicle, contributing to the perception that transit is old, slow and unreliable. A secondary realization was that I’m the only nerd among them who knows the names of the car series.

Purely aesthetically speaking, the SEPTA and RTD Silverliner V's are great. It's understandable to criticize the actual design, but soley based off looks, they're very similar to Japanese and Korean stainless steel trains, which still look sleek and modern while also paying homage to the classic trains most people are used to.

Living in Chicago I really dig the aesthetic of our L trains and I think they’re an iconic part of the city, but I hate that 90% of the fleet are older trains that don’t even have onboard wayfinding. The CTA just introduced newer trains to their fleet but it’s only select trains on select lines. I don’t mind how our trains look on the exterior, but the insides can use a massive overhaul. Conversely, my hometown of Portland just introduced new trains to replace their oldest fleet which they’ve been using since creation of MAX in the 80s. That was a long overdue change.

Even the Pyongyang Metro has trains that look newer than North American trains! While the Pyongyang Metro has used old Class D rolling stock from the Berlin U-Bahn starting in 1997, the DPRK government has since built new rolling stock in house starting in 2015 at Kim Chong-t'ae Electric Locomotive Works, called the Underground Electric Vehicle No. 1! It features a VVVF control and initially fitted with an asynchronous motor but later replaced with a permanent magnet synchronous motor developed by the Kim Chaek University of Technology. Not only do the new trains have screens, but the stations themselves have been renovated as well. This modernization of the Pyongyang Metro system restores the youth of the system and improves the cultural sentimental life of the people. I feel as though North American transit agencies try to stick with an identity when it comes to their rolling stock by saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" and keeping their signature look. Which I get! Part of appealing to new people to take trains is the look of the trains, and if a train appears to look old, then people are gonna assume it's old.

I was pretty shocked when I found out that the Toronto T1 trains are the same age as the Berlin S-Bahn class 481 trains (the iconic "mask" trains). Two different worlds clashing. Also, I liked that you talked about stainless steel trains. They don't have to look old, Tokio and Stockholm do it and so does Hamburg. All of them have very modern metro systems with modern stainless steel trains

It’s almost as if the transit authorities in the US in charge of making decisions about the designs of these trains are saying “Don’t expect anything from us in terms of a ‘rider experience.’ We’re just here to get you from Point A to Point B.”

I like the older looking trains. The denver RTD airport line is fucking awesome and feels modern I really like the timeless silver look vs trying to make it look like elon musk esque glass panel.

I totally agree on the holistic point, but I do find it (autistically) amusing how some of the London trains you show as better examples also have framed windows and fairly small door windows. The only thing which personally stood out to me was that cowcatcher (“anti climber”?). Otherwise I think this new tram is a great step up for Boston! (The green and red lines are the only ones I’ve personally ridden. Plus one of the commuter rails but I forget if it was purple or silver.)

I don’t live in Toronto but I think the T1 looking “old” is a deliberate design choice. If you look closely at the older subway trains in Toronto before it, they essentially have the same design and features and it continued until the TTC decided to come up with an entirely new Toronto Rocket design

I have to disagree here. The T has been spending on glitzy trains, but they don't work right, and they don't seem to be able to maintain them properly (which in the specific instance of framed windows, means that if framed windows saves them on maintenance, they're good even if they looks worse). I would rather have transit vehicles that look like they're from the 1920's but work and stay working rather than these glitzy contraptions that cost much more, keep breaking down, and keep derailing. In the 1920s, Boston had a great invention only repeated elsewhere to a limited extent: the Center-Entrance cars. They were single-unit with no articulation junctions to break, with low-floor parts in the middle (high-floor over the bogies) and REALLY BIG doors to let people in and out quickly, and very good capacity for 48'(?) vehicles, such that they were known as "crowd-eaters". They did have the disadvantage of requiring a conductor in each car that was separate from the driver in the front car, but if Boston would ever finish the job on modernizing its fare system (they keep making moves but then NEVER DOING IT), this would solve that problem. If you made a technologically modernized version of Center-Entrance cars (with modern fare collection), these would serve as both trams and city-trains, but with low-floor boarding, and they would likely be amenable to design for safe operation at much higher speeds than anything articulated, thereby making them also suitable for suburban service. But it seems that ever since the 2000s, the MBTA is the home of excuses for why things cannot be done, and is the repeated power-child for how NOT to do procurement.

Considering Boston can barely maintain the track, they've got bigger things to deal with than making larger windows. Although I totally get your point. I also think you could do this same video for U.S. Busses. Most systems in the U.S. use Gillig vehicles, that are boxy and not stylistic or modern looking at all.

1:57: “these are going to be the vehicles you’ll have for for the next thirty years.” I see you’re an optimist. Beyond that I’m not completely convinced. First off: the new trains don’t look old to me. And secondly, (and perhaps this is in part because my expectations of the MBTA are lower than low) but to the extent that aesthetics go beyond functional requirements-door width, open passages, seating, etc.-sure, it’s nice, but not something worth spending too much time bikeshedding. You mention that some of the things we do in North America could raise costs, but without specifically mentioning some of them, and explaining _why_ they would be more expensive than, say, contemporary European designs, it feels vague and handwave-y.

I lived in Boston for over a decade without a car. While I agree with you that looking modern and being reliable are not, in general, mutually exclusive, when it comes to the MBTA, that combination is probably more than they can handle.

2 points: I still don't understand why you care about the ability to walk between cars on rapid transit. When I get on the subway I pick a spot and stay there, I don't go walking around the train. I would argue that "timeless" is very city-dependent. Subways shaped like stainless steel bricks *are* timeless if you're in New York. That style of subway is what everyone thinks about when you say "NYC subway". A lot of the more modern body styles would look weird and out of place there. I also don't think very many of the new designs are particularly timeless either; a lot of them have looks that are very firmly rooted in specific present-day trends that are going to be very out of fashion by the time the trains are halfway through their service lives.

Istanbul has some newer Star Trek esque U-Bahn cars with video ads. It is pretty wild because you go from mosaic stations to cyberspace.

I actually really like the appearance of the older American trains, I much prefer the retro-modern look of stainless steel over modern shells, and I think we can have modern features while preserving the classic Budd car style. I think the Toronto rocket, the new R211Ts, and Tokyo Metro 1000s strike a nice balance between modern features and classic styling.

Umm... Apart from choosing the wrong livery and that anti-climber causing injuries to pedestrians this tram looks perfectly contemporary.

Sydney's Tangara sets were an amazingly modern looking design for something from the 1980s

I do think a lot of the stuff you're showing really *is* new-looking in a trendy way. I also think an important thing to note is that the aesthetic of the existing system and of the city matters a lot; while I definitely think the Chicago L rolling stock could be modernized, I don't think that means they should look futuristic. It's a historic industrial system and trains on it should *look* industrial and their aesthetics should primarily use a form-follows-function design philosophy. The streamlined bubble-shaped fascia and brightly-colored trains of the Paris Metro would simply look terrible if you dropped them into that system, and they'd look horribly out of place in general in Chicago. Grey, beige, and industrial will always describe the L rolling stock, and that is more than just fine, it's a *good thing*. However, that's the exception for me. Most cities don't have such a strong aesthetic that would be badly hurt by modern-looking trains. The ones that would be have an interesting design problem on their hands; how do you make trains look modern while still fitting them into the context of the aesthetics of their city and infrastructure?

I can also add that non-nerds who've never once thought about trains or their design, engineering and manufacture in their life notice these things. If you visit a new city with a normie and a sleek train with big glass windows and a cool LED headlights swoops into the platform, they notice and say "oh, that's fancy!". Once first impressions are out of the way, they do look around and pay attention to the interior and note how nice it feels. Also it's impossible to understate how much LEDs have revolutionised industrial design. As well as being smaller and far more energy-efficient, they've allowed designers to be far more creative with the the frontend design of vehicles beyond "circle on the left, circle on the right". Car designers have used them to give their brands a unique looking "face" using the LED DRLs and the same principle can apply to other vehicles. You can already recognise a Stadler train or Alexander Dennis bus just from the frontend design, and even though passengers aren't the direct customers of these vehicles they do notice and start building positive associations with the brand if they enjoy the experience. Eventually, that'll lead to them persuading their local transport agency to buy more of that brand in future.

"Timeless" design definitely is the best option, but it's also the most difficult to acchieve. Just look at cars: how many car models are really "timeless" or even close to that? If we can't get timeless design, at least it should be somehow attractive: if we build a hundred-million-dollar system, we really want people to use it, right? I think there are two ways to make a new system look attractive: it must either be ultra modern or retro. And if we choose retro, it must be cute kind of retro, no ugly kind.

At 4:00 - You need to understand: in Boston, the entire system has become so dysfunctional, people honestly don't care what the trains and busses look like - we just want them to run! Our system is badly broken right now and people are mad. You could do a multi-episode series on things wrong with the Ⓣ .

For the heavy rail networks that must run with Freight trains they have to comply with Federal Railroad Administration standards which are used in United States and Canada. Which explains why trains ordered from a European platform must meet 800k lbf crush test

Personally I like the look of older North American trains. Surely we can have classic styled trains while having modern features as well.

The smaller windows may make for less greenhouse effect in the typically hotter climate of the US vs Europe. Less greenhouse = less energy needed to run AC units, especially important on diesel powered lines like Metrolink, which runs in temps over 100F routinely. The difference between the smallish windows on Metrolink vs Euro style huge windows could be a several hundred horsepower difference in how much HEP that locomotive has to generate to run the AC units in summer, which could make a big difference in both train performance and fuel consumption. Same could be said for Brightline in Florida, it operates in the oppressive heat and high humidity of Florida, and the Brightline Chargers actually have a larger cooling system and bigger side vents than other Chargers so smaller windows = easier to keep cool and less fuel consumption from running AC units.

All trains are beautiful!

Tokyo's new Ginza line trains are both modern and have features that are a nod to the past. In particular, the horn.

I gotta be honest I really don't care if the trains look old. Like as long as they run reliably, and the windows are large and don't have ads on them, why should anyone care what they look like. Replace the trains because they don't run anymore, not just because they look old. I would put this issue as a pretty low priority on my Urbanism/Georgism list of priorities.

I don't really think it's a big deal at all but then again I think older vehicles generally look better than all modern vehicles, from trains to planes to personal automobiles.

I think that transit should be seen as an extension of the architecture of a city, so more work should be put into designing transit that either reflects or continues design themes present in the city overall. Obviously this can't always happen when it comes to aerodynamics, but it's still something to consider. In any case, functions should always take precedence over form when it comes to transit, also once function is maximized, extensive public awareness campaigns should be run to draw attention to the work that has been put in.

wasn't gonna comment since i largely agree with you and have nothing to add besides a "thanks again for another great video" but you kind of called me out-as a Caltrain rider I can definitely say I would prefer frequent, dependable, reliable service over fancy new trains any day-I got places to be, I don't care how nice the train is, if I have to wait 30 minutes for it (+trip time, +last mile travel time), given the option, I'm gonna drive to my destination, especially considering it won't even take 30 minutes to drive the whole way there. Sure good service and new trains aren't mutually exclusive per se, but they both require resources and funding, and I would prefer resources be allocated to improving frequencies than to buying fancier new trains. I think in this case it's kind of a moot point since our trains were so old we needed new ones in order to be able to increase frequencies-I've honestly just been really frustrated with Caltrain frequencies lately, so your comment just kinda triggered me, sorry-in any case thanks again for another great video, keep it up!

I don't know how familiar you are with Boston, but "New Things That Feel Old" is kind of Boston's motto.

Dear RM, don’t necessarily agree on all the design aspects of the ‘new.’ For instance, when talking Berlin, the newer ‘Icke’ liveries, may look their new part, however their design doesn’t live up to the iconic quality of the A3 liveries. As a rider it adds so much more to the experience of riding the U-Bahn when taking a route where the older rolling stock is still common. What I miss in contemporary transit design is that very level of iconicness, which doesn’t come with the generic streamlined nose design, or the flat mounted windows. Most often the design parameters are set way back, by the initial dig of the tunnel structures. Berlin, yet another great example of such a feat, where they know their Kleinprofil, and Großprofil. Let’s similar to the difference of IRT and BMT/IND lines. And yes, Paris does a good job, but may I remind you that new liveries for the older metro lines also look more design restricted, compared to newer lines! It’s not just the new that counts, I do get your point on the MBTA green line. But also take into account that changing from coupled cars to articulated ones brings along an entire incentive to change yards, maintenance facilities, maybe even platforms. Plus, when we’re talking railroad design in North America, we’re talking ANSI norms and specific Federal, State, Province and City requirements to which designs have to live up to. That may be one of those obviously visual advantages of EU norms and regulations, which lead to standardization. However, there’s also a side effect which isn’t to be appreciated in my humble view. That’s the fact that this standardization makes those new trains look the same almost everywhere. Cheerio

It's about a transit agency saying "Look at us, we're investing in the system". Spending millions on new trains but layperson doesn't even realize it is such a waste.

Europe is returning to framed windows however. Look at the London Elizabeth Line trains in the video. Here in Cologne and neighbouring Düsseldorf the new light rail trains (they bought the same model, delivered 2 years ago) have small, rubber sealed windows instead of the large glued ones of the previous series. Several trains in the quite recent past (e.g. Bochum Tango light rail, Hamburg DT5 subway car) have rubber sealed, framed windows. If a city is prone to vandalism like scratching or stone throwing (unfortunately Cologne, Bochum and Hamburg all are) the indeed more expensive to build framed windows can become cheaper long term by their cheaper replacement.

I love the crunchy old fashioned designs, for the same reason I like the look of old steam locomotives. I don't agree at all that streamlined=better, the "old fashioned" designs are more tactile and they feel more "real" somehow, while streamlined designs often look kind of plastic-y.

The old Tatra T3 trams in Prague (originally built 1960-1976) are so iconic that they're still building new vehicles with this design TODAY! the technology has largely been redesigned and the interiors are now lowfloor and airconditioned, but the exterior design is so iconic that they've changed little. Back then they must have looked amazingly futuristic.

Sydney keeps buying their buses with framed windows because of the vandalism risks. I wonder if the design of US-market rollingstock is due to legislation, kinda how US-spec cars had to have sealed beam headlights for many years after Europe allowed composite headlights. I'm not against safety regulations, but the US seems to do it in an arbitrary manner. I'm probably wrong because better designed vehicles are now entering service in the US and Canada.

New York has to stick with the look they have mostly, since the stainless steel models are necessary to keep graffiti off the trains. I don't think you'll ever see a train with painted livery every again on any MTA railroad for that reason, so they'll never have that cutting edge look. The R211's are the best you're gonna see (and even those are a step backwards aesthetically with the smaller "picture windows", necessitated by the larger doors of the model. And knowing the NYC subway... open gangways are going to be a nightmare the moment someone defecates or vomits in a car (an unfortunately common occurrence in the NYC subway). Passengers can flee to an adjacent car at the next stop and I've seen conductors seal off a car in such situations to keep the train operating until the end of the run. With Open gangways they'll probably need to take the train out of service, causing delays. Some things that work great elsewhere are a poor fit for NY.

Love every video you make. That being said, please edit if you accidentally say “digest” instead of “digress”. I enjoyed the game inadvertent laugh, I stumbled upon as the pedant I am. Laugh aside, keep up the awesome work bro!

Meanwhile Japanese trains checks all the requirements to be qualified as old trains. I guess that is an exception to that video

Some designs just aren't old enough, at least for trams. There is something about old pre-WW2 style street cars design that are very classy looking. If they want to make things look old, actually make them look old with more ornate designs while keeping modern features such as good lighting, air conditionings, and accessibility. These classic looking tram would complement old downtown area or touristy area. The entire fleet doesn't need to look like that, but one or two on certain lines will be an eye catcher.

Can we have our Berlin tram system explainer, please, please, please!!!

None of this is meant as disagreement or saying “you forgot…”. I agree with your points. I’m just riffing because you got me thinking. Aesthetics also affect people’s desire to use or avoid public transit, consciously or otherwise. So modern appearance can help increase ridership, even if on the margins. Fresh and appealing appearance can also add to their appeal when folks see them pass while stuck in rush hour traffic. I say this as someone who recently moved to Chicago. I personally love their cars’ vintage look and feel. But I’m new here so it’s still novel to me. Live here one’s whole life and it can be stale, leading to an undesirability. I moved from Maryland and ride the Metro regularly from 2002-2010. I wasn’t around enough for the newer de-browned cars to suit me - but the change was I believe still a net positive. Maybe some systems just feel that archaic is “their brand.” MYC comes to mind. And many may simply be coasting on if it ain’t broke don’t fix it, don’t want a years’ long transitional period or, dunno, they’re in long contracts with no incentive to upgrade. I’m sure each city has different hurdles alongside the common ones. And I suspect many of them are, frankly, kinda dumb, short-sighted, and/or backward. Or just lazy “I don’t like change.” Who hasn’t faced all of these professionally. Also, never underestimate the unstoppable power of entropy.

I like old. If I had it my way all trains would be stainless steel coaches pulled by old F series diesel engines. All trolleys and trains would be very large and wide like the ones in Baltimore and Dallas, although I like what dart did by putting the low floor module in the middle as apposed to getting new centipede looking ones.

One thing the US did really well in transit is the PCC streetcar. I don't know much of the history but it was obviously designed to be attractive, have smart acceleration and allow passengers to ride in relative comfort. Even today, the ride quality is more than a match for the average bus. The streamlined body shape has a timeless appeal and the inclusion of standee widows above the regular windows on some cars was a thoughtful gesture towards those forced to stand.

Some systems want to have a “design language” that is consistent (mostly) with prior designs. MTA in NY, the “new technology” trains retained the round headlights and tail lights and the red LED line designation sign for probably 10 years more than necessary and it’s only now on the R211 that they finally switched to slash LED lights and a screen that looks like the old roll signs used to show the line roundel.

I think the new ones look good but I still like the old style

Every civic politician (of a major city) and transit planner in the world should subscribe to your videos. If they don't know who you are, they shouldn't be in their respective lines of work.

In train design form should never take precedence over function. A well engineered train can last 50 years with necessary refits. One of the best underground trains ever was the London Underground 1938 stock, which ran on the underground until 1988 & refurbished units ran on the Isle of Wight until 2021. That's 83 years!

1:35 I agree, low floor means virtually nothing. I live in vienna, and the ultra low floor trams are from a technical point of view really nice, but have so many flaws and require a lot of maintenance. (1 day of repairs for every 3 days of operation, that's not really sustainable). furthermore, they destroy the rails.

Here in Sydney when the Tangaras were introduced in the 80s they looked space age, the plug doors and big windows that curve up at the top makes it look futuristic and timeless even today, I would even argue the design is ahead of its time, all of the models introduced after the Tangara followed pretty much the same design language. In my opinion Sydney has perfected the design of double decker trains, they just look so sleek and modern.

I have 3 things to say: yes YES and YESSSSS

A lot of old stuff is aesthetically nicer, even if they're functionally not good. I'm a designer. Design trends come and go - you might even get more aesthetic longevity out of the older design rather than an aggressively contemporary one .

The worst offender here is the silverliner V imo, like can you believe that it was introduced in 2010 in Philadelphia and 1016 in Denver?

What's wrong with old? There's sort of a hubris assumption that new=better. My theory is that we're regressing. So many years of the CIAM garbage has really taken it's toll.

I disagree with framed windows looking dated. Anything could be made to look good. JR East's E235 series is a good example, I think. ... ... But your main point is right though. Feels like US likes to purposely ruin transit vehicle exterior designs.

My main problem with modern trains is they are designed for uni set service so to take one out means taking a whole train down. Personally i prefer single car or mated pair sets with door ways between cars so you can run all sorts of train lengths and people are not locked into 1 box. Then make these cars into cab’ed atleast on 1 end MU cars so there is always a leader available. Sure they would be flat faced but who needs the next shiny trying to be a sports car or a knock off of something else when you got a car that does the job it needs too and is already fitted with the most modern comfort inside with a easy to change design.

In New York, I suspect they deep cleaned every R62A like they came out as if they came straight out of the workshop

One problem N. America needs to overcome is the stereotype that "public transit is just for poor people". When trains and busses look old, dirty, or neglected, it further reinforces the idea that these are low quality options to be avoided whenever possible.

I really enjoy your videos and respect your vast knowledge of transit. However, in this case I have to strongly disagree. If I hear the word "sleek" another time I think I'm going to scream! I remember about 25 years ago riding on a old Amtrak heritage car, and feeling (if I'm remembering correctly) how the darker wood interior, with individual glowing lights and smaller windows felt cozy and luxurious. In houses, people rip out walls to make an open plan, and then they put them back in when they regret the lack of privacy. Cars go from boxy to rounded, and back to boxy, over and over again. Each time when people modernize, they look back at the previous design from 10 years ago and marvel at how sensless and inept the previous one was, only to rip it out again 10 years later with the same disdain. We've lost countless priceless ornate train stations for this very reason. Many of our finest architectural treasures are anything but sleek, and very old. The beautiful 100 year old subway stations in New York are another example, where the tile and iron work and vaulted ceilings, so old and un-sleek, create a fantastic historic amazing atmosphere. I don't think that we need everything to look new and modern to attract riders, or cater to the disposable mentality that feels the need to constantly rip up and reinvent everything. I think that we need stations and trains that are functional, beautiful, durable, and timeless, like the 100+ year old stations that are being restored and adapted to serve us today as well as the day that they first opened.

What do you mean those NY trains are new built? They look like someone jammed a new cab on the front of a 50 year old train...

First problems I see is the single door at the end, which is very bad, even Alstom quit that. Lots of people want to leave at the front or back, to cross the station. Also, why so little windows? The city is beautifull, let people watch it and has a bit of sun. Glass is hard to make?

don't confuse modern looking with good looking. they just happen to do neither.

The new york metro cars and ALL the fire trucks in US looks old as hell...

Fundamentally I disagree with a lot of these opinions, but most prominent of my objections is the idea that the MP89 looks anything short of ancient. The Toronto trains look way newer. And in terms of design, American designs may not win any awards, but some of the worst designs come from Europe. London's hideous red, white & blue paint scheme lacks any cohesion. Berlin's all-canary-yellow consists are tasteless.

I would have to disagree with your point on the T1s versus the Paris trains. The jagged straight front of the train with the sharp corner reminds me of the british intercity 125s and look so dated, like they’re from the 60s. The bogeys also look so wonky - I can see your point but maybe some trains from the London Underground or something wouldve been a better comparison to make.

Meanwhile, Hong Kong trams all look 100 years old, despite generations apart. I think it's more important for transit to be safe and clean. New design is just a cherry on top.

I found the New York subway very depressing, the trains are so basic and don't get me going about the stations

In London our buses and trains look really modern some American ie new,New York subway trains look like our PEP units which are just being withdrawn after nearly 50 years and the C stock which was scrapped 10 years ago ,our buses too are futuristic and sleek ,American designs are very rugged and utilitarian in design

Sorry, 'old' isn't bad. The PCC streetcars look a lot better than the Flexity Outlooks here in Toronto, for example. Plus, the PCCs (and later CLRVs) rode a lot better than the Flexity Outlooks, which are very unpleasant going around curves. And those new cars that Boston are getting do not look old, sorry.

I feel like railroads in America have a sort of nostalgia factor because the national rail system has declined immensely since its golden age before World War II. American railroads were starved for funding, causing the remaining lines to continue to use equipment well past its intended service life. Many pieces of American equipment like the GP40 locomotives and the NY subway cars appear timeless because they've been in service for so long, and it's formed the image of what a train should look like. I personally find the modern, sleek designs with full-length windows to be jarring, simply because it's not how trains appeared when I was younger. However, this 'old' look even to modern equipment has bolstered rail's poor reputation in the American public eye. Because it doesn't like shiny and sleek like the latest cars, and with America's unique obsession with the automobile, people will prefer to drive. America also has the unique issue, compared to Europe that major cities are spaced further apart and there are large regions with sparse population, particularly in the center of the country. Due to this, outside of dense regions where the cities are close to together, like the Northeast and California, long-distance passenger rail simply isn't practical. No high-speed train is going to run faster than an airplane, and those don't require tracks to be built and maintained.

The North American transit vehicles look older probably because it is significantly cheaper to spec them that way. It is probably cheaper because it is easier to build them that way. Yes, even if I were a daily rider, I'd very much take a 50-year-old looking design for the next 30 years as long as I pay lower fares and lower taxes and safety, energy efficiency, and functionality isn't compromised for the vehicle. After all, Boeing 737 airplanes have looked the same since the 1960s too, and they're perfectly good besides the safety shortcoming of the fatal MAX flaw and the functionality shortcoming of lack of glass cockpit. As a result, I'd very much take Toronto's T1-Series, Boston's 2018 LRV, 2021 Amtrak Viewliner II, and even Chicago L's 5000-Series over much more sleek designs if I get to pay substantially less. After all, the regular person does not care how the trains look, and would very much rather spend even the moderate amount of money on vacations, including local staycations that may involve riding those outdated-looking vehicles to get to the tourist destination. As for why transit vehicles cost much more in North America than those in Europe and Asia, it is probably because of safety regulations rather than framed windows being a niche option. After all, North American vehicles, especially mainline ones which are required to follow FRA crashworthiness standards, and significantly heavier than those elsewhere from being much sturdier. One is probably paying for the tons of extra structural material rather than the window frames. Of course, if a society overall were flush with money, then the transit agency should get the newest-looking highest-performing vehicles without exception. However, the reality is that not a single society overall on the planet, not even Norway, has too much money to spend.

It's not just trains, it's the lack of design culture in the US. For a European point of view everything in the US looks old-fashioned.

Am I the only one who thinks the type 9s look cool and modern?

Stoked my hometown transit system (Denver) made the thumbnail shot! Those old looking, “east coasty”, workhorse RTD Silverliners do look somewhat out of place in Denver. There is a bit of a gritty charm though. Sadly I think very antiquated FRA (and the Canadian equivalent) rules are another rather large culprit in forcing our transit cars to look old. Passenger rail cars have to be built heavy, boxy, and broad so they can take a crash at higher speeds per FRA regulations. I do feel that this “heavy” requirement leads to rolling stock that looks old and forces transit agencies to just use older, FRA approved designs. I wish we would just finally join the rest of the world in focusing on technology that makes collisions a near impossibility so we can start building lighter, more efficient, sleeker vehicles.

One feature I wish was no longer present are pocket doors. The depression into them just looks dated and simply not as sleek as doors on the outside

There’s a deep part of me that wants to agree with the ‘as long as it’s reliable it’s fine’ argument but then I forget how excited I am for the Quebec City tram; provided they go for the trains that were brought up in your video about that project.

Anachronous trains kind of feel like the idea that public transit should be absolutely free, in that they both make transit seem like something only the "poor" need to use. Though to be fair, at least people benefit from free fares. lol

Simply put: people want nice things. New subways, high speed trains, etc, and they want them to look nice as well as function nicely.

OMG - at least DC metro got rid of their carpets. The part that I don't understand is why US metro systems insist on customization at all. The great thing in Europe is that most systems just by off the shelf rolling stock that by virtue of being designed for scale of production and the ability to iron out kinks just works better.

my hot take is that old looking vehicles look good

I recently visited Shanghai and they had awesome new trolley busses that were in retro 1920s colonial era style. They fitted in really well around the older areas where there are lots of art deco and colonial era buildings. Apparently the retro trolley busses were chosen by the people on Shanghai in a city wide poll in 2022. They are part of a recent revival in everything retro from the opulent, cosmopolitan old Shanghai era. The busses are super modern, but have a 1920s charm that pays homage to old Shanghai as the “Paris of the east”.

The NYC subway once added a "new sleek design," the R-40, with a sloped front, in the late 60's, I believe. It didn't work, and the last few train sets were converted to look like the next contract coming on line, the R-42's. There's no point in trying to make things look new simply for the sake of looking new. There must be some improvement over the previous model besides aesthetics.

In Paris the trains with rubber tires were made quite a long time ago 90s or 70s? And they are noticeably old because of the handle to get out but they are still very timeless looking. Good design is not just for the trend, it is for beauty.

I love the timeless look of the GM New Look bus. As well as the similar looking Gillig Advantage Low Floors. But I absolutely HATE the front end design of the new Xcelciors from New Flyer.