Auckland Transport are driving three huge projects at the moment, as Matt describes here, that together amount to nothing short of a total revolution in the delivery of Public Transport in Auckland and therefore in the very shape and experience of the place. I’m sure their resources and personel are stretched a great deal so I guess its’s no surprise that something that appears obvious to those of us on the outside can be overlooked. But still I am compelled to draw attention to what seems to be a missed opportunity in the whole approach to the design of the new Electric Trains.
Of the three big changes; Integrated Ticketing and Fares, the new Network Plan, and Electrification of the rail system, only the last one comes with a new physical presence. It seems clear to me that the trains themselves should be designed to embody the sum of these changes, should be conceived of as the physical manifestation of this revolution. In short should look revolutionary. They should be thought of as communication devices in and of themselves; that they need to freight this idea as much as they do their passengers. Here is an earlier discussion on the role of design in this area.
Because a big part of the plan is to expand the role of rail in Auckland to a much wider number of people than are using it now. A significant feature of the new system, one which involves all three changes, is the promotion of the idea of combining travel on two or more separate trips linked by a transfer. And in particular, especially for longer journeys, the idea of catching a bus to one of several strategically placed and rebuilt bus-train interchange stations and moving from bus to train to complete your journey. So the new trains will have an expanded role and are the most visible point of what is in essence a conceptual shift.
Yet there seems to be little attempt to think of ways that this new equipment could have an important role in shifting the public towards seeing the image of PT in Auckland in a whole new light. Instead we are offered a form and livery that looks like it is focussed on meeting the expectations of the existing customer, not on attracting any new ones as well. This approach might be sufficient in London or Tokyo, or some other mature PT market, but that is not where we are in Auckland. Any change in equipment or service in AK needs to involve consideration of its appeal to the next customer as well as the existing one. A customer that doesn’t yet know that they might become one.
I guess it’s unlikely that we could get Rob Fyfe we he leaves Air NZ at the end of the year to join AT, but could we do this thought experiment: How would the Air New Zealand under his management use the the design of new kit to reinforce core brand ideals and attract and keep new users?
Obviously by making sure it works well, but also by putting thought and energy into making sure the appearance embodies all the great changes that the new gear delivers. It’s got to be good and look like it’s good too.
This from the Better by Design website on Air New Zealand:
Think experience not product
Experience is the management of both physical and emotional cues. That means considering not only how things work but also their reason for being. To design a product in isolation, without a wider appreciation of the broader experience and ‘theatre’ of the brand, is therefore something of a folly.
Please let’s make these trains look like the step change that they actually are: this is a break with the past so let’s make sure the trains themselves look like it is. Way too similar to the current old bangers.
Air travel is just public transport after all and often a crammed, expensive, and stressful experience. So what do the good airlines do to ameliorate that? Two great things AT could take from Air NZ: A keen customer focus and an awareness of the important role of design in that.
So what should be done differently?
To me there is something infantalising about the over preoccupation with safety yellow in the mock-up. Can’t we be treated as adults on a train? We really can’t find a door unless it is hi-vis? If that were really the case it wouldn’t just be necessary on trains but everywhere: all cars would to be day-glo too. And inside? It feels like you’re in a kindergarden in there. What does this say? Trains and PT are for some kind of less able sub-group of the population?
Perhaps it is a function of the mock-up process but the whole thing has an air of Playmobil about it, is this intentional? To make the trains appear fun and ‘child’s play’? I don’t know, but I’d love to see an adult version, and one that wants to the best in the world.
Start by losing the yellow; it has no meaning for Auckland. I’m sure people with restricted vision can be accommodated more creatively. Ponsonby Rd is now full of matt black cars and there are no health and safety regs making them go day-glo. Can we have some input from some other design professionals to complement the train engineers? Trains for this century please. This is a fresh start so let’s have one. This to me is their ‘reason for being‘.
The train and bus system is in a competition for users principally with private car travel and some of that race is about ideas and emotion as well as the vital delivery of better service. Airlines are also in a very tough fight for customers and they certainly don’t miss a chance to reinforce their offer through design.
Don’t we want to hear people say ‘those trains look cool; I wanna ride one’? 500 million dollars; we’ve got to want sell the experience as well as provide it, don’t we?
And:
Processing...
Yellow is needed for visibility. Victoria’s VLocity trains started with a purple front that matched the sides. After a level crossing accident the front section above the window was changed to yellow. So it’s better to start with a colour scheme where a yellow front fits in with the rest of the colours. If there were no level crossings, the designers would have a freer palate.
How many people are hit by cars? As a result do all cars need to be be yellow? Do you really think this would help? All pedestrians must be made to wear yellow too surely?, or are only huge trains on predetermined paths rendered invisible through yellowlessness? Do the trains have lights? Is yellow paint more visible than light? Do idiot drivers find their way through barriers and onto level crossings because a train isn’t painted yellow?
Your example above looks like a classic case of false attribution. ‘wasn’t my fault; I couldn’t see it’
This ‘ugly for safety’ argument to seems to me to be junk.
When it comes to safety, companies are to do all to ensure the safety of the public. This is one of the mitigation techniques to do their part, and make it easier when OSH come in to investigate incidents. If you have been involved in construction you’ll know where safety is heading, soon we will need HiVis and hard hats for the robots doing the work.
That’s just a quick firel reaction to a disaster that happened, doesn’t mean that yellow doors or fronts actually work. They needed to be doing something. Its debatable whether that accident would have happened or not if they had been, personally I doubt it. I think the benefit will be negligible. If someone’s going to get hit at a level crossing, they’re gonna get hit if they’re yellow or not.
it’s like hiviz for motorcyclists, an excuse to kill us if we don’t wear it
How about the virgin train colours. Red black and grey. I think this was the team new zealand yatch colours as well. I understand the need for the yellow buts thats only the front. Agree the mock up look to much like the present trains.
Ah, I was wondering when the first “NOT GOOD ENOUGH” article would appear on this blog. If the new trains levitated above the water some people would be saying it was a missed opportunity to make them space-faring.
Seriously – Patrick, you have a very wrong idea about PT design. If we made the design more “adventurous” like you’re suggesting, the Dick Qwaxes and George Woods would freak out about these “weird-looking trains” and find some way to get them scrapped, or at least ensure that the media made them a laughing stock. Not scaring people is vital for a situation where people are still iffy about the idea of trains at all.
As for “we don’t need yellow to make things safe” or “the inside looks like a kindergarten”… well, a more simon-pure example of ableism (ignoring the need for accessibility to people who haven’t got a full sensory apparatus or the author’s refined aesthetic taste) would be hard to imagine.
I’m not sure I follow your logic here Patrick.
The EMUs already look quite different from the current diesel trains, inside and out. The ride experience will, I’m sure, will be a step-change. But I don’t see why we should ditch the yellow front/doors SIMPLY because they are used on the current trains. On that logic we would change everything, even if it works, so as to worship the new EMU gods.
Do you think that you’re possibly placing too much emphasis on this issue? How many people would not catch the train because it has yellow doors and a yellow cab front? 0.1% at most? If we loose that many passengers, but in the process save one life , or make it that much easier for visually impaired to find the yellow door then I’m happy.
Note that I’m not saying we should necessarily keep the yellow or that it looks good; I am saying that the yellow may have a valid safety purpose and if so then that is reason enough to keep it.
That mockup looks nice, if that’s what Auckland is going to get then hell yeah I’m jealous. Looks much better than the new crap we got in Wellington. Even the old bangers you refer too look better than our old Ganz trains, although I think some of Ganz are getting a makeover at the Hutt Workshops, not quite sure though.
Would’ve thought that TechnicianX and nzqf182 would’ve grown-up and let that chip slide off their shoulder by now.
The ADK’s and ADL’s look far worse than the GANZ units. End of.
I think the form of the trains are good, the angular features of it are daring and that’s is a good way of starting to get people interested. But I agree with you about a more vibrant colour scheme. What if say the trains were bright pink? Northern Districts did it with their Twenty20 cricket team and that’s fostered a lot of support from fans wearing pink. It gave them a unique edge that other teams in the competition didn’t have either, and a great marketing point! So yeah AT has to take a risk here and get Aucklanders more excited about the trains.
Never underestimate the importance of design. Apple is the most valuable company in the world because of it.
Apple, as far as I know, does not produce 50 tonne machines that travel at speeds up to 80km/hr and occasionally smash into people/cars. Although if Patrick did smack me with his Mac (I’m type-casting him here) then I’m sure I’d know about it … 😉
I would like to remind Authors to this site to do their homework before publishing. All leading vehicles on trains must by law have a high visibility front, also known as yellow. This is dictated by the National Railway Safety Standards, Standard 6, available on the Kiwirail Website.
There are also other pieces of legislation that determine how trains must be designed – disability being one. That in turn also affects the design and color of the doors (must be contrasting).
There has been a huge amount of effort by a large number of parties towards getting the trains WE want, yet all you can do is whine about it. Grow up!
In a nutshell, Yellow Fronts are a legal requirement, we cannot get away from that, it is pointless wasting our time whinging or argueing the merits of whether adults can think for themselves or whether the yellow should be there in the first place! You have not done your research!
Please do not waste any more of our time writing ill-concieved posts, that have obviously not seen any research behind them, and be greatful we are getting 57 trains at all. Instead, it would be nice if this blog could give us one of the more usual, well throught out, FACTUAL posts for which this blog is well known. No amount of complaining here about the EMU design process is going to make one iota of difference, as legally, it is impossible!
Rant over.
From NRSS 6:
[12.6 Visibility of Leading Vehicles
All leading vehicles must have high visibility front ends to a conspicuity standard acceptable to the
Access Provider. Rail vehicles classed as Heritage Vehicles in accordance with section 1.5 are
exempt from this clause provided that high visibility front ends were not in their original construction
specification.]
No mention of yellow being compulsary. Unless it’s mentioned elsewhere?
Ontrack as Network Access Provider at the time dictated at the time that it be yellow in the Engineering Standards they required.
Agreed, plus all it takes is a paint job to change it at a later date.
But the front will always be yellow and the doors will always need a hivis strip on them.
Those poor Swedes; it must be hell to live in Stockholm where the life expectancy is around 12 because of the invisible unyellow trains creeping through the city murdering its citizens. Not only that only the fittest people with the most extraordinary eyesight can even find these trains because of their unusably blue doors so they run totally empty at all times. Whatever next? Someone outside without a hat!?
Personally I don’t care what the Swedish do. This is New Zealand, you are a writer to this blog, you have just as much duty to be 100% factual, and do your homework before you provide us with a post as badly concieved as this one, just as anyone proposing to run on OUR Railway must comply with the Rule and Law of our land. There are codes and standards that must be adhered to if ANYONE wishes to run a train in this country. Clearly you have not heard of the Railways Act, the NRSS, or the Rail Operating Rules and Proceedures, or the Rail Operating Code. I would strongly reccomend you read these documents Patrick, and then come back to us after you have done some reading.
To put this simply – no comply = no trains. It is that simple!
Perhaps we should have laws, rules and procedures that require the trains to run on time too …
But seriously what Patrick is saying is that design performs functions beyond safety. Safety is good but so is marketing if it encourages more people to use the service. A “safety at all costs” mentality isn’t necessarily best.
Yes also what if there are other ways of ensuring safety, which can achieve the best of both worlds.
I normally agree with most of what you say Patrick but this is just poor form. As others have pointed out it is a safety requirement by New Zealand law to have yellow fronted trains as well as recently high visibility doors. Being a photographer does not always warrant the ability to whine about the composition of the train. I would be focusing my efforts in seeing we get the right tools for the job rather than complaining about the colour of said tools. I am just happy we are getting a modernised fleet. Other than that i appreciate your blog posts.
NRSS 6 is not law per se. It is an interoperability standard forming part of a suite of codes and standards underpinning the safety cases and rail licenses of KiwiRail and rail licence holders. I would imagine that if Veolia or another operator was to propose an amendment to NRSS 6, supported by a robust risk assessment, to permit an alternative to yellow front ends, then it might be changed.
Having said that, why would they bother? There are bigger issues at stake than yellow ends in my view
Isn’t that my point? Sure aesthetics are a consideration in this design critique stage but as you have said i would be much more concerned with getting the accessibility, seating arrangement and performance of the units right rather than focusing too much on what they look like. Bit easier to slap some new decals on rather than refit a hardware setup…
I have to side with Patrick on the issue, although I see where both Andrew and Akarana are coming from. Yes, those are the rules – it has to be yellow. But if there’s a compelling reason for the colour to not be yellow and there are other ways of ensuring the operation of the train can be safe then it may be appropriate to consider whether the rules require some flexibility.
A classic parallel is the stupid rules about heavy rail in the USA which requires passenger trains to be extremely heavy for “safety” reasons even though everywhere else in the world can run passenger trains without being so heavy, and there’s even a process for approving variations. Just because there’s a rule doesn’t mean we shouldn’t reconsider its validity if there’s a good argument that the rule should be waived/changed. Remembering that this train purchase is the biggest ever in the country’s history.
Maybe it’s just my mentality. I like to know why a rule exists and whether there are other ways of achieving what a rule is trying to achieve, rather than just mindlessly accepting it and asking no further questions.
At a guess I’d say it was before we went round putting proper barriers on all the level crossings.
Peter, well said. This is the biggest train purchase in NZ’s history so we absolutely have to get both the form and the function right here and now as there will be no money in the future to make changes or further improvements. We have a heap of talent and passion on this blog which needs to be properly harnessed in a focus group that is linked in to the AT EMU Project Team. Can someone please set about making this happen.
I don’t think the T-bana metro has any level crossings or unsecured sections of track, so a high visibility front might not be important there. Anyway according to Andrew it is a legal requirement so there’s nothing we can do about it either way.
I will note that they do maintain high contrast door colouring, theirs just happens to be light blue and ours yellow.
My first impression was certainly “darn they’re a bit similar to our existing trains”. I still feel that, although more recent photos highlight a bit more of a different look (like the corrugated roof is gone).
How old are the rail standards? I’m pretty sure the ADL/ADK trains had a red front to them before their refurbishment – so it’s not like all passenger trains have always had a yellow front. Not that I’m necessarily suggesting red is better than yellow or suggesting that the old ADL/ADK design was good – they were hideous!
I agree with Patrick that we need something which makes people go “wow!” I’m pretty sure we’ll get that from the way they operate, but I think the way they look is important too. It’s not like we need to go back to the drawing board either, the trains are 95% perfect. Just a few more rounded edges, a slightly less “angry” front, perhaps a few different colour options to assess and I’d say they’ll be perfect.
The NRSS came into effect around 2006 – about the time the ADK refurb started. Before then there was no such requirement, however it was considered best practise. Nowdays, it is law.
“This is a fresh start so let’s have one. This to me is their ‘reason for being'”.
And that is where you give the game away. You are what Owen McShane would call an urban romantic. Aesthetics aren’t a subjective nice to have, they are the whole point. The trains are paint on a canvas, a canvas you want to paint! And, of course, the people are mere flecks as well, aren’t they?
You see this way totalitarianism lies.
I don’t think the new trains look anything like the old.
I’d wonder if Orange wasn’t more visible than yellow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:THSR_700T_Modern_High_Speed_Train.jpg
Can’t use orange – at a distance it can be mistaken for Trakside Staff.
How the hell can you mistake a huge train for a person?? And besides, there are plenty of orange trains in the world that are orange that operate just fine.
At 300+kph you won’t be standing around to debate the issue.
Yawn over the issue of the use of yellow which Andrew said is the LAW!
Might pop down tomorrow and see if (that means I might get shooed away by security 😛 ) I can have a nosy first hand seeming I’ll be riding on them as a regular when the EMUs are here then pass my own comment on it.
Also I think the word is evolution, not revolution here. If we wanted revolution we would have trains on Mag Lev instead of the iron 😛
Seems like the Swedes, makers of those unsafe Volvos, don’t go in for a strip of slippery yellow knobs on the platforms, either.
Since we’re all agreed that “ugly yellow fronts is the LAW OF THE LAND”, then Patrick’s grumping should have been directed at the Government for the safety laws, not the people who designed or ordered the EMUs.
Yes, I can feel Patrick’s frustration Deloras. But that should be directed as you say at the laws in question!
Andrew, I believe Patrick is fully aware of the requirements for rail in NZ. By his last photo and picture I also think he has some doubts over the need for some of those requirements and I agree because I’ve been on many trains across many different companies in many different parts of the world, and like Sweden, the Japanese rail companies, both JR and the private ones have a whole range of designs and liveries and then there’s Trenitalia who have their white, green and red livery, to name just two. Both also have far, far busier rail systems, corridors etc than Auckland and New Zealand and yet aren’t subject to the same limitations. It just doesn’t seem to make sense to me. It’s not like there are no at-grade level crossings in Japan and Italy. There are still heaps. However I don’t profess to be an expert on NZ rail law!
Patrick. Just one thing. There are several reasons to be careful using Air NZ as an example for new designs, innovation etc. I also have an opinion about the current and future CEO but I’m not in a position to discuss that publicly.
Actually all trains in Sweden using lines with level crossings have hi-visibility yellow ends. And all trains in Italy using lines with level crossings have a hi-visibility bright red strip to contrast with the either dull white or dark green frontages.
Fantastic! We’ve has appeals to Dick Quax and George Wood, for whom the only good train is a non-existent one and now Owen McShane who was probably only person to top those two as both an anti-urbanist and who actively campaigned against public transport and the rail based sort in particular. Am I not trying to think like these three? Yes.
I am not arguing against safety being a priority, but I am arguing that the need for safety and universal access should not act as an excuse for poor design. And that design has other functions that are also real. Although that thought is clearly threatening to some.
I certainly see no problem with a blog post questioning whether the law is an ass. The regs that says a train must be yellow is absurd. There. I also think it is very hard to argue that New Zealand practice is world leading either with regard to public transport or railways in general. A little openness to new ideas and a little less defensiveness could be helpful, IMHO.
I might also just point out too that you’ve all fixated on my mention of yellow which an example and not the core of my argument.
Patrick, I think it is a bit rich for you to question the evidence provided in front of you, then go ahead and lambast us with an ill informed response like your Swedish one was, and then tell us not to be defensive. If you have a beef with the legislation that is absolutely fine, and you are right to question it. However I point out that when this all started you made no reference to the NRSS or the Railways Act of which you are now criticising. That smacks of you twisting your arguement only after it was pointed out that what you posted was ill-informed and poorly researched. Transport Blog is known for holding opinions after doing research on the topic first, not last. This post shows that you didn’t run this past anyone, such as any of the Rail People on the CBT forum (who would have told you this to begin with), or consult a subject matter expert first. Had you done this, then at the very least this post would have been well reasoned, and would have taken a totally different form. I, like anyone else want the trains to function, perform, and look the best they can be. However, they must comply with the laws and regulations of the land. If you don’t like that, that is fine, but your criticism should have been created once you had established why it is that every train must have a yellow front, or any other item they must comply with. Clearly this was not done.
And by the way, we did not, once fixate on the mention of the Yellow Front. My beef is with the tone under which you wrote this post, that you have not met the high standards usually expected of this blog, that you had not researced the topic before you wrote this as you should, and lambasted those of us who tried to correct you, and explain to you why things are they way they are. Your attitude in your subsiquent responses has only re-inforced my view on this, which is again not of the usual professional, high standard this blog usually displays.
I would like to point out that Rule 1 in the RORP is “The first and foremost duty of any Railway Employee is to ensure the safety of the public, and other employees in the discharge of their duty”. Every other law or rule aside, that one comes before all others, it is an exam question for new drivers and they must get that one right. I hold that rule dear in my day to day working, and I regard any train under my care that is non-compliant with the relevant standards and rules to be in breach of that text.
I’d love it if someone can link to the actual cited “law”. Unless proven wrong I believe this “law” (if actually that and not a suggestion code) is more likely to proscribe “high contrast” than “yellow” which is a big difference.
As on wikipedia i think the burden of proof is on those saying “believe me” here.
And I fully agree with Patrick, here is a brilliant opportunity to show public transport as cool and modern not lowering itself to the lowest common denominator assuming everyone using it is a idiot and needs to be treated with fisher-price colours and lots of cotton wool.
Not “high contrast”, but rather it states “high visibility”. You’re correct though, yellow is not specifically mentioned.
I hate the whole yellow for safety thing and find it utterly rediculous. If you look at all the busiest systems in the world, this is not even a requirement. I do however disagree with you on several points. For one, luggage racks/storage is FAR from universal on metros/suburban rail systems, in fact I would say trains that have them are in the minority. Unless the trains are servicing an airport or tourist-oriented area, then in most cases they rarely get used as people usually prefer to keep their shopping/bags close to their person on short city trips.
I don’t buy your arguement that the new trains look just like the old ones, they are quite different looking from my point of view, even if the colouring is somewhat similar. I also must say, I quite like the so-called ‘angry’ front of the new trains too.
Then explain Network Rail and their requirement that all trains have Yellow as well. Arguably it is hard to get any less intense than London and South East for an intensive Heavy Rail Network – which is the only true comparison to our situation – comparing us with Metro, Subway, High Speed Rail or Light Rail System’s are like trying to compare the Airlines to the Air Forces of the world…
Well, the Network Rail requirement is covered by the Rolling Stock Railway Group Standard GMRT2483 Issue 1, Visibility Requirements for Trains, Part C, explains that the forward facing front-end of the leading vehicle of a train shall display an area of yellow colour meeting the requirements set out in a later section, which gives the area of yellow required and the shades of yellow allowed.
The earlier Part B explains why
B4.1.1 Recognising a train
An approaching train needs to be clearly visible and recognisable by virtue of
both:
a) the front-end colour
b) the presence and layout of its lit front-end lamps.
It is necessary for both these features to be present, and to be of a distinctive
pattern in order to avoid confusion with nearby road vehicle lamps or body
colours, or other moving objects.
And although not stated, it might be reasonable to assume that the shades of yellow have been chosen to be distinctive not just as a high visibility colour, but one that looks different to anything else.
I can vouch that just seeing the headlight lets you know there is a train approaching – you do actually need to see the shape and size to judge how far away it is, and hence how long it will take to reach you if it is going at line speed.
As for contrasting coloured passenger doors – they are covered by Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998, Regulation 4 – 4(1) Each passenger doorway in the side of a regulated rail vehicle shall be indicated clearly by doors (excluding any window in or control device on the doors) rendered to contrast with the exterior of the vehicle to each side of that doorway. The guidance says that there is no prescription relating to the actual colours which may be used in achieving a good level of contrast.
So the UK seems to have safety considerations forcing the train front to be yellow, and disability access considerations force the doors to be contrasting. Much the same as here really, but with scope for debate about using other highly visible colours for the front, other than yellow.
Well it’s too late for a redesign.
So really it’s just about the externals and colourways. They’ll probably be refreshed every 5-10 years anyway as various quangos changes names and acronyms.
Yellow has to stay. But the rest could be a bit more imaginative. How about a nice, fresh bright green? Symbolic of a greener form of power, cruising past buses and cars on the Southern motorway.
Doesn’t have to be all ferns, maori stuff and the usual cliches – just a nice shade.
I would like to see several different colours, like bright green for some, bright red for some, bright blue for some, etc. Simply continuing with the MAXX livery (which is essentially what the mock up is painted in) is a little tired. It looks nice and tidy, but after a decade I think it’s time to change it.
Wow geez some people are mega precious about their yellow fronted trains on here. I think Patrick raises a good point about whether yellow is really essential for safety reasons or whether there are other ways of ensuring safety. Certainly not every railway system in the world has yellow trains – even though with mixed traffic and level crossings like ours.
I don’t actually mind the colour yellow, what gets to me is the arguement that somehow yellow prevents accidents. It’s totally ludicrous.
Fellow contributors, as already described, NRSS 6 section 12.6 Visibility of Leading Vehicles states that:
“All leading vehicles must have high visibility front ends to a conspicuity standard acceptable to the Access Provider.”
This means that through discussion with KiwiRail, for example hi viz orange could be used on the AKL EMU ends. I could not find anything in the various NRSS that says that hi viz orange is only for use by trackside staff.
I cannot find any reference on the Internet, to a NZ regulation stating that side doors of passenger trains have to be coloured yellow. If someone could point me to that regulation or standards doc, it would be much appreciated.
It seems overall, that the issue of AKL EMU front end and side door colouring has sparked a rather heated debate here on this blog.
I am personally, in the rather interesting position of being design / marketing oriented by profession, yet brought up in a family of marine and railway engineers, thus can certainly understand and appreciate both points of view.
While the designer in me would like for there not to be hi-viz yellow or orange on the EMU front ends, the engineer in me recognises that NRSS is a sensible set of standards and that the EMUs need to adhere to Standard 6. I do believe however that there must be better alternatives to having yellow for all of the doors on the AKL EMUs as from a safety compliance perspective, I do find the current insistence on yellow doors to be rather odd as I cannot find a NZ standard that states this is absolutely mandatory.
Good design is that perfect marriage of function and form. The engineer and designer/marketer halves of my personality, would like to see a good marriage of this for the AKL EMUs particularly since New Zealand so often mistakenly believes its fine to accept second best but in reality, we have progressed so far as a country, that we should not settle for an either / or solution but bring the engineer and designer sides of our kiwi personality together to produce what will be an excellent solution for our short, medium and long term transport needs.
We need at this juncture thus, to come together as engineers and designers / artists / architects and go that extra mile to collectively produce a well thought through and designed EMU for Auckland – it will be well worth the effort involved and our children will thank us for it.
Is fhere any way that those who are actively contributing to this blog topic, be they of an engineering oriented or design asthetic oriented, be brought together into a focus group which is woven into the fabric of the AT EMU Design Project? That could very well be the kind of public consultation that AT ought to include at this stage in the process.
Yes things have got heated since I last checked in! It seems to me to be a simple conflict of values.
Some prioritize safety regulations; others value aesthetics. There is no right answer; it depends entirely on whether you kowtow to the God of regulations or eye-candy. But given the regulations it does seem fruitless to criticize AT. Nonetheless I think the post was useful for getting the regulations out there at least, so would not criticise Patrick on that count. Sometimes you need to get things wrong to get things right; that’s the beauty of the crowd-sourced wisdom that is a blog.
Personally I like the yellow doors; I think they provide a visual link from the outside to the inside of the trains, which has quite a lot of yellow details. I’m not sure where that particular idea originates from but I did notice that QR trains operating here in Brisbane also have yellow doors.
When this was Josh’s blog it was almost as well regarded as AKT but since Josh went to AT it has turned into a “railfan ranting” blog, positing more and more wild ideas that just go to prove to outsiders that we who believe in rail can’t agree with each other, that we’ll never understand that money is just not available for rail to Botany (although I did hear that this is actually in the AT “plan”) or to the airport, or even for the CRL.
This post in particular may have done incalculable harm to the cause.
Umm… the whole point of this blog was because of the knowledge of technical matters, financial matters, of Auckland, of logistical matters, of planning matters, of economical matters. This blog has always differed from AKT due to its technical content and analysis/critique of reports, identification of problems and IDEAS or solutions to problems. This blog was always less about your type of post because most of the readers’ ability to between lines and accept others perspectives and MOST important the ability to argue their IDEAS. Josh would not have been hired by the council if it wasn’t for his ideas and pretty damn good insights.
Also to most rational readers know what you just said about funding for botany rail is wrong or is not credible because you fail to mention which plan.
First comment in a few months….
I’ not sure why people have jumped on this post so much to criticise something Patrick has said, which is basically along the lines of because this is such a big order of trains, shouldn’t we look at all ways in which we can get the best possible result: both in terms of safety and in terms of aesthetics and design. As Geoff has pointed out, it’s not stipulated in legislation that the front of the trains must be yellow, which means that if there was a compelling reason to use another colour or find another way of ensuring safety, then that could be looked at without having to get parliament to change any law.
With regard to how the blog is going, a quick look at the stats tells me that for most of last year there were 1-2 posts a day and around 15,000 visits a week. This year the excellent new bloggers are getting 2-3 posts up a day and getting near 25,000 views a week – plus generating a higher number of comments per post than used to be the case. On all possible measures I think the blog is doing the best it ever has.
People may disagree with opinions expressed in certain posts, but that’s the point of a blog. To generate debate and discussion. Contrary to what some comments have said, I never fully researched everything before expressing an opinion – often I wanted to just “throw an idea out there” to see what happened to it. Just as has been done in this post.
Keep up the discussion everyone, because it adds value.
Josh
I’m with Patrick. Design matters. And in communicating, this project fails, most particularly because it associates itself with the legacy values of the previous trains.
A requirement for yellow/high-contrast/high-vis is beyond the point. Good design works with and incorporates regulations and design limitations and makes them strengths. This doesn’t.
Which is why a 5-6 person focus group made up of contriibutors to this blog that is a good cross section of designers, marketing, planning and engineering types, should now be formally included in the AT EMU Design process, just like grey power and disability reps already are. Given the size of this train order, as Admin Josh says, we should look at all ways to get the best possible result, both in terms of safety and in terms of asthetic and design. I do hope AT contact the convenors of this blog soonest thus to formally bring an ATB group into the EMU development process.
The ‘yellow’ thing might be a derail, but I guess it does exemplify that tension between engineering and marketing viewpoints. Personally I do not care if the front is yellow – that shouldn’t affect other design decisions that can help promote our rail and other public transport options to Aucklanders.
Having been involved for a decade now, there are some issues with accessibility advice being skewed too far towards engineering perspectives than design ones, and not being internally coherent in some instances.
For example, those ‘tactile’ paving areas at stations need a yellow strip. However people with low vision actually find that easier to pick out if it’s narrower and contrasting with its background. See the way Sydney’s rail system makes most of the strip black instead. The wider panel of bumps are still there for blind people who use canes for guidance. It also looks less clunky for the aesthetically-sensitive amongst us (like architects). 🙂
Similarly, if the inside of a train is mainly yellow then it doesn’t stand out much. One commenter has already referred to evidence that stainless hand-rails were found to be more visible in a Japanese train. These are the type of tradeoffs that have to be discussed sensibly during the design process. The right people need to be at that table, and their perspectives must be both respected and credible.
Patrick’s original posts about the mockup, the logo and the branding opportunities have attracted some good discussion already and I encourage everyone to go back and read them.
I also encourage Auckland Transport, Council and other parties to show some boldness and have the balls to make these trains sing rather than sigh – for all Aucklanders in the next 50 years who will use them and feel proud of their contribution to our great city.
I would be seriously surprised if there is anyone in Auckland who will be persuaded to change how they get around the city because the trains look cool. On top of which, ‘cool’ is a pretty subjective concept, so something more adventurous would be likely to put just as many people off as it would attract, even if we believe that people really do make transport decisions based on what the trains look like.
The system needs to work – above all else – it has to work. Everything else (EVERYTHING) is secondary to that. when people find that their colleagues are getting to work for less money, quicker, and having already dealt with their email, and that they can have an extra beer in the pub at the end of the day, they will switch to rail. They won’t do it because of the colour the trains are painted.
I seriously don’t mind an aesthetic that goes with ‘just works’. Compared to now, I’d take a design that says ‘quiet efficiency’ any day. As a counter-example, JetStar’s plane’s look pretty cool, but nothing would persuade me to fly to Australia with them rather than Air NZ – because they provide a crappy service.
I just hope the exterior colours are not all hodge-podge. There is definity a pride issue involved with the livery and I think Patrick was referring to “cool” as an emotional reaction. We place alot of judgement on how something looks and can be a deciding factor if someone trys out the trains.
I agree reliable trustworthy service is the main thing for customers.
Not sure why people seem to be positioning function as something we can’t have at the same time as design. It’s not one or the other. Consistent design helps build trust too. A flash paint job won’t make up for late trains.
However, we only have this one chance to set the direction of the design whereas most of the engineering is already addressed and the service will need to be worked on continuously and has whole separate imperatives, budgets and expertise.
I’m not convinced by that casual observation.
Lots of people buy cars because they are marketed and designed to look sexy and give people a statement to make to the world. Yes – quality and effectiveness of service has to be in place first, before design really comes into play – but the latter does have a huge contribution to make to people’s decisions.
It’s really all about making PT desirable to those who really do need persuading. All ‘transformative’ transport modes tend to come with a new, slick aesthetic which forms part of their marketing to the public. PT may not be new, but to the regular punter who is weaned on cars that cosset the individual in their own internalised bubble of space, there needs to be a strong social association with PT transforming itself away from widespread perceptions of a dowdy, unfashionable way of getting around. When people say that they “take the train” they want to be associating with something that enhances their lifestyle, in the same way that they buy other products to enhance their social standing.
This is the truth of design – its not some abstract thing about aesthetics, it should be something that actually changes peoples lives. And it certainly needs to be about more than just engineering, even if that is a form of design.
[Here ends the sermon]
This was highlighted again to me when one of our Directors at work recently noted that he had actually used – gasp – the inner Link to get from home to work (less than 10 minutes scheduled, for him), and how the new buses were so comfortable and eye catching. What had really swung it for him was the reliability and speed (!) of the service, but the up-front look and feel of the buses was a big part of persuading him to actually try it.
FWIW – yellow is fine. Just find an bold look that works with it, rather than the current bitty, incoherent look which will do nothing to transform perceptions of how the service actually works as part of someone’s lifestyle.
wow, just as an aside, this whole discussion reminds me of how we insist that cyclists wear yellow hi viz and if they have an accident without wearing it (even in the middle of the day) some people are like “Well, she wasn’t wearing hi viz you know.” But there is no such requirement for cars. Nobody ever says, “Yeah, well you know, she has a silver car. So hard to see on a grey road.”
Personally, I wouldn’t care if we covered the trains in yellow polka dots but I have no interest in visual things. Patrick obviously does (he takes beautiful photos) so I trust him.
Right. Now that the dust seems to have settled a little on this post and the hysteria has calmed down I would really like a chance to repeat what I actually said and not have to respond to some of the crazier misreadings that clearly went on. I have never seen such an extreme backlash to a post on this blog, and I still don’t see it as justified; it’s a pretty gentle thought: Shouldn’t we consider the marketing implications in train design to help expand the opportunity offered by these three big projects? It was hardly inflammatory, the title even has a question mark at the end.
And we all want more and more people to ride these things don’t we? I guess in many ways the reaction proved my point: It seems there is an opportunity to grow a stronger culture of customer focus around PT in AK and rail in particular. It’s great that there is a lot of enthusiasm for the new trains from the staff but that doesn’t mean that viewing them from the side of user isn’t also very important.
I don’t know how to discuss the importance of design in the outcome of a commercial venture without some level of criticism, or how to get some to accept that criticism is an important part of the process of improving performance, isn’t this why we have the whole mock-up process; to get feedback? I still think that there is a huge opportunity to use the arrival of the new trains to help to signal a whole new order in PT provision in Auckland. There is not one coherent argument against that in 60 comments, and quite a bit of support.
And the assumption that giving more attention to the marketing opportunities in train design somehow requires the total abandonment of safety considerations is to play to a false opposition. Good design is not something superficial that is simply stuck on later but is integral to the entire performance of a product or service.
Perhaps there’s a lesson in timing here, perhaps we should be careful about what we post on a Friday evening; not clever to upset the equilibrium down at the Trainspotters Arms just as the bitter is being poured…..
I can see both sides: yes, functonality and performance are the key drivers. But surely in this day and age with “brands” all around us, we aren’t dismissing design and style as an afterthought? That would indeed be a missed opportunity to signal the arrival of a new rail age in Auckland.
I can live with the yellow on the front if thats what the relevant laws and regulations require. However looking at the picture of the current diesel train at the top of this post and the livery on the Northern Explorer (old Overlander), it seems the carriage doors don’t require anything special:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=527695&page=321
So we can surely ditch the rather hideous yellow doors on the mock up, just as a starter. Would look much slicker.
Less chit-chat about what decor the trains should have and more discussion on the track network issues – the important bit. Over time rails need to be realigned to eliminate curves etc, to allow the trains to run closer to maximum speed between stations etc. When train beats car, train will become attractive.
It’s that simple really.
As I see it new trains will be put on the same shitty old rail layout. Can’t put lipstick on a pig.
Patrick, I think you are right to highlight the need for improving the experience, but you are off base by targeting the trains. For a first time PT user the initial impression is going to be gained at the station.
Things such as:
Will I get wet/cold waiting for a train w/o an umbrella/jacket
Is it easy to find information on when the next train is due, where it is going and how long my journey will take, will I be able to get a return train etc
Are there convenient, clean amenities at stations.
Does the station look safe, (if it is tagged and run down not really the best impression no matter how flash the train that shows up looks)
These seem to be the simple things that are often lacking in the NZ PT transport scene.
Gosh what negative people some of these PT advocates up in Auckland are. I would’ve thought they’d be pretty stoked with how their new EMU’s are coming along, I know I’m pretty stoked and I’m from the Wellington region. But it seems like sadly some people are never satisfied.
The overall design is modern and attractive both in its exterior and interior, which is crucial as EMU’s are something being introduced for Auckland and thus new and novel and in need of aspects to hook the public. I was a bit worried about earlier offered liveries but it appears as though they’ve improved that aspect too. But this Patrick Reynolds (Patrick… …WHO?) doesn’t think it’s good enough! And on what grounds? Oh he doesn’t like the yellow on the front ends?
Patrick; any small amount of research into this matter would’ve informed you that the legal safety requirements in NZ are for bright yellow on the front ends of any trains on the network. It’s so they can be seen, like tradesmen and the like wearing “hi-viz” attire. Those are the rules and it has become standard across almost the entire world.
And no there’s no point in bringing up units on the Stockholm metro, as metro’s are completely separated from the main rail and road networks and thus don’t fall under the requirements for bright yellow ends.
P.S. I see NO similarity whatsoever with those dreadful old ADK and ADL DMU’s.
There is no requirement for the front ends to be yellow. High contrast yes, but not necessarily yellow.
In accordance with the rail operator’s requirements; the ends of the trains must be yellow and the trackside staff orange.
I for one don’t think the yellow ends look bad at all.
And I find the statement “In short should look revolutionary” utterly clueless. Revolutionary? with something that’s in wide usage across the developed world? So Mr. Reynolds thinks NZ should spend extra money diverting from the tried-and-true in the interests of the possibility of being “revolutionary” (and with the increased risks of both failure and ridicule from NZ’s rather conservative mainstream media and society)?
Yeah a requirement of the rail operator, not an invariant law of the cosmos inscribed by God onto onto the heart of existence.
The revolutionary comment was in regards to Auckland passenger rail, not the developed world. I believe Patrick was suggesting that the design of the new EMUs should cut all design ties from the existing lumbering diesel clunkers to present the image of what they actually are, a revolutionary change for the better (and not a simple upgrade or evolution of the junk we currently put up with).
Auckland transport isn’t subject to any “invariant law of the cosmos inscribed by God onto onto the heart of existence” is it? It’s subject to the requirements of Kiwirail whose railway network it operates on and whose requirements it must meet.
I personally can not see in any way how anyone could think that these new EMU’s are a continuation of the present old bangers, and not something completely new and vastly improved and a “cut of all design ties”. As for the usage of the word “revolution”, it merely seems like a poor choice of hyperbole.
The requirements can be changed, that was the point of my little poetic spiel.
NRSS 6 section 12.6 states:
“All leading vehicles must have high visibility front ends to a conspicuity standard acceptable to the Access Provider. ”
Yellow is thus not the one and only high visibility colour that can be applied to an Auckland EMU. AT needs to full discuss with Kiwirail thus, the various merits of using for example hi-viz white, yellow and orange to reach agreement on a colour range that can be used on the ends of an EMU.
Excuse my language but SHIT I think the new EMUs look pretty decent and flashy. And to be honest a tad more pretty than a Matangi (and yes I have seen and travelled on a Matangi first hand recently). But the Matangi has one advantage of the Auckland sets, the capability to walk between consists when doubled or tripled up. Our EMU-3s when doubled up to be EMU 6s are going to be like the ADKs or ADL4s in the fact staff cant walk between the consists.
Otherwise lets brjng on 2014