Amtrak in the Toyota Tundra Paint Scheme! Toyota had a 60 day deal with Amtrak to paint two of their engines in the Toyota Tundra Paint Scheme, with a red pick-up on the side. The engines painted in this scheme were Numbers 84 and 115. Here is a picture of 84. [:)]
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=85751
Thanks for looking! [:)]
Good photo but what a morphodite looking locomotive
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=85751
Thanks, dblstack. [:)]
And everyone stands around wondering why kids of today are confused. If a railfan painted his Tundra with a locomotive on its side everyone would laugh.
Yes. Let’s project, what I believe is the competetion on our product.
It’s like having an orange juice container with a Coke can on the label.
I’m happy that Amtrak derives a little bit of dough from selling ad space on the side of its power, but the appearance of such things mares the image of the carrier in general.
Mitch
VIA uses clients that aren’t competition-Telus, Home Hardware, CBC News, Spiderman 2 movie.
What ever generates revenue though…
It’s sad how the airlines are getting all the money. Last year, Amtrak came close to setting its rider-ship record by carrying over 25 million passengers. Amtrak has the potential to become a viable piece of America’s Transportation Infrastructure. Bush is continually asking Congress for billions of dollars for Iraq. Many of the dollars for Iraq are being used to rebuild and develop their Infrastructure “Roads and Rails.” Shouldn’t we be investing American Tax dollars in America’s Infrastructure first? Bush has once again shown how willing he is to turn his back on the average Americans. For many people in rural America, Amtrak is the only intercity transportation available to them. There are also many Americans who choose not to fly and prefer to travel by rail. Amtrak brings transportation to areas that other carriers wouldn’t think of serving because of lack of profitability.
Gotta admit it’s an interesting idea to incrase revenue for Amtrak, ugly as it is!
Just like a lousey city bus. Very inspiring.
Mitch
Oh don’t get me started on the Toyota Tundra paint scheme :(
I hate it!!! Amtrak needs to get rid of it!! but, then again they need the money.
So the whole problem with passenger trains before Amtrak was that the E units didn’t have ads. Are we willing to believe that selling ad space on engines props up the revenue that much? I’m sick of everyone selling ad space to everyone else for one thing.
What would be next? Conductors wearing Hertz uniforms with buttons in their lapel that say “Fly United?”
There has to be some sense of propriety here. The phrase, “It generates revenue,” is an easy one to rap off the tongue. But in the long run, the image of the train is some-what tarnished.
Of course we could always open up train names to “Naming Rights.” Such as “The Cellular One Zephyr,” or “Disney’s Chief.” But we’ll never see “Norfolk Southern presents The Lake Shore.”
Mitch
Unlike the city bus though, the advertising would see more eyes and would attract more eyes. Have to admit, even the oblivious non railfan would take notice of a locomotive with “unusual” paint scheme.
The paint does not make the engine easy to look at.
In fact woe onto the engineer who has to drive the thing if he had a problem with that ad on “HIS” engine.
Ad space needs to stay within the sports world such as NASCAR.
Prior to my moving to Arkansas, the east coast were offering private car owners alot of money a month if they are willing to cover thier vehicle in ads. In some cases the entire monthly payment of these cars are paid for by the ads.
Not too shabby. Although the Ad on the side of the GMC fishbowl is acceptable.
But to pay amtrack a few dollars for a really bad logo on their engine? I can say that I prefer to spend the few dollars in the paint budget to at least clean up the chrome on that rusting passenger car it is pulling.
And at the speed of the train would they notice the ad or how lousey the locomotive looks.
I don’t understand your reply about how many eyes seeing an ad on a city bus v train. If the ad runs on 100 buses in 30 cities of high population, how do you arrive at your equation?
What I’m referring to is now the motive power is as ugly as a city bus with advertising.
In the condition Amtrak is in, they should be advertising Amtrak as much as possible with the best public image.
Mitch
Trains pull in and out of stations or approach them at low speeds which are usually located in cities or significantly populated areas where commuter trains are present.
In our area, that locomotive would be effective for motorists and any other watchers as there are plenty of slow orders on the line.
That locomotive may see hundreds of eyes at railroad crossings and areas where the locomotive maybe going slow enough for folk to look at. Since that train might be stopping at several large cities, it is fair to say that it will be viewed alot.
I didn’t say it would get viewed more then a city bus; all I said was that it would be viewed by folk who normally wouldn’t give a darn about trains but might take notice of something out of the ordinary like a Toyota brandishing P-42.
Public image? Look at the rusting baggage car immediately behind the engine. Ugh.
Yep. Let’s fix that too. So how many eyes will see a lousey baggage car pulled by a Tundra?
I don’t care how many eyes will see the ad. That’s not the problem. One of the things it says is Amtrak is under cover. So what if it pulls in slowly into the depot. If you’re standing close to it you can’t see the whole thing. It just looks like corporate grafitti. Which it is.
Mitch
Yeah there right if the train is traveling at 110mph no one is going to see the painting only time you will see it is when the train is in the station or be turned around
This never stopped quite a few airlines from painting up airliners with promotional schemes, like Southwest’s Shamu planes or the Star Alliance planes with a six airline hybird scheme. At least a train is visible for more than when an airliner linked to a jetway, provided you’re actually in an airport terminal to see it as more than just a white shape at 35,000 feet.
So the airlines do it, transit wrap abounds, so it’s all OK? Right? It’s all graffiti. Well done, poorly done, it’s childish no matter how we all sit and try to figure some whack-a-do numbers on visibility.
For years people go to Europe and the rest of the world and come home saying how beautiful these places are. Then they look around and see the mass, garish horror that has become our national visual heritage. Next, they look at their own business and say, “Let’s make this thing look like it came out of London.” So they decide to have their signs made in England. They have the balls to tell the English sign pinter how to make a sign, despite the fact the business man has no graphic sense what-so-ever, and the English sign guy has been doing it for years, in an age-old manner. Right there the sign is now a lousey confection. It arrives at the businessman’s place and everyone looks at it.
Then someone chimes in,“My daughter is taking art lessons, she can fix it.”
It saddens me deeply that this culture we live in just can’t distinguish garish, child-like visiuals from anything once known as classic.
Yes…a lot of eyes see the stuff. They see it at the airports, they see it at grade crossings, they see it in their sleep. That’s the problem. Visitors from overseas see it.
Of course there’ll come a time when the engine in question has a grade crossing collision with a red Tundra and the story and related pix will be troubling.
Mitch
Mitch you said it brother!! I hope I never ever see a conductor for any railroad wearing a Hertz uniform. If that was to happen I will really be on a tune, espually if a conductor was advetising US Air or something like that. [:(!]NO I don’t think so , that will not due. The conductor should be wearing the traditional railroad uniform with the railroad’s name, and his/her name that’s about it!!!