# RFP issued for Amfleet I replacement



## keelhauled

Amtrak news release.  75 trainsets or equivalent in individual cars to replace Amfleet I/Metroliner fleet.  No ETA on delivery.  Apparently the old fleet strategy plan of replacing the Amfleet IIs first is out the window.


----------



## Acela150

Trainsets??? Since when are the Amfleets a trainset?


----------



## Dutchrailnut

read buddy read...


----------



## jis

Something like the California or Brightline order would be acceptable, is my reading.


----------



## Seaboard92

Something tells me I will benefit financially from this. In full disclosure I own Siemens stock.


----------



## Acela150

Dutchrailnut said:


> read buddy read...


Thanks for the useless comment Dutch.. Stay humble. 



jis said:


> Something like the California or Brightline order would be acceptable, is my reading.


That's what I'm thinking. But my major problem with using trainsets is simple. If you need to shop one car, you need to shop the whole thing. Amfleets you drill the car out and put a new one in. Another problem is that if you need say only 6 cars on a train to VA and you have 8 in a trainset those 2 unused cars can go elsewhere.


----------



## jis

Acela150 said:


> That's what I'm thinking. But my major problem with using trainsets is simple. If you need to shop one car, you need to shop the whole thing. Amfleets you drill the car out and put a new one in. Another problem is that if you need say only 6 cars on a train to VA and you have 8 in a trainset those 2 unused cars can go elsewhere.


Did you witness what happened when a car in a Brightline consist was damaged week before last. They simply switched the car out and ran the trainset one car short until the damage was fixed and car added back to the consist. Maybe it is not as big a delay as is made out by some apparently.

The California setup makes this even easier since a pair of cars can be removed as a unit even more easily than a single car from a trainset.


----------



## Acela150

jis said:


> Did you witness what happened when a car in a Brightline consist was damaged week before last. They simply switched the car out and ran the trainset one car short until the damage was fixed and car added back to the consist. Maybe it is not as big a delay as is made out by some apparently.
> 
> The California setup makes this even easier since a pair of cars can be removed as a unit even more easily than a single car from a trainset.


I'm not as in the loop as I used to be. So no I didn't see that. I'm just hoping that if it is indeed "trainsets", it's not like the HST, semi-permanent.


----------



## Thirdrail7

We'll have to see what the proposal is. I suspect a combination DMU/EMU vehicle, which will minimize engine changes.


----------



## jis

Acela150 said:


> I'm not as in the loop as I used to be. So no I didn't see that. I'm just hoping that if it is indeed "trainsets", it's not like the HST, semi-permanent.


The Brightline sets are semi-permanently coupled. My point was that did not stop them from shopping a single car.

I think one thing that they will go with is sufficient number of cab cars so that they do not need to wye trains. They can then have the freedom to reverse trains at platform like they do with Acelas while continuing to use the existing Sprinters and new diesels for power.

One oddity that I noticed in the passing is that the diesel engine spec has been slightly modified to allow engines to be 85' long! I wonder why. Even if the want to package it in a carbody like the rest of the cars, it can still be shorter than 85'. Maybe leaving enough room for dual modes without worrying too much about space conservation?


----------



## LookingGlassTie

keelhauled said:


> Amtrak news release.  75 trainsets or equivalent in individual cars to replace Amfleet I/Metroliner fleet.  No ETA on delivery.  Apparently the old fleet strategy plan of replacing the Amfleet IIs first is out the window.


Maybe it's because the Amfleet II's are going to be "refreshed" instead of "replaced".    Or is that off the table now?


----------



## jis

They will be first refreshed and then replaced just like the Amfleet Is. Given the way Amtrak's accounts are laid out, finding adequate collateral for a loan for them may be a somewhat bigger challenge than for the Amfleet Is. Similar issues arise for Superliners, unless of course Congress steps upto the plate beyond just occasionally hyperventilating about it. So far they have not really funded much of any new equipment.


----------



## Acela150

Thirdrail7 said:


> We'll have to see what the proposal is. I suspect a combination DMU/EMU vehicle, which will minimize engine changes.


Not like Amtrak bought 70 brand spankin new electric motors about 5 years ago.  :help:



jis said:


> The Brightline sets are semi-permanently coupled. My point was that did not stop them from shopping a single car.
> 
> I think one thing that they will go with is sufficient number of cab cars so that they do not need to wye trains. They can then have the freedom to reverse trains at platform like they do with Acelas while continuing to use the existing Sprinters and new diesels for power.
> 
> One oddity that I noticed in the passing is that the diesel engine spec has been slightly modified to allow engines to be 85' long! I wonder why. Even if the want to package it in a carbody like the rest of the cars, it can still be shorter than 85'. Maybe leaving enough room for dual modes without worrying too much about space conservation?


The problem with Semi Permanent is that it can't be done quickly. Compared to the current Amcans. The one thing I'd like to see is something that has standard knuckles with the Type H Tightlock. I'd be ok with using cab cars on trains in a similar capacity to the current HST. 

One thing I will say is that I don't predict a 40-45 year running life on the new equipment. Stuff isn't built like it was.


----------



## jis

This is a standard attitude among Americans and yet in the rest of the world railways are moving towards fixed EMU/DMU/DEMU sets to quite an extent, specially in places where passenger railway with extremely frequent service, is run more as a necessity for millions rather than as almost a hobby as in many places in the US (with tongue in the cheek) [emoji57]


----------



## Thirdrail7

jis said:


> This is a standard attitude among Americans and yet in the rest of the world railways are moving towards fixed EMU/DMU/DEMU sets to quite an extent, specially in places where passenger railway with extremely frequent service, is run more as a necessity for millions rather than as almost a hobby as in many places in the US (with tongue in the cheek)


And that is the difference. It is one thing when you have a lot of equipment and options, such as frequency and support. When you have a sparse network, with trains isolated and at the behest of freight operators and outsourced assistance,  uniformity is a good thing.

When there is a problem with an Acela due to a problem with a coach, the whole set is shopped.  Setting out a car should be a quick and easy process. Being able to add equipment (if necessary) should be a quick and easy process, particularly when you don't have an extensive network.

I hope it is.


----------



## Brian_tampa

The RFP is to replace equipment used on NEC and other regional trains that use the NEC corridor. This appears to not be a LD equipment order, only for the east coast from VA to ME. So the issues of infrequent service and being subject to running on host railroads are minimized since this equipment will stay close to their home base. 

And if Amtrak takes a whole Acela trainset out of service because of an issue on 1 car, all I can say is that seems really inefficient. Like jis said, if Brightline can do it why can't Amtrak? 

Having semi-permanent trainsets will force Amtrak to maintain their equipment properly. That can only be a good thing! I do not know of many, if any at all, equipment failures on Brightline that caused cancelled or delayed trains. They seem to have their maintenance plan set up so that equipment availability and reliability is extremely good. Why can't Amtrak, after almost 50 years of experience, get this right?


----------



## cpotisch

Brian_tampa said:


> The RFP is to replace equipment used on NEC and other regional trains that use the NEC corridor. This appears to not be a LD equipment order, only for the east coast from VA to ME. So the issues of infrequent service and being subject to running on host railroads are minimized since this equipment will stay close to their home base.
> 
> And if Amtrak takes a whole Acela trainset out of service because of an issue on 1 car, all I can say is that seems really inefficient. Like jis said, if Brightline can do it why can't Amtrak?
> 
> *Having semi-permanent trainsets will force Amtrak to maintain their equipment properly. That can only be a good thing!* I do not know of many, if any at all, equipment failures on Brightline that caused cancelled or delayed trains. They seem to have their maintenance plan set up so that equipment availability and reliability is extremely good. Why can't Amtrak, after almost 50 years of experience, get this right?


Or, since equipment will pretty much inevitably have issue(s) at some point, it can very well be a bad thing. I highly doubt Amtrak has been spending decades saying "Hey! What's the point in maintaining equipment? If a car is bad-ordered, we won't necessarily have to take a whole train set out of service!" Problems occur, and making those problems 10x as problematic is not going to magically keep them from occurring.

That's like saying we should get rid of crumple zones in cars because it will incentivize people to not get into crashes.


----------



## NSC1109

Brian_tampa said:


> The RFP is to replace equipment used on NEC and other regional trains that use the NEC corridor. This appears to not be a LD equipment order, only for the east coast from VA to ME. So the issues of infrequent service and being subject to running on host railroads are minimized since this equipment will stay close to their home base.
> 
> And if Amtrak takes a whole Acela trainset out of service because of an issue on 1 car, all I can say is that seems really inefficient. Like jis said, if Brightline can do it why can't Amtrak?
> 
> Having semi-permanent trainsets will force Amtrak to maintain their equipment properly. That can only be a good thing! I do not know of many, if any at all, equipment failures on Brightline that caused cancelled or delayed trains. They seem to have their maintenance plan set up so that equipment availability and reliability is extremely good. Why can't Amtrak, after almost 50 years of experience, get this right?


Remember, the _Acela_ trainsets have been in service since 2000. The _Brightline_ trainsets entered service in 2018. That's nearly a 20-year difference. Granted, I'm far from an expert on semi-permanently coupled trainsets and what exactly was doable in those days, but I doubt that Amtrak would take an entire _Acela_ trainset OOS for one car unless they had no other option. They may not always be the most efficient, but I find it difficult to believe that the transportation and mechanical departments would be that idiotic. 

As for the idea of fixed trainsets in general, I certainly see the appeal. There's always a risk when going over the couplers, especially with the moving footplates and various hard edges to fall on. At the same time, it can potentially be a nightmare if a trainset or even a pair of cars (like what Illinois is doing) have to be taken out of service because of an issue on just one car. Granted, Illinois ordered some individual coaches in an apparent attempt to help mitigate the issue, but the cafe and business class cars are still in pairs with coaches. If you lose that pair, you better hope you have another handy. 

Below is the planned setup for the Siemens cars operating out of Chicago. Please note that the " - " indicates a Type H coupler while a " / " indicates a semi-permanently coupled married pair:

Locomotive - Individual Coach - Individual Coach - Coach/Cafe - Coach/BusEcon - Locomotive

This is the CalTrans setup: 

Locomotive - Coach/Coach/Coach/Cafe/Coach/Coach/Cab Car 

Here's a breakdown of who ordered what: 


Customer​ 

Car Type​ 

Quantity​ 

Description​ 

# Doors​ 

Coupler ​
Configuration​ 

Caltrans​ 

CT-1A​ 

21​ 

Mid coach car​ 

2​ 

S-S​ 

Caltrans​ 

CT-1B​ 

7​ 

End coach car coupled to locomotive​ 

4​ 

H-S​ 

Caltrans​ 

CT-1C​ 

7​ 

Mid coach car with wheelchair lifts​ 

4​ 

S-S​ 

Caltrans​ 

CT-4A​ 

7​ 

Cab Car​ 

2​ 

S-H​ 

Caltrans​ 

CT-5A​ 

7​ 

Café Car​ 

4​ 

S-S​ 

IDOT​ 

ID-1A​ 

20​ 

Individual coach car​ 

2​ 

H-H​ 

IDOT​ 

ID-1B​ 

34​ 

Coach car for business or café married pair​ 

2​ 

S-H​ 

IDOT​ 

ID-3A​ 

17​ 

Business/ economy car​ 

4​ 

S-H​ 

IDOT​ 

ID-5A​ 

17​ 

Café Car​ 

4​ 

S-H​ 




As you can see above, only IDOT has taken steps to have spare equipment available to mitigate any sort of impact from a bad ordered car. All of CalTrans' cars will be semi-permanently coupled. Now, I don't have any sort of data that would indicate the primary causes of bad-ordering, but I figure that if CalTrans didn't feel the need to have individual replacements on hand, a large part of the concern could be weather-related, as we tend to have worse weather (the current snowstorm, for example) than California does.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Brian_tampa said:


> The RFP is to replace equipment used on NEC and other regional trains that use the NEC corridor. This appears to not be a LD equipment order, only for the east coast from VA to ME. So the issues of infrequent service and being subject to running on host railroads are minimized since this equipment will stay close to their home base.


Everyone else addressed the shrill and uninformed nature of the rest or your post so I'll take this point.

Very few trains and the equipment are  confined to the NEC corridor. Just about every set leaves the NEC proper and run on the host railroads.  This equipment may run Boston to Roanoke, Virginia (which approaches almost three trips on Brightline) over 4 railroads and then become a train to Norfolk, Virginia...again, traversing 4 railroads.  The Virginia outlying points are NOWHERE near their base and often represent the only train in the area.

Two trains (Adirondack and Maple Leaf) aren't even in the United States when they finish so I;m not sure how you consider a train that is 544 miles away from its start "close to their home base."

There are also more than mechanical difficulties that plague trains. What about trees or the many, many grade crossing incidents as people continue to challenge trains to a joust? That wrecks havoc on the equipment.

While Jis mentioned brightline switching out a car, he never mentioned where. Was this in a facility or did the crew perform this along the right away, after it was broadsided by a car that ran a grade crossing and damaged the brake system?


----------



## Brian_tampa

Thirdrail7, I would politely disagree with your description of my post. That said, I did not mean to imply that Amtrak does not maintain their equipment to the point that it can't run. I was mostly referring to minor issues that impact the experience of the customer yet are allowed to go back in service without being fixed. Having a fixed trainset consist IMO will help focus on keeping the whole train in good order versus treating each car as a separate piece that is not critical to getting the train over the road. I think having trainsets that cant be easily modified will lead to improved maintenance procedures. That being said, things will happen that require cars to be removed from service from time to time.

As far as the Acela trainsets, I was repeating what I have heard over the years. It could be a design feature that causes this to be the case. 

In the RFP, Amtrak mentioned corridor services. That would seem to exclude the two trains to Canada that you specifically mentioned. I know that NEC regional trains do operate off of the NEC and onto other railroad's tracks. Yet in the big picture, most NEC and regional trains do not stray that far from where ever their home base would be on the NEC. 

What I am trying to say, however shrill or uninformed it might seem, is that the current situation is not sustainable long term. To grow the system and attract new riders who would not otherwise consider taking the train, Amtrak needs to consider new ideas such as Brightline style trainsets and their maintenance program they have with Siemens.


----------



## jis

Thirdrail7 said:


> And that is the difference. It is one thing when you have a lot of equipment and options, such as frequency and support. When you have a sparse network, with trains isolated and at the behest of freight operators and outsourced assistance,  uniformity is a good thing.
> 
> When there is a problem with an Acela due to a problem with a coach, the whole set is shopped.  Setting out a car should be a quick and easy process. Being able to add equipment (if necessary) should be a quick and easy process, particularly when you don't have an extensive network.
> 
> I hope it is.


Actually, it is the Acela IIs which will be truly articulated like the TGVs using Jacobs Trucks.

I think you are quite correct in your observation that Amtrak operates on thin margins of equipment, unlike the much much larger passenger systems elsewhere. In a manner of speaking, they have a much deeper equipment bench for all sorts of equipment than Amtrak does.

There are two more observations I'd make based on what I observe in Europe and India.

1. Even when articulated sets are used the drawbars connecting the individual cars within a set together are relatively easy to couple and decouple, so changing out cars within a consist often is not much harder than if they had standard couplers, and are similar in complexity to chain and screw couplers which is still not that uncommon in the rest of the world anyway. Of course, the more permanent and hence harder to separate the coupling is the more seamless is the customer experience of passing from one car to another. It is a tradeoff, and a decision to be made based on what factors are more important to the operator.

2. Typically EMU and DMU sets are three or four cars long, and trains are built stringing together two to five such sets. So even if cars cannot be replaced, all that happens is things are taken out of service in units of say, 225 seats instead of 75 seats, and that together with availability of spares in units of 225 seats instead of 75 as standard units for example, works out just fine. And the 3 or 4 car units then can have full width vestibules giving a sense of airy spaciousness to the customer, with only inter-unit vestibules being narrower.

In India so far even when cars are connected by drawbars within a set, no advantage is taken to provide a more seamless experience to the customer. That is changing with the recent T-18 distributed power prototype, which supposedly will be deployed on Premier trains, both regional and overnight. The claim is doing so will allow lopping off full two hours from the current 16 hour schedule between Mumbai and New Delhi or Kolkata and New Delhi.

As far as I can see, at least in India, the argument for going with EMU/DMU for regional service is the significantly superior timetable performance of the DMU/EMUs over loco hauled trains. In general they report immediate 10% to 20% overall running time reduction for services that have frequent stops. That really is a big deal if achieved without requiring major track/signal overhaul. This is the publicly stated primary reason for converting regional passenger and express trains to DMU/EMU, and it clearly shows in time tables and customer experience.

I saw a living illustration of it the other day when the train I was on, an extremely capable loco hauled train of 10 cars with 5+kHP Co-Co TRAXX electric engine, was routinely beaten handily in acceleration out of a station stop by an EMU. Of course eventually we caught up with and overtook the EMU since we did not have to stop everywhere, which it did (and our APS was 30kph faster than the EMU's), but the illustration was stark. And it is not like these EMU sets are drastically overpowered. It is just that the power is distributed in 1 in 4 (16 axles in 64 in a 4 unit 16 car train) instead of 6 axles in 46 to 66 (10-15 car trains). There are no trains in India that operate with more than one electric engine (except the few mountain segments where bankers are used just for the climb), or for that matter more than one EMD dual cab ~5kHP Co-Co AC drive diesel engine. There are some that operate with twin single cab ALCO derivative 3kHP DC drive engines.

But bottom line is, the operating conditions and imperatives are different in different environments. US passenger service except in the NEC is very different from the more intensive passenger ops elsewhere in the world.

On the NEC 3 or 4 car sets with one power car coupled together using AAR-H couplers as proposed by NJT is likely to address the distributed power issue without compromising on replaceability of individual cars, and indeed that is what Amtrak might go for. If experience elsewhere holds true in American, which is always a big if, then this could improve timetable performance considerably without massive investment in tracks and signals. So we shall see.

As far as I can see, the two features to go for primarily are:

1. Distributed power - spread the power transmission among a larger proportion of axles to get significantly better performance.

2. Operating Cabs at both ends - to eliminate the need for turning trains on Wyes or Balloon Tracks or unhooking and hooking locomotives at the end of each run.

The rest is just arguing about who calls which configuration by what name.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Brian_tampa said:


> n the RFP, Amtrak mentioned corridor services. That would seem to exclude the two trains to Canada that you specifically mentioned. I know that NEC regional trains do operate off of the NEC and onto other railroad's tracks. Yet in the big picture, most NEC and regional trains do not stray that far from where ever their home base would be on the NEC.


From the VERY TWO FIRST paragraphs from the press release:



> Amtrak has released a Request for Proposals today, for a new fleet of single-level passenger rail vehicles to replace Amfleet I cars, providing new equipment with contemporary rail amenities to better serve Amtrak customers. Amfleet I cars are used primarily on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) and adjacent State Corridor routes, including_ Empire Service, Ethan Allen Express, Maple Leaf, Adirondack, Vermonter, Downeaster, Carolinian, Pennsylvanian, Keystone Service, Virginia Service _and New Haven/Springfield Service_._
> 
> “Nearly half of Amtrak’s annual ridership is comprised of trips along the Northeast Corridor and adjoining corridors, and this new state-of-the-art equipment will provide customers with an enjoyable and efficient travel experience,” said Amtrak Vice President of Corporate Planning Byron Comati.


So, the two border crossing trains are specifically mentioned. Secondly, you are WRONG about about most regionals not straying from the NEC. At this point, most of the Virginia service trains stray 200+ miles away from the NEC.  Trains like the Carolinian, The Pennsylvanian, the Vermonter, the NYS Empire service to Upstate New York do not end anywhere near the NEC when they finish or begin their trip...and they DEFINITELY end up on the host railroads territory. 

Brightline's sealed service model (which hasn't even made it to its forth stop yet, let alone crosses state lines) would be great IF the train remained on a sealed corridor (like the Acela.)  Again, this is not as much about maintenance. I'm speaking about operational realities.

When a train hits a tree in a storm(like 92 a few days ago) and ALL of the headlights and ditch lights  go dark and you are 400 miles deep into freight territory, heading AWAY from your base, I'd like a better option than stopping to protect every single grade crossing along the route. I'd like to know that it is compatible with the something else out there so the train can be rescued and there is a way to make repairs at the outlying points. In 92's case, a train coupled up to it and continued along its way. When 79 hit a car and the engine was damaged, a freight engine coupled up, took it to CLT and stayed with it for train 80 the next day. Cars and equipment have been set off for other train en route.

Additionally, if operation conditions warrant it,  I want this to be an option:



I'm pretty sure this would be considered "away from their base."

So, if they aren't compatible, you have taken away operational flexibility....or do you think Amtrak and Siemens is  seriously going to establish a facility at every single outlying point and turnaround location on the eastern system?


----------



## NSC1109

> 8 hours ago, Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> From the VERY TWO FIRST paragraphs from the press release:
> 
> So, the two border crossing trains are specifically mentioned. Secondly, you are WRONG about about most regionals not straying from the NEC. At this point, most of the Virginia service trains stray 200+ miles away from the NEC.  Trains like the Carolinian, The Pennsylvanian, the Vermonter, the NYS Empire service to Upstate New York do not end anywhere near the NEC when they finish or begin their trip...and they DEFINITELY end up on the host railroads territory.
> 
> Brightline's sealed service model (which hasn't even made it to its forth stop yet, let alone crosses state lines) would be great IF the train remained on a sealed corridor (like the Acela.)  Again, this is not as much about maintenance. I'm speaking about operational realities.
> 
> When a train hits a tree in a storm(like 92 a few days ago) and ALL of the headlights and ditch lights  go dark and you are 400 miles deep into freight territory, heading AWAY from your base, I'd like a better option than stopping to protect every single grade crossing along the route. I'd like to know that it is compatible with the something else out there so the train can be rescued and there is a way to make repairs at the outlying points. In 92's case, a train coupled up to it and continued along its way. When 79 hit a car and the engine was damaged, a freight engine coupled up, took it to CLT and stayed with it for train 80 the next day. Cars and equipment have been set off for other train en route.
> 
> Additionally, if operation conditions warrant it,  I want this to be an option:



I can tell you that Amfleets are commonly utilized on almost every corridor train out of Chicago, save for possibly the Hiawatha. A good chunk of them are lettered “Illinois HSR”. Occasionally an NER café will show up on a Wolverine.


----------



## PVD

I'm most curious about some of the details not yet "out here" Presently, The routes mentioned, for the most part, use 2 different types of cars to provide food service, as well as 2 different types for business class (using 3 car types)  Empire Service  trains are shorter, but cars on certain trains are added or dropped at Albany for capacity to/from NYP, the ability to add to an NER around certain holidays is useful, and presently, the overnight NER gets a bag. I'm curious as to how that is looked at moving forward.....


----------



## cpotisch

Brian_tampa said:


> That said, I did not mean to imply that Amtrak does not maintain their equipment to the point that it can't run. I was mostly referring to minor issues that impact the experience of the customer yet are allowed to go back in service without being fixed. Having a fixed trainset consist IMO will help focus on keeping the whole train in good order versus treating each car as a separate piece that is not critical to getting the train over the road.﻿


But if it's a minor issue that _doesn't_ prohibit a car from keeping kept in service, then what difference does it make that it's a semi-permanently coupled trainset? They can still send that car into service and it wouldn't affect the other cars.

If it's a serious issue that prohibits the car from going into service, now you have to take the trainset out of service, which is bad.

If it's a minor issue that just affects the passenger experience, it makes no difference that it's one trainset.

Either way, I don't see how it being one trainset results in Amtrak being much better about maintenance.


----------



## frequentflyer

EMU/DMUs, if Amtrak goes that route will be on another RFP. This purely about the Amfleet and Amtrak getting accustomed to the new Siemens car which will no doubt be the defacto car of Amtrak in the future for LDTs and Corridor. The maintenance and inventory savings should be immense when completed compared to the hodgepodge of equipment Amtrak have to maintain today.


----------



## Andrew

How would Amtrak fund the Amfleet replacement?

RRIF loans?


----------



## frequentflyer

Wow, thought this thread would get more posts with the exciting news new equipment will soon be ordered.



IMO, since the new equipment will be Siemens coaches here is a video to get an idea of what to expect interior wise. The Siemens Vs coaches are sold around the world and used on the vaunted European railroad network. Should be good enough for Amtrak and cheaper to operate too.


----------



## Eric S

NSC1109 said:


> I can tell you that Amfleets are commonly utilized on almost every corridor train out of Chicago, save for possibly the Hiawatha. A good chunk of them are lettered “Illinois HSR”. Occasionally an NER café will show up on a Wolverine.


in my experience, Hiawatha trainsets are typically a mix of 1-2 Amfleets and 4-5 Horizons.


----------



## John Santos

Noticed the Siemens coaches have built-in fold-down bridges for the platform gaps.  The gaps look fairly wide; are the Siemens coaches a little narrower than the standard American coaches, or does the Brightline have wide gaps?  Or is it just an illusion?

This is interesting to me because both of my local MBTA commuter rail stations have low-level platforms, which don't meet ADA standards, and they are threatening to close them rather than perform necessary upgrades.  But high-level platforms don't work because both stations are built on curves, and the gaps would have to be too wide.  The current stations are very convenient walking distance to two large neighborhoods, but the proposed solution is to build a new station on a straight stretch of track halfway between them, which isn't convenient to anyone, no parking, too far for most people to walk from either neighborhood, etc.  (A very problematic "solution".)

High-level platforms with wide gaps and built-in fold-down bridges on the cars would (I think) solve the accessibility problem.  The only issue would be getting the T to update its equipment, which they would probably be willing to do in about 40 years when the systems that have bought these cars second-hand from Amtrak decide to sell them off because maintenance is too expensive.  (I remember when I was commuting daily in the earl/mid 1970's when the T bought a whole bunch of "new" cars, about 30 years old, from the LIRR, which were much better than their existing cars.)

Bitter much?  Not me...


----------



## cpotisch

John Santos said:


> Noticed the Siemens coaches have built-in fold-down bridges for the platform gaps.  The gaps look fairly wide; are the Siemens coaches a little narrower than the standard American coaches, or does the Brightline have wide gaps?  Or is it just an illusion?



Read from there down.


----------



## jamess

John Santos said:


> Noticed the Siemens coaches have built-in fold-down bridges for the platform gaps.  The gaps look fairly wide; are the Siemens coaches a little narrower than the standard American coaches, or does the Brightline have wide gaps?  Or is it just an illusion? ﻿


Complete guess on my part, but I am thinking:

1. They're a freight company, so they might want a wider ROW just in case

2. They're a private company, so they can't spit in the face of ADA like the public sector does.


----------



## Burns651

The press release is worded confusingly, but taken as a whole seems to imply DMU/EMU or whatever the hell they're called. Being from Michigan I am not familiar with any of that stuff. But I can affirm that Amfleet I's (never Amfleet II's) are used daily on virtually every Wolverine and Blue Water. As someone else said, usually 1-2 per train, sometimes more. On the Blue Water, the cafe is almost always Amfleet. I'm not sure what the press release writer was smoking if he/she thinks the Michigan services are "adjacent" to the NEC." More likely, they didn't even think of Michigan when writing it. Hopefully the RFP writer(s) did. We're just country branchlines out here.


----------



## Ryan

The press release writer correctly stated “Amfleet I cars are used _*primarily*_ on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) and adjacent State Corridor routes” (emphasis mine).

The only people smoking anything seem to be the people reading and misunderstanding.


----------



## keelhauled

And in any case Michigan is already getting their very own shiny new equipment from the CA/IL-led Siemens order.


----------



## frequentflyer

Burns651 said:


> The press release is worded confusingly, but taken as a whole seems to imply DMU/EMU or whatever the hell they're called. Being from Michigan I am not familiar with any of that stuff. But I can affirm that Amfleet I's (never Amfleet II's) are used daily on virtually every Wolverine and Blue Water. As someone else said, usually 1-2 per train, sometimes more. On the Blue Water, the cafe is almost always Amfleet. I'm not sure what the press release writer was smoking if he/she thinks the Michigan services are "adjacent" to the NEC." More likely, they didn't even think of Michigan when writing it. Hopefully the RFP writer(s) did. We're just country branchlines out here.


Curious, how are you coming to the conclusion it may be DMU/EMUs? The word "trainsets"?

"The new railcars and trainsets will include all necessary equipment for Positive Train Control technology and meet recently updated federal Tier I safety standards for equipment operating at speeds of up to 125 MPH.  Also, the new equipment will adhere to all accessibility requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act. "

I take "trainsets" to mean the semi permanent nature of the Siemen Vs cars. With a California like cab car on one end.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

I suggest some here find and read the PRII requirements for new passenger equipment , it would clarify some of stuff for them.


----------



## cocojacoby

Don't forget Amfleets go to Miami and New Orleans and Chicago too.  Not sure if the intent is to still have a fleet of long-distance and short-distance cars.  Major difference of course is the second door.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

cocojacoby said:


> Don't forget Amfleets go to Miami and New Orleans and Chicago too.  Not sure if the intent is to still have a fleet of long-distant and short-distance cars.  Major difference of course is the second door.


The RFP is for AmfleetI's  Those do not go to Miami, New Orleans or Chicago (not from NYP, at least).


----------



## cocojacoby

John Santos said:


> Noticed the Siemens coaches have built-in fold-down bridges for the platform gaps.  The gaps look fairly wide; are the Siemens coaches a little narrower than the standard American coaches, or does the Brightline have wide gaps?  Or is it just an illusion?


 

Some info for you:

Standardized coach with flexibility for customer needs, complies with ADA requirements

85’ long, 10’6’’ wide and 14’ high car body made from stainless steel with flat sidewalls &
tapered roof

Modern roof mounted HVAC system and optimized air distribution ensuring passenger comfort

Four wide sliding-plug side doors offering ease of entry & reducing dwell times

Fabricated truck with air spring suspension for substantially improved ride quality & derailment
safety

Semi-permanent coupled gangways ensuring free passage between cars

125 mph service speed


----------



## cocojacoby

Looks like the VIA version of the Siemens coach will have single doors more like Amfleet II.

View attachment VIA.pdf


----------



## Anderson

Thoughts:
(1) The old fleet strategy plan has been dead for a _long_ time.  Truth be told, the way it wanted to go about handling the replacements (trying to build up multiple suppliers, etc.) was blinkered and unrealistic.
(2) I'm not surprised that the Amfleet Is are getting replaced sooner.  They're arguably more "high profile" for Amtrak in some respects, and collateralizing RRIF loans on them will probably be easier.  It is also a bigger order, so a modestly re-jiggered Amfleet II replacement fleet could get piggybacked onto this over time, and the options could also be distributed to or sold off to states along the corridor or elsewhere.
(3) Also worth noting is that Amfleet Is _can_ and occasionally _are_ added onto LD trains (for example, the Meteor has periodically run with an Amfleet I for short-hop pax at peak times).  Amfleet II equipment also has to interface with Viewliner diners, sleepers, and baggage cars.  The former two are a bigger issue since you need through-access for those cars (whereas bags can, in theory, be unconnected to the core of the train).  That means there will likely be some different needs for the (smaller) Amfleet II replacement order.  Again, Amfleet Is are a more solid place to begin.
(4) As far as the "trainsets" concern, the quote from the press release is "The base order for the new replacements includes 75 trainsets *or their railcar equivalents *with options to provide equipment for future service growth along the NEC and other state-supported routes."  Emphasis added.  It isn't clear how big they want the sets to be, and I'm not sure how many "sets" are needed at present.  It also doesn't say that the sets or batches of cars will be identical (since, for example, the Keystones have different equipment needs than Regionals).  75 6-car sets would be 450 cars; 750 8-car sets would be 600 cars; and 750 10-car sets would be 750 cars.  The ultimate order could take many forms, and it seems like Amtrak is trying to keep as many doors open as possible for now.


----------



## PVD

In addition, a portion of the Am 1 costs are paid for by states. Assuming it is agreed that will continue, that can't hurt when putting a financing plan together.....


----------



## Triley

John Santos said:


> Noticed the Siemens coaches have built-in fold-down bridges for the platform gaps.  The gaps look fairly wide; are the Siemens coaches a little narrower than the standard American coaches, or does the Brightline have wide gaps?  Or is it just an illusion?
> This is interesting to me because both of my local MBTA commuter rail stations have low-level platforms, which don't meet ADA standards, and they are threatening to close them rather than perform necessary upgrades.  But high-level platforms don't work because both stations are built on curves, and the gaps would have to be too wide.  The current stations are very convenient walking distance to two large neighborhoods, but the proposed solution is to build a new station on a straight stretch of track halfway between them, which isn't convenient to anyone, no parking, too far for most people to walk from either neighborhood, etc.  (A very problematic "solution".)
> High-level platforms with wide gaps and built-in fold-down bridges on the cars would (I think) solve the accessibility problem.  The only issue would be getting the T to update its equipment, which they would probably be willing to do in about 40 years when the systems that have bought these cars second-hand from Amtrak decide to sell them off because maintenance is too expensive.  (I remember when I was commuting daily in the earl/mid 1970's when the T bought a whole bunch of "new" cars, about 30 years old, from the LIRR, which were much better than their existing cars.)
> Bitter much?  Not me...


There's no reason they even have to modify the equipment. I don't know if you've ever traveled to/through New London on Amtrak, but that station is on a major curve, and is a weird combination of high/low platforms, some of which is even separated by a street crossing. The gap to the high platform on the water side can be up to a foot, so Amtrak keeps bridge plates in the platforms that the conductors retrieve and place between the door and the platform. When we're done, fold it up, and put it back in the box. The process maybe adds 20 seconds to the stop.


----------



## PVD

They have them in boxes at Albany, also. I saw one taken out and used to assist a wheelchair passenger with a large chair a couple of weeks ago. I was on 284 heading home and had stepped off for air...


----------



## cocojacoby

John Santos said:


> This is interesting to me because both of my local MBTA commuter rail stations have low-level platforms, which don't meet ADA standards, and they are threatening to close them rather than perform necessary upgrades.  But high-level platforms don't work because both stations are built on curves, and the gaps would have to be too wide.  The current stations are very convenient walking distance to two large neighborhoods, but the proposed solution is to build a new station on a straight stretch of track halfway between them, which isn't convenient to anyone, no parking, too far for most people to walk from either neighborhood, etc.  (A very problematic "solution".)


Well actually the MBTA resolved just that problem at the new Yawkey Station next to Fenway Park by building a center platform and having both platforms on the outside of the curve.  Seems like a rather complicated and expensive solution to me especially since the track is absolute straight on the other side of Brookline Avenue where a more traditional station could have been built.




As far as these Siemens cars go, the gap fillers are a great idea and would allow freights to pass through stations without the need for gauntlet tracks, HOWEVER Brightline still built long expensive bypasses at all of their stations for their freight trains!  Go figure.


----------



## Acela150

Triley said:


> John Santos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noticed the Siemens coaches have built-in fold-down bridges for the platform gaps.  The gaps look fairly wide; are the Siemens coaches a little narrower than the standard American coaches, or does the Brightline have wide gaps?  Or is it just an illusion?
> This is interesting to me because both of my local MBTA commuter rail stations have low-level platforms, which don't meet ADA standards, and they are threatening to close them rather than perform necessary upgrades.  But high-level platforms don't work because both stations are built on curves, and the gaps would have to be too wide.  The current stations are very convenient walking distance to two large neighborhoods, but the proposed solution is to build a new station on a straight stretch of track halfway between them, which isn't convenient to anyone, no parking, too far for most people to walk from either neighborhood, etc.  (A very problematic "solution".)
> High-level platforms with wide gaps and built-in fold-down bridges on the cars would (I think) solve the accessibility problem.  The only issue would be getting the T to update its equipment, which they would probably be willing to do in about 40 years when the systems that have bought these cars second-hand from Amtrak decide to sell them off because maintenance is too expensive.  (I remember when I was commuting daily in the earl/mid 1970's when the T bought a whole bunch of "new" cars, about 30 years old, from the LIRR, which were much better than their existing cars.)
> Bitter much?  Not me...
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason they even have to modify the equipment. I don't know if you've ever traveled to/through New London on Amtrak, but that station is on a major curve, and is a weird combination of high/low platforms, some of which is even separated by a street crossing. The gap to the high platform on the water side can be up to a foot, so Amtrak keeps bridge plates in the platforms that the conductors retrieve and place between the door and the platform. When we're done, fold it up, and put it back in the box. The process maybe adds 20 seconds to the stop.
Click to expand...

They added the High Levels at NLC for Acela stop make station stops there. Only 3 make the stop. 2151, 2190, and 2172.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997

The Amfleet I's are obviously older than the Amfleet II's, but the Amfleet II's (being primarily used for Long Distance trains) have had more mileage than the Amfleet I's.

With that, which ones will likely be replaced first? The Amfleet I's or II's? And is there any telling as to what they'll be replaced with?


----------



## west point

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> The Amfleet I's are obviously older than the Amfleet II's, but the Amfleet II's (being primarily used for Long Distance trains) have had more mileage than the Amfleet I's.
> 
> With that, which ones will likely be replaced first? The Amfleet I's or II's? And is there any telling as to what they'll be replaced with?


It may be that some of the AM-2s will be replaced with AM-1s that have low mileage.  The PRIIA  rebuilding of some AM-1s  rebuilt some low mileage AM-1s  After they were put back in service the Average mileage on AM-1s went down.   Now will the AM-1s assigned to LD trains have seating changed?  Who knows?  The extra vestibule on AM-1s may not be significant.  The RFP for the replacements appears to be asking for 2 vestibules.  However the married pair concept that may come about for the replacements may have only a vestibule at each end of the married pair?


----------



## Dutchrailnut

guaranteed the mileage per day is way higher on Amfleet 1, as it is on Amfleet II as each regional train makes at least one round trip per day on full lenght of NEC some even more than that

the RFP is only for NEC and feeder lines.


----------



## jis

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> The Amfleet I's are obviously older than the Amfleet II's, but the Amfleet II's (being primarily used for Long Distance trains) have had more mileage than the Amfleet I's.
> With that, which ones will likely be replaced first? The Amfleet I's or II's? And is there any telling as to what they'll be replaced with?


We already know definitely that Amfleet Is are being replaced first. 

We will know soon enough what they will be replaced with as soon as the RFP process in place concludes. [emoji57]


----------



## sttom

I'm just wondering if Amtrak is going to re-disburse the Amfleet cars or just scrap them as per usual? I'm assuming they'd be scrapped.


----------



## dgvrengineer

I would hope they save and refurbish the ones in the best condition and use the others for parts.  Then scrap the ones used as parts source. There are several corridors than can use additions cars and frequencies.


----------



## sttom

Not to mention there are whole city pairs that lack service all together, like the entire state of Ohio, not to mention Western PA has sparse train service. Another thing I have thought of from time to time was retrofitting some of them as open section sleepers or single seat roomettes and testing out overnight service like they have in Europe or just attach them to existing long distance trains. They may not bring in as much as a full sleeper, but expanding their market should be a goal of Amtrak instead of cut amenities and charge more that airlines are prone to going with.


----------



## Ryan

Dutchrailnut said:


> the RFP is only for NEC and feeder lines.


No, it isn't.  I'll leave it to you to actually ready the thread where I've actually pointed this out.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

JANUARY 18, 2019AMTRAK SEEKS NEW PASSENGER EQUIPMENT FOR NORTHEAST REGIONAL AND STATE CORRIDOR SERVICE







WASHINGTON – Amtrak has released a Request for Proposals today, for a new fleet of single-level passenger rail vehicles to replace Amfleet I cars, providing new equipment with contemporary rail amenities to better serve Amtrak customers. Amfleet I cars are used primarily on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) and adjacent State Corridor routes, including_ Empire Service, Ethan Allen Express, Maple Leaf, Adirondack, Vermonter, Downeaster, Carolinian, Pennsylvanian, Keystone Service, Virginia Service _and New Haven/Springfield Service_._


----------



## Ryan

Exactly.  Try reading again.  As I already pointed out: "are used _*PRIMARILY ON*_ the NEC and adjacent State Corridor routes".

Not "exclusively on".  Not just "on".  "Primarily on".  As in they are used in other places.  As has been discussed extensively.

Engage your brain before you engage your fingers.


----------



## NES28

I'm wondering whether these cars will be configured to permit MU door operation at low level platforms (as well as high level platforms), as provided on some SEPTA commuter cars. This is not an issue for Brightline as all of their stations have high level platforms. This question may have already been answered on the forum.


----------



## cocojacoby

Do you remember the South Carolina Star crash?  The way that Amfleet II Cafe Car bent in the middle caused many to ask if there is a weakness in the Amfleet frames that might be emerging due to their age.  Never heard anything more on it but I've never seen a car bend like than.  If there is a structural concern then it may be time to replace all of them (Is and IIs).


----------



## Dutchrailnut

more here : https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/amtrak-seeks-amfleet-i-replacements.html


----------



## Alexandria Nick

cocojacoby said:


> Do you remember the South Carolina Star crash?  The way that Amfleet II Cafe Car bent in the middle caused many to ask if there is a weakness in the Amfleet frames that might be emerging due to their age.  Never heard anything more on it but I've never seen a car bend like than.  If there is a structural concern then it may be time to replace all of them (Is and IIs).
> 
> View attachment 12290


I've seen pictures of folded autoracks, but they're not common either.  One of the cars in the Philly wreck was folded into an L shape too.


----------



## dgvrengineer

But the one in Philly was wrapped around a catenary pole.


----------



## cpotisch

cocojacoby said:


> Do you remember the South Carolina Star crash?  The way that Amfleet II Cafe Car bent in the middle caused many to ask if there is a weakness in the Amfleet frames that might be emerging due to their age.  Never heard anything more on it but I've never seen a car bend like than.  If there is a structural concern then it may be time to replace all of them (Is and IIs).
> 
> View attachment 12290


I can’t speak to what is or isn’t normal for a train car per se, but as someone who has been learning a lot of physics stuff for the past couple years, I will say that that car snapping like that doesn’t really surprise me. We’re talking about a ten car train that was traveling at or near top speed, which pretty much immediately came to a stop upon impact (unlike most derailments). An absolutely tremendous amount of force went into each car, and any _slight_ warp is going to amplify the effect exponentially. I mean, once a frame like that starts to “go” in a crash, it loses most of the rigidity, and therefore any further break or warp requires that much less of a force.


----------



## Seaboard92

What I would like to have seen is the car that folded into a V's sills before the wreck. That says a lot.


----------



## Acela150

Quick question that may have been answered already. Any ideas on when the RFP closes?


----------



## Ryan

Bidders have to ID themselves by 2/13, attend a conference on 2/26, electronic submissions 3/1, hard copies 3/15.


----------



## Anderson

Some thoughts:
(1) Let's not forget that where Brightline is able to have all of its stations "built to spec" since they're starting from scratch, even if Amtrak had an ideal spec for the cars it isn't likely that they could make said spec work at all stations.  There's still going to need to be some mix of bridge plates (where the gap ends up too large) and low-level boarding (for a lot of off-NEC stations as well as a few situations on the corridor as well) even with all of the bells and whistles that Brightline's design could theoretically throw at them.

What I think you're likely to end up with, btw, is something like "75 sets of cars that remain coupled 99% of the time and then a few spares for if a car _really_ goes down".

(2) I have been informed that there _are_ issues emerging with the Amfleets as time goes by.  Even with a swift order, some of the Amfleets will almost definitely make it to 50 years of service (depending on how fast Siemens can churn them out and how many cars are in front of Amtrak's orders/interspersed with them).  Four cars per week, 50 weeks per year would give 200 cars/year.  Brightline has at least another 50-70 on order, VIA has their order (160 cars or so, IIRC, plus options), and the ex-MSBL order (137 cars) is also there.  So there's probably _at least_ five years of business lined up at those rates, and that's before any states/options, Brightline's Tampa or LA-Vegas projects, or an Amfleet II/Superliner replacement project potentially get involved, and getting to those rates probably requires some ramp-up time as well.

The thing is that, at some point, even well-kept equipment starts having issues.  If this were still ATSF running the _Super Chief_, I could see that.  Unfortunately, Amtrak has had several major periods of lousy maintenance (notably under Warrington, but I've heard there have been other spells) and I have been advised at times that some issues _are_ lurking.  Getting the fleet to 50 years is in the cards.  60 years is plausible.  70 years would be pushing it, however, and that's not even a bad statement on the equipment...that's just where you start running into _something_ going wrong and the large-scale use of Amfleets is going to be touchy by then.  That's not saying that a few states might not opt to buy the equipment and run it for a decade or two...but I suspect that it will, at a minimum, be relegated to relatively isolated use (most plausibly by states looking to start service when a new equipment order isn't feasible) by mid-century.


----------



## sttom

I have to agree with the statement above. It does make more sense to hold onto the Amfleets, even if its just to use them to start new corridors or for the states to start new ones. 

Personally I think Amtrak should partner with a state to see if they can get some sort of overnight trains going with lower tier sleeping arrangements like bringing back open sections or single person roomettes or something akin to lie flat business seats on long haul airlines. I know most people love the slumber coach, but I don't see how staggering the seats/beds vertically makes more sense than horizontally, but I am not an engineer and this isn't Reddit so I can just spitball ideas lol.


----------



## cocojacoby

_The pending Car Length Over Couplers DCR has been withdrawn._

"Single Level Car Review Panel Report commented that (there is) the withdrawal of the car length DCR"

Any thoughts of what this is about?


----------



## jis

The withdrawn DCR pertains to the length of cab cars only. So presumably cab cars are going to be allowed to be of length other than 85’, if I am interpreting this right, which is a big if. [emoji52]


----------



## frequentflyer

And it’s not a slam dunk for Siemens either. Per the doc,the rfp is vague to see what new ideas some companies present..Smart move.

Anderson has already given Siemens a bone, the 75 unit order.


----------



## Steve4031

Better to stick with a known quantity at this point.  Siemens is it imho.


----------



## jis

I would not characterize the order for 75 engines with a few hundred options still remaining as a "bone". It would be incredibly goofy of Amtrak to go with any other engine for this round of engine replacement given the additional parts and maitenance headaches that come with each additional type of equipment.

For similar reasons, I suspect the Viaggio derivatives do have an inside track, given the state order in place. It would appear that at least for now it is Siemens' order to lose rather than the other way round. Buying and maintaining real equipment is very different from buying stuff for ones HO set.


----------



## cpotisch

sttom said:


> I know most people love the slumber coach, but I don't see how staggering the seats/beds vertically makes more sense than horizontally, but I am not an engineer and this isn't Reddit so I can just spitball ideas lol.


Sorry, how would staggering them "horizontally" work? They had the vertical space, but not the horizontal space to fit them.


----------



## sttom

cpotisch said:


> Sorry, how would staggering them "horizontally" work? They had the vertical space, but not the horizontal space to fit them.


The first one being side to side, the second one is how the slumber coaches were laid out. Not sure if "staggered" is the right word, but stacking units on each other seems like it would take more resources than shifting the beds.


----------



## cpotisch

sttom said:


> The first one being side to side, the second one is how the slumber coaches were laid out. Not sure if "staggered" is the right word, but stacking units on each other seems like it would take more resources than shifting the beds.
> 
> View attachment 12379
> 
> 
> View attachment 12380


You need to remember that planes are MUCH wider than trains. For example, a 777 fuselage is almost twice the width of a slumbercoach. So what makes sense on a plane often does not make sense on a train.


----------



## sttom

cpotisch said:


> You need to remember that planes are MUCH wider than trains. For example, a 777 fuselage is almost twice the width of a slumbercoach. So what makes sense on a plane often does not make sense on a train.


Let me run some rough numbers.  I would be more concerned with fitting them down the length of the train rather than the width. Beds in roomettes are a little more than 2 feet wide and a pair of coach seats are 4 feet wide. Staggering could work, they may not be as wide as their airline counterparts, but if they are cheaper to make and marketable for an overnight trip, they could work. Just like an open section on an overnight train.


----------



## jis

Actually, just to pick a random example, the staggered Polaris Pods used by United, with a little jiggering would probably fit in a 10' wide passenger car.

Afterall they do fit staggered 4 abreast with two aisles in a 19'6" width 777-300 cabin. I was in one last week, so I know for sure. They should be able to fit staggered two abreast with one aisle easily in 10'.


----------



## Steve4031

I’ve flown business class on LOT with lie flat seats.  Seats like that could work on overnight trains.  But Amtrak Can’t charge those outrageous prices.


----------



## VAtrainfan

Steve4031 said:


> I’ve flown business class on LOT with lie flat seats.  Seats like that could work on overnight trains.  But Amtrak Can’t charge those outrageous prices.


But unlike a transatlantic flight, the train makes stops in the middle of the night. Passengers getting on and off the train would probably wake up anyone in a sleeper seat.


----------



## cocojacoby

VAtrainfan said:


> But unlike a transatlantic flight, the train makes stops in the middle of the night. Passengers getting on and off the train would probably wake up anyone in a sleeper seat.


Amtrak would have full height walls which are not allowed on planes.  So along with full height doors, you would have full privacy and sound blockage.


----------



## Steve4031

VAtrainfan said:


> But unlike a transatlantic flight, the train makes stops in the middle of the night. Passengers getting on and off the train would probably wake up anyone in a sleeper seat.


True.  But on a plane there are activities from flight attendants and other pax that could wake you up.


----------



## jis

Besides, this would be for cheap flat beds anyway, and is not meant to be replacement for full fledged Sleepers.


----------



## frequentflyer

In this cost conscious society, it would be smart of Amtrak to reintroduce a 21rst century Slumbercoach product. Just as on airlines, the high yielding product is no longer First Class but Business Class, its time to for a product below sleeper or roomettes but above coach. Especially with the dining car going away. It would be extremely popular with new millennial families.


----------



## sttom

Not to mention if we are converting amfleet cars, they won't be compatible with west coast trains. Which would mean them getting their own lines created. Also they would lack the upper windows that old slumber coaches had. So we wouldn't get the traditional ones, but more than likely staggered bends a la a trans oceanic flight.

I would also recommend having an open section as well. At that point Amtrak would be trading privacy for cost and volume. And although I doubt anyone riding in a sleeper would downgrade for one, assuming they were available on all existing overnight trains, but you'd be pushing them towards people upgrading from coach (like me) who just want to be able to sleep normally. Or people that probably wouldn't be taking the train due to timing. 

And timing is why having a few overnight lines would make sense. Thing putting converted cars on the over night Northeast Regionals, reviving the Spirit of California or other overnight trains that leave on station at night and arrive the next morning at their terminating point. There would be almost no reason for a train like this to make all stops and if it has to, you can just have only certain stops capable of reserving a sleeping spot.


----------



## cpotisch

sttom said:


> Not to mention if we are converting amfleet cars, they won't be compatible with west coast trains. Which would mean them getting their own lines created. Also they would lack the upper windows that old slumber coaches had. So we wouldn't get the traditional ones, but more than likely staggered bends a la a trans oceanic flight.
> 
> I would also recommend having an open section as well. At that point Amtrak would be trading privacy for cost and volume. And although I doubt anyone riding in a sleeper would downgrade for one, assuming they were available on all existing overnight trains, but you'd be pushing them towards people upgrading from coach (like me) who just want to be able to sleep normally. Or people that probably wouldn't be taking the train due to timing.
> 
> And timing is why having a few overnight lines would make sense. Thing putting converted cars on the over night Northeast Regionals, reviving the Spirit of California or other overnight trains that leave on station at night and arrive the next morning at their terminating point. There would be almost no reason for a train like this to make all stops and if it has to, you can just have only certain stops capable of reserving a sleeping spot.


I really don't think that a typical American long distance passenger will be willing to have a bed but no real privacy (and not just a curtain). There is reason Amtrak never ran open sections.

That said, I do think some sort of Amfleet-turned-slumbercoach (maybe with added upper windows) would work. Also bear in mind that decades ago, they actually tried configuring two Amfleets as "AmPads" with Superliner Roomette modules installed. So never say never.


----------



## jis

You cannot just willy nilly add windows at random places in a car frame that is not designed for them. 

I also find it intriguing that people generally sleep in Coach with 60 degree tilt surface with no curtain or even dividing armrests, but they’d have difficulty sleeping if the surface became flat. And those very same people pay many thousand dollars to sleep on flat surfaces on planes with minimal curtain separation. 

In short I think it is pure poppycock. [emoji57] If it is priced appropriately they will use it.


----------



## sttom

cpotisch said:


> I really don't think that a typical American long distance passenger will be willing to have a bed but no real privacy (and not just a curtain). There is reason Amtrak never ran open sections.
> 
> That said, I do think some sort of Amfleet-turned-slumbercoach (maybe with added upper windows) would work. Also bear in mind that decades ago, they actually tried configuring two Amfleets as "AmPads" with Superliner Roomette modules installed. So never say never.


I don't know if the structure of the Amfleets can even have a window inserted into it. I am not an engineer, but that doesn't sound like a good idea. As for Amtrak not running open sections, I am not entirely sure, but did they even get that many in the heritage fleet? I assume they got some, but did they run long enough for them to get a feel for them? I personally doubt it since not a lot would have been left anyways given their age. 

 As for inserting seats, putting in an adapted lie flat business seat/compartment into an Amfleet would be easier than stacking rooms like in an old slumber coach and punching a window into the side. (Assuming the cost of such would be worth it). Now I can't find an exact foot measurement of the seating area of an Amfleet 1, but they are 85 feet long. Based on a seat diagram, lets assume around 60 feet of the car is sitting space. The seats are 4 feet on each side. A roomette is 6 ft 6 inches long. So beds without staggering are 13 feet. Off set them by 3 feet and we have a pair of beds taking up 10 feet of the car, so 12 per side, 24 per car. (Assuming a 1 class configuration).

As for open sections, 6'6" over 60 feet is 8 sections per side, so 32 beds in an Amfleet car with 4 feet left over. People will use them. Even airline first class is rarely fully enclosed. Most people that would be willing to take a stripped down bed probably are already riding in coach, taking greyhound or flying. A sleeping car rider might not downgrade, but lets face it, a good chunk of them probably won't. Mostly since they are tourists and a stripped down sleeper would be for those of us in coach. 

Worst comes to worst, they take 36 cars, modify them and run them on demonstration trips. Then see what the customers think. Get some college students, run them between two cities and give them a chance to try both options. Do a tour on local news and get some of the general non train riding public to give the new options a go. Given that people are fine sleeping in coach at no where near lie flat, on planes and Amtrak, a bed with a curtain is a big step up compared to that. Especially if the price and schedule are competitive.  Not to mention tastes have changed since the 1950s.


----------



## Steve4031

jis said:


> You cannot just willy nilly add windows at random places in a car frame that is not designed for them.
> 
> I also find it intriguing that people generally sleep in Coach with 60 degree tilt surface with no curtain or even dividing armrests, but they’d have difficulty sleeping if the surface became flat. And those very same people pay many thousand dollars to sleep on flat surfaces on planes with minimal curtain separation.
> 
> In short I think it is pure poppycock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it is priced appropriately they will use it.


I’m thinking this lie-flat product could be more easily implemented in an order for long distance single level coaches.  Even if there was one seat on each side of an aisle, it could be possible to get between 30 and 40 lie-flat seats in the car.  The other selling point is guaranteed window seat as long as they can properly align seats with windows in the upright position.


----------



## Gemuser

Why reinvent the wheel? Qld  rail "Seat Beds" operate on the 1681 km route from Brisbane on the 3 foot six inch gauge. See https://www.queenslandrailtravel.com.au/toolbox/Documents/Sales Presentations/SpiritofQueensland.pdf

Can't find the length of each car but they are short by NA standards, 65 feet is the Australian standard but these could be shorter.


----------



## jis

I was thinking exactly that. 

Also, a lie flat seat is not a sleeper bunk. It is a seat that reclines to flat position with a leg rest that extends to a flat position. It will never be as luxurious as a sleeper bed in terms of comfort or privacy. So arguing that it is not is chasing a red herring.


----------



## sttom

Steve4031 said:


> I’m thinking this lie-flat product could be more easily implemented in an order for long distance single level coaches.  Even if there was one seat on each side of an aisle, it could be possible to get between 30 and 40 lie-flat seats in the car.  The other selling point is guaranteed window seat as long as they can properly align seats with windows in the upright position.


The problem with the federal government is that getting replacement equipment is hard enough even with Democrats. Given that we have to deal with Republicans for the foreseeable future, converting Amfleet cars for an experiment would be a far easier sell than buying new cars. Not to mention I am talking about this as an experiment to have overnight trains between city pairs to someday justify a car order. When I looked up the Viewliner order, the first on was supposed to be over 200 cars and only 50 came. 



Gemuser said:


> Why reinvent the wheel? Qld  rail "Seat Beds" operate on the 1681 km route from Brisbane on the 3 foot six inch gauge. See https://www.queenslandrailtravel.com.au/toolbox/Documents/Sales Presentations/SpiritofQueensland.pdf
> 
> Can't find the length of each car but they are short by NA standards, 65 feet is the Australian standard but these could be shorter.


I was figuring slightly staggered ones of those for the sake of trying to get extra seats in the car.



jis said:


> I was thinking exactly that.
> 
> Also, a lie flat seat is not a sleeper bunk. It is a seat that reclines to flat position with a leg rest that extends to a flat position. It will never be as luxurious as a sleeper bed in terms of comfort or privacy. So arguing that it is not is chasing a red herring.


But But But economy options have to appeal to sleeper car passengers and consumer tastes from the 1950s! I don't get why arguing for something is seen as arguing against what already exists.


----------



## cpotisch

jis said:


> I was thinking exactly that.
> 
> Also, a lie flat seat is not a sleeper bunk. It is a seat that reclines to flat position with a leg rest that extends to a flat position. It will never be as luxurious as a sleeper bed in terms of comfort or privacy. So arguing that it is not is chasing a red herring.


I wasn't talking about lie flat seats. I was responding to the suggestion of bringing back open sections and/or slumbercoaches. So I disagree that I was chasing a red herring.


----------



## sttom

cpotisch said:


> I wasn't talking about lie flat seats. I was responding to the suggestion of bringing back open sections and/or slumbercoaches. So I disagree that I was chasing a red herring.


I also for the record wasn't recommending converting Amfleet cars into slumber coaches. Mostly because I don't think it would be worth the cost compared to a lie flat seat and open sections. (or even doable from an engineering perspective) They could very well work if part of a new equipment buy, but as a conversion, I am doubtful. The lie flat seats or adaptation of an airline's business class would be more a return of single roomettes rather than a full slumber coach. 

I also think an open section would work. Privacy is less an issue now than it was in the 1950s when slumber coaches were built and we are also removed from Amtrak almost 25 years ago. A lower portion of the people riding today know what a slumber coach is, let alone have used one. I was only going on first train rides as a kid when the last of the slumber coaches would have been pulled from service. If you are going to try to attract people closer to my age, you (being Amtrak) are going to have to deal with out tastes and generally speaking, we've flown or taken Greyhound. A normal bed would be much welcomed on longer trips. 

I am also advocating for having both the open sections and lie flat beds/cheapo roomettes as an experiment. If you wouldn't like them, you wouldn't have to use them if they were to come back. But that doesn't take away that they could be successful because people now are not used to having individual compartments when we travel anymore. Like I mentioned in on response, an open section would be appealing to someone in coach, someone who'd take the bus or drive or fly. Even by my rough numbers, if there is 3 more feet in the sitting area on an Amfleet 1, you can get 36 sections in the car based on roomette dimensions.


----------



## jis

cpotisch said:


> I wasn't talking about lie flat seats. I was responding to the suggestion of bringing back open sections and/or slumbercoaches. So I disagree that I was chasing a red herring.


I was responding to someone who said lack of privacy would be an issue for lie flat seat. Was that you? If it wasn’t then the comment does not apply to you. If it was then though protesteth too much.


----------



## cpotisch

jis said:


> Who said I was talking about you? You are disagreeing with the wind or something


Two questions:


Who was that post directed at, then? The points you were disputing sounded like what I had been saying, so I got confused (happens to me all too often).

How did you get that emoji in? Whenever I try to post or even quote a "custom" emoji, the software gets angry and tells me I can't.

Thanks!


----------



## jis

1. There is a reason that I did not want to specifically identify anyone. The statement stands on its own. 
2. I am using the AU App on iPhone. I have no idea what happens on any other platform.


----------



## neroden

NSC1109 said:


> Remember, the _Acela_ trainsets have been in service since 2000. The _Brightline_ trainsets entered service in 2018. That's nearly a 20-year difference. Granted, I'm far from an expert on semi-permanently coupled trainsets and what exactly was doable in those days, but I doubt that Amtrak would take an entire _Acela_ trainset OOS for one car unless they had no other option. They may not always be the most efficient, but I find it difficult to believe that the transportation and mechanical departments would be that idiotic.
> 
> As for the idea of fixed trainsets in general, I certainly see the appeal. There's always a risk when going over the couplers, especially with the moving footplates and various hard edges to fall on. At the same time, it can potentially be a nightmare if a trainset or even a pair of cars (like what Illinois is doing) have to be taken out of service because of an issue on just one car. Granted, Illinois ordered some individual coaches in an apparent attempt to help mitigate the issue, but the cafe and business class cars are still in pairs with coaches. If you lose that pair, you better hope you have another handy.
> 
> Below is the planned setup for the Siemens cars operating out of Chicago. Please note that the " - " indicates a Type H coupler while a " / " indicates a semi-permanently coupled married pair:
> 
> Locomotive - Individual Coach - Individual Coach - Coach/Cafe - Coach/BusEcon - Locomotive
> 
> This is the CalTrans setup:
> 
> Locomotive - Coach/Coach/Coach/Cafe/Coach/Coach/Cab Car
> 
> Here's a breakdown of who ordered what:
> 
> 
> Customer​
> 
> Car Type​
> 
> Quantity​
> 
> Description​
> 
> # Doors​
> 
> Coupler ​
> Configuration​
> 
> Caltrans​
> 
> CT-1A​
> 
> 21​
> 
> Mid coach car​
> 
> 2​
> 
> S-S​
> 
> Caltrans​
> 
> CT-1B​
> 
> 7​
> 
> End coach car coupled to locomotive​
> 
> 4​
> 
> H-S​
> 
> Caltrans​
> 
> CT-1C​
> 
> 7​
> 
> Mid coach car with wheelchair lifts​
> 
> 4​
> 
> S-S​
> 
> Caltrans​
> 
> CT-4A​
> 
> 7​
> 
> Cab Car​
> 
> 2​
> 
> S-H​
> 
> Caltrans​
> 
> CT-5A​
> 
> 7​
> 
> Café Car​
> 
> 4​
> 
> S-S​
> 
> IDOT​
> 
> ID-1A​
> 
> 20​
> 
> Individual coach car​
> 
> 2​
> 
> H-H​
> 
> IDOT​
> 
> ID-1B​
> 
> 34​
> 
> Coach car for business or café married pair​
> 
> 2​
> 
> S-H​
> 
> IDOT​
> 
> ID-3A​
> 
> 17​
> 
> Business/ economy car​
> 
> 4​
> 
> S-H​
> 
> IDOT​
> 
> ID-5A​
> 
> 17​
> 
> Café Car​
> 
> 4​
> 
> S-H​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see above, only IDOT has taken steps to have spare equipment available to mitigate any sort of impact from a bad ordered car. All of CalTrans' cars will be semi-permanently coupled. Now, I don't have any sort of data that would indicate the primary causes of bad-ordering, but I figure that if CalTrans didn't feel the need to have individual replacements on hand, a large part of the concern could be weather-related, as we tend to have worse weather (the current snowstorm, for example) than California does.


Weird order.  Most of IDOT's trains will have to run with *three* coaches (not the four in your consist diagram) because, well, they've ordered 17 sets plus three extra individual coach cars.

Also, the choices on number of doors are *wacky*.  I'd love to hear the logic behind some of this.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Acela150 said:


> Not like Amtrak bought 70 brand spankin new electric motors about 5 years ago.  :help:






frequentflyer said:


> And it’s not a slam dunk for Siemens either. Per the doc,the rfp is vague to see what new ideas some companies present..Smart move.
> 
> Anderson has already given Siemens a bone, the 75 unit order.






Steve4031 said:


> Better to stick with a known quantity at this point.  Siemens is it imho.


Another thing that is kicked around is since the Chargers already are known to work with the ACS-64s (the can control each other), you buy the train set, stick and ACS on one end, an SC-44 on the other end, and you have a seamless on corridor/off corridor trainset that remains semi permanently attached. When the 92 day inspections occur on the engine, you can swap them out and leave the train set intact.


----------



## Steve4031

Thiswould cut down dwell time in Washington, DC for the NEC trains operating south of Washington.  



Thirdrail7 said:


> Another thing that is kicked around is since the Chargers already are known to work with the ACS-64s (the can control each other), you buy the train set, stick and ACS on one end, an SC-44 on the other end, and you have a seamless on corridor/off corridor trainset that remains semi permanently attached. When the 92 day inspections occur on the engine, you can swap them out and leave the train set intact.


----------



## Ryan

Are there sufficient numbers of ACS-64's laying about that one can afford to drop the pan and drag them to Norfolk/Newport News/Richmond/Roanoke and back?


----------



## Thirdrail7

Ryan said:


> Are there sufficient numbers of ACS-64's laying about that one can afford to drop the pan and drag them to Norfolk/Newport News/Richmond/Roanoke and back?


Right now, 4 are down hard. You SHOULD see two of them eventually and you MAY see three of them again. That would leave 69. It basically hinges on how the rest of the sets are powered but I think they could spare 10 engines to leave the corridor. If they could spare 14, we could actually return to one seat  NEC-EMP service.

Hell, even being down, they leased some to Septa a few years ago and they are now leasing some to MARC.


----------



## frequentflyer

Deleted Third answered my question.

ThirdRail, what do you mean 4 are down hard? Mx?


----------



## jis

frequentflyer said:


> How many consists actually travel south of DC though? Maybe a third of the DC-BOS trains.


Not all are BOS trains that go south of DC. There is at least one NYP originator that goes south. But net net, pure regional service, there are 5, maybe 6. This does not include the Carolinian or Palmetto, or any of the other LD trains, which total another 5.5 or so.

Indeed, because it is less than a dozen, it is even conceivable to do a ACS at one end SC at the other through service, though it seems kind of silly to me. It would be better to work on processes that can cut down the engine change time to 15 mins in Washington.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

jis said:


> Not all are BOS trains that go south of DC. There is at least one NYP originator that goes south. But net net, pure regional service, there are 5, maybe 6. This does not include the Carolinian or Palmetto, or any of the other LD trains, which total another 5.5 or so.
> 
> Indeed, because it is less than a dozen, it is even conceivable to do a ACS at one end SC at the other through service, though it seems kind of silly to me. It would be better to work on processes that can cut down the engine change time to 15 mins in Washington.


As has been discussed, there are a limited number of locomotives, but it seems as though there is a greater shortage of passenger cars. In addition to eliminating the time to change the engines, the train would not have to turn around at it's Virginia terminus. Perhaps this time savings could allow a trainset to make a same-day return to NYP.


----------



## jis

Yup. True. Expensive Cab cars.


----------



## cpotisch

I'm wondering. Can you control another locomotive from an ACS-64 with the pantograph down? Does it have (or can it get) the electricity needed to power the gauges and controls and such? Also would there be any issue with the wheels getting flat spots due to the motor not running?


----------



## west point

A question.  Where are the spare ACS=64s kept.  Are they spread along the NEC as back up power?  Have note a few times one has been changed in New Haven.


----------



## cpotisch

west point said:


> A question.  Where are the spare ACS=64s kept.  Are they spread along the NEC as back up power?  Have note a few times one has been changed in New Haven.


Plenty can be found in WAS, Sunnyside, and New Haven (for the Springfield Regionals and Vermonter). There is also one hanging out in Secaucus, as has been discussed in another thread. Beyond that, I don't know.


----------



## Acela150

west point said:


> A question.  Where are the spare ACS=64s kept.  Are they spread along the NEC as back up power?  Have note a few times one has been changed in New Haven.


Some are in Wilmington for standard repairs. Some in DC, PHL, Sunneyside, NHV, BOS. Basically up and down the Corridor. 



cpotisch said:


> There is also one hanging out in Secaucus, as has been discussed in another thread. Beyond that, I don't know.


Which according to a post from ThirdRail has ceased as NJTRO has taken over again.


----------



## Acela150

frequentflyer said:


> Deleted Third answered my question.
> 
> ThirdRail, what do you mean 4 are down hard? Mx?


Meaning they need serious work. One of them being 601 from the 188 incident. 627 from the 89 incident. And the two others I don't know about.


----------



## Thirdrail7

frequentflyer said:


> ThirdRail, what do you mean 4 are down hard? Mx?


It means long term out of service. In  other words, they've been out for a long time and probably won't be back for a long time...if they come back at all.  I do anticipate two of them returning eventually, one of them is questionable and the other is is unlikely.



cpotisch said:


> I'm wondering. Can you control another locomotive from an ACS-64 with the pantograph down? Does it have (or can it get) the electricity needed to power the gauges and controls and such? Also would there be any issue with the wheels getting flat spots due to the motor not running?


I guess you're not familiar with the old NJT ACES train. Well, the ACS-64 and the SC44 work the same way:




ACS-64s are typically stationed at every start/stop point for electric service.  Most locations have at least one protect.


----------



## NSC1109

neroden said:


> Weird order.  Most of IDOT's trains will have to run with *three* coaches (not the four in your consist diagram) because, well, they've ordered 17 sets plus three extra individual coach cars.
> 
> Also, the choices on number of doors are *wacky*.  I'd love to hear the logic behind some of this.


Just going off what was posted here from the Next Gen Equipment Pool Committee. 

View attachment NGEC_annual_meeting_2018_CALIDOT_presentation.pptx


----------



## frequentflyer

Do anyone think that Amtrak will use cab cars on the NEC? It will shorten turn times and increase utilization.........Maybe.


----------



## jis

They already use Cab Cars on the NEC between New York and Philadelphia, one of the fastest portions of NEC South, on the Keystones. So I don't see any reason that would prevent them from making more general use of them.

They may be somewhat more leery of using them off NEC south of Washington DC due to numerous grade crossings etc., but that is just my idle speculation.


----------



## MARC Rider

frequentflyer said:


> Do anyone think that Amtrak will use cab cars on the NEC? It will shorten turn times and increase utilization.........Maybe.


It would also reduce diesel emissions from the switchers and reduce overall fuel use and GHG emissions.


----------



## Acela150

jis said:


> They already use Cab Cars on the NEC between New York and Philadelphia, one of the fastest portions of NEC South, on the Keystones. So I don't see any reason that would prevent them from making more general use of them.
> 
> They may be somewhat more leery of using them off NEC south of Washington DC due to numerous grade crossings etc., but that is just my idle speculation.


IMO the Metroliner Cab Cars are death traps. When you ride on the head end of these cars like I have you'll understand what I'm saying. IF a trainset with cab cars at one end is selected, I'd like to see some serious safety enhancements.


----------



## cpotisch

Acela150 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already use Cab Cars on the NEC between New York and Philadelphia, one of the fastest portions of NEC South, on the Keystones. So I don't see any reason that would prevent them from making more general use of them.
> 
> They may be somewhat more leery of using them off NEC south of Washington DC due to numerous grade crossings etc., but that is just my idle speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO the Metroliner Cab Cars are death traps. When you ride on the head end of these cars like I have you'll understand what I'm saying. IF a trainset with cab cars at one end is selected, I'd like to see some serious safety enhancements.
Click to expand...

Is it just the flatness and lack of crumple zones that's the issue, or is there more to it?


----------



## Acela150

cpotisch said:


> Is it just the flatness and lack of crumple zones that's the issue, or is there more to it?


Like I said, ride on the head end in one of these and then you'll understand. It's really hard to explain. 

This is a case of once you see it, you'll understand.


----------



## frequentflyer

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15zMIBJGaFhQolqEcvqSdaguz_CMra1R8/view

Saw this on another rail forum. Gives insight to Amtrak's procurement and operating plans. Notice what Amtrak states about the VLIIs. Page 16

And pages 21-26...EMU/DMUs are not dead apparently.


----------



## Ryan

Lost of good information in there.

And one of my pictures - with credit!


----------



## jis

frequentflyer said:


> https://drive.google.com/file/d/15zMIBJGaFhQolqEcvqSdaguz_CMra1R8/view
> 
> Saw this on another rail forum. Gives insight to Amtrak's procurement and operating plans. Notice what Amtrak states about the VLIIs. Page 16
> 
> And pages 21-26...EMU/DMUs are not dead apparently.


Seems like an eminently reasonable approach to me. But I can see that many died in the wool mid-20th Century (or earlier) minded railfans could feel their hair on fire. :lol:


----------



## Acela150

Ryan said:


> Lost of good information in there.
> And one of my pictures - with credit! [emoji3]
> /monthly_2019_02/236739461_ScreenShot2019-02-21at11_15_14AM.thumb.png.0aa656b9ce2e6b07fafd12ba615cf516.png


Buff. [emoji23]


----------



## Andrew

Which companies are competing for the new fleet of trains (Alstom, CRRC, Siemens)?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Everyone will be competing, too big of a order not to.  Of course Siemens is the one to beat.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Everyone will be competing, too big of a order not to.  Of course Siemens is the to beat.


Unless they go the EMU/DMU route, I can't imagine anyone else but Siemens. You can add the ACS to one end, the SC-44 to the other and you FINALLY have one company handling your fleet.

It HAS to be Siemens.


----------



## frequentflyer

Thirdrail7 said:


> Unless they go the EMU/DMU route, I can't imagine anyone else but Siemens. You can add the ACS to one end, the SC-44 to the other and you FINALLY have one company handling your fleet.
> 
> It HAS to be Siemens.


Would not want one OEM supplier unless I got one heck of a deal.

Anderson for all his faults was one shrewd and cagey customer at NWA and Delta.  He wasn't the first to order the latest Airbus or Boeing plane but he got the best deal on them when it came time to order.


----------



## jis

Maybe Amtrak will also go for a bunch of rebuilt SD70MACs trundling along at 70mph [emoji51]


----------



## sttom

If Siemens does get the order, I hope they are able to get the designs for the California Cars and builds more of them. Having one supplier would simplify things, but if there is one thing certain besides death and taxes, its Congress don't like simple!...unless its them...


----------



## PerRock

While I'd personally prefer Siemens to get the order, I can see a reasonable case for Alstom as well, since they're building the new Acela 2/Avelia Liberty trainsets for the NEC. Having cars that share components with the new Acela would be advantageous.

I'd be curious to see if CAF or Nippon Shayro will be bidding on this as well.

peter


----------



## sttom

CAF would probably be a good pick for Superliner 3 assuming long distance service actually survives Anderson calling Congress's BS on Amtrak. 

I always wondered if express or limited stop service would work on other corridors outside the NEC. Specifically out of Chicago, LA-San Diego or Oakland-Sacramento and the like. But more corridor service means less LD and somehow advocating for both is heresy.


----------



## cpotisch

Given how much of a dumpster fire the Viewliner IIs have been, I don't think CAF is going to want ANYTHING to do with any future Amtrak order. :unsure:


----------



## Bob Dylan

And Vice-Versa!!! <_<


----------



## keelhauled

Nippon Sharyo has closed their Illinois facility, so the chances of them bidding on anything seem slim to none.


----------



## cpotisch

Thirdrail7 said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone will be competing, too big of a order not to.  Of course Siemens is the to beat.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless they go the EMU/DMU route, I can't imagine anyone else but Siemens. You can add the ACS to one end, the SC-44 to the other and you FINALLY have one company handling your fleet.
> 
> It HAS to be Siemens.
Click to expand...

I asked this in another thread but it sort of got buried: how does an electric locomotive like an ACS-64 control a moving train without overhead power? Like how are the gauges and electronics able to work? And do the wheels roll (I imagine there's a fair bit of resistance from the motor)?


----------



## jis

cpotisch said:


> I asked this in another thread but it sort of got buried: how does an electric locomotive like an ACS-64 control a moving train without overhead power? Like how are the gauges and electronics able to work? And do the wheels roll (I imagine there's a fair bit of resistance from the motor)?


AFAIK gets power from the HEP line. That is all that is needed to run the control stand and related stuff like various PTC gears, and also keeps the necessary batteries charged. This has been done many times and was used regularly on the ACES Express between New York Penn and Atlantic City, and is also shown as a possible configuration in the Equipment Plan slide set. So there is no deep innovation involved there.


----------



## cpotisch

jis said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked this in another thread but it sort of got buried: how does an electric locomotive like an ACS-64 control a moving train without overhead power? Like how are the gauges and electronics able to work? And do the wheels roll (I imagine there's a fair bit of resistance from the motor)?
> 
> 
> 
> AFAIK gets power from the HEP line. That is all that is needed to run the control stand and related stuff like various PTC gear, sand also keeps the necessary batteries charged. This has been done many times and was used regularly on the ACES Express between New York Penn and Atlantic City, and is also shown as a possible configuration in the Equipment Plan slide set. So there no deep innovation involved there.
Click to expand...

Thank you! And how do the wheels keep rolling (and avoid flat spots) with the resistance from the traction motors?


----------



## jis

cpotisch said:


> Thank you! And how do the wheels keep rolling (and avoid flat spots) with the resistance from the traction motors?


What has wheel rolling got to do with anything. Motors with no power supplied will spin freely. That is why engines can be towed dead. So why would this be any different? Are you suggesting that locomotives cannot be towed dead without them getting flat spots? Clearly that is not true.


----------



## mainemanman

MODERATOR NOTE:  This discussion started 4/22/19 was merged into the current discussion on the same topic.

https://www.railwayage.com/news/after-40-plus-years-amfleet-i-replacements-sought/ I saw a few articles about replacements for Amfleet 1s on the NEC, what do you guys think they'll be? Something similar to CALIDOT? Plus, do you think the Downeaster will use them, seeing as they are a frequent intercity route? Interested to see what the replacement may be. For those of you who don't know CALIDOT:


----------



## mainemanman

Oh, and the Keystone Corridor, do you think they'll be used for that?


----------



## Ryan

Significant discussion on the topic here:

https://discuss.amtraktrains.com/threads/rfp-issued-for-amfleet-i-replacement.74503/


----------



## Thirdrail7

We have an entire thread that includes the RFP, the specs and their potential usage. 


*RFP issued for Amfleet I replacement*


----------



## Ryan

A minute too slow, my friend. Took too much time to make that a fancy link.


----------



## mainemanman

Thanks!


----------



## mainemanman

If they make cab cars, for visual appeal they'd probably make them similar to the front end of the ACS 64s, just as they did with the CALIDOTS. The cab cars are visually identical to the front of an SC 44. Case in point:
:


----------



## jis

It is also the least expensive way to get a cab car. Get a standard cab module that you already have and bolt it onto a car frame at one end, instead of crafting a totally new cab. Incidentally you also get the cab end to look the same as an existing locomotive for which the cab module was originally designed.


----------



## mainemanman

I wonder if NCDOT will buy some for the Piedmont, how good are their Pullman cars?


----------



## Seaboard92

Their Pullman, American Car & Foundry, and St Louis Car Company cats are in incredible shape. They ride good, and have quite a few good years left in them.


----------



## mainemanman

Seems like those are fine then, especially since it would be expensive for NCDOT to buy new cars.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

jis said:


> Maybe Amtrak will also go for a bunch of rebuilt SD70MACs trundling along at 70mph [emoji51]


whatever happened to rumor of Amtrak getting GE or EMD 6 axle freight crap , everyone one was convinced


----------



## mainemanman

Dutchrailnut said:


> whatever happened to rumor of Amtrak getting GE or EMD 6 axle freight **** , everyone one was convinced


Wasn't that metra?


----------



## Dutchrailnut

Metra is fact, but about a year ago 1/2 of all buffs were assured Amtrak was getting a bunch of new 6 axle freight units with HEP.


----------



## mainemanman

Huh. I thought they only used 6 axles (the Dash 8) as a substitute for the late Genesis delivery. Why would they need more?


----------



## trainman74

mainemanman said:


> Something similar to CALIDOT?



Took me a minute to figure out what you were talking about. Not sure where you came up with "CALIDOT" -- the California Department of Transportation goes by "Caltrans."


----------



## mainemanman

It's called CALIDOT because IDOT also purchased the cars.


----------



## PVD

There is actually a decent Wikipedia entry under "CALIDOT" that includes a breakdown of the order, and how the sets will be assembled.


----------



## jis

Dutchrailnut said:


> whatever happened to rumor of Amtrak getting GE or EMD 6 axle freight **** , everyone one was convinced


ROTFL!


----------



## Acela150

mainemanman said:


> It's called CALIDOT because IDOT also purchased the cars.



Irrelevant. The California Department of Transportation has always been referred to as Caltrans. I don’t see how calling Caltrans Calidot has anything to do with the State of Illinois. 

I also wanted to point out something to those who are in favor of Push-Pull style equipment with Cab Cars. 

I’ve already made my argument against trainsets and it’s a pretty good reason. 

For those of you who have never had the experience of riding in the cab of a Metroliner Cab Car let me edumacate you on Cab Car operations. 

When the current electric motor fleet was brought online their was a problem with the throttle communication between the Cab Car and motor. The motor would NOT take power in Notch 1. This was an on going problem that was later fixed. Now imagine after the train was pulled from Harrisburg and you’re now sold out going to NYP and you take power and instead of getting a nice gentle bump you get slammed into by the motor cause it wouldn’t take power in Notch 1. Let me tell you. It sucks! But yet again that problem was rectified. 

The major problem with Cab Car operations is ride quality. Which is why I’m vehemently against a Cab Car style operation becoming the new norm. The ride is not as nice when you’re being pulled by a motor with an Engineer who has great train handling skills. With a Cab Car operation you’re more likely to be jolted around during periods of acceleration, deceleration, and especially braking. I have had the privilege of being able to ride one way in the cab of a Cab Car and the other way in a new motor. I will hands down take the motor over the Cab Car. As will every engineer out there. Cab Cars make Train handling conditions a whole different ball game. And for those engineers who rarely if ever touch a Cab Cab it would be like learning something new all over again at engine school. There are at least five crew bases that regularly touch a train with a Cab Car. Two of which do NOT use motors but diesel units. Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and New York Zone 2 consistently handle Keystone trains with Cab Cars. Especially Harrisburg as virtually every job out of there is a Keystone train. I think only one doesn’t deal with Keystone trains. That is the job that brings the Pennsylvanian to Philadelphia. But I can guarantee you that they take a Keystone train back to Harrisburg. Springfield, MA and New Haven, CT handle the shuttle trains between the two points. But the Shuttles don’t use motors. Only diesels. 

Bottom line, Push Pull operations with a motor isn’t really a good idea IMO.


----------



## mainemanman

Acela150 said:


> Irrelevant. The California Department of Transportation has always been referred to as Caltrans. I don’t see how calling Caltrans Calidot has anything to do with the State of Illinois.
> 
> I also wanted to point out something to those who are in favor of Push-Pull style equipment with Cab Cars.
> 
> I’ve already made my argument against trainsets and it’s a pretty good reason.
> 
> For those of you who have never had the experience of riding in the cab of a Metroliner Cab Car let me edumacate you on Cab Car operations.
> 
> When the current electric motor fleet was brought online their was a problem with the throttle communication between the Cab Car and motor. The motor would NOT take power in Notch 1. This was an on going problem that was later fixed. Now imagine after the train was pulled from Harrisburg and you’re now sold out going to NYP and you take power and instead of getting a nice gentle bump you get slammed into by the motor cause it wouldn’t take power in Notch 1. Let me tell you. It sucks! But yet again that problem was rectified.
> 
> The major problem with Cab Car operations is ride quality. Which is why I’m vehemently against a Cab Car style operation becoming the new norm. The ride is not as nice when you’re being pulled by a motor with an Engineer who has great train handling skills. With a Cab Car operation you’re more likely to be jolted around during periods of acceleration, deceleration, and especially braking. I have had the privilege of being able to ride one way in the cab of a Cab Car and the other way in a new motor. I will hands down take the motor over the Cab Car. As will every engineer out there. Cab Cars make Train handling conditions a whole different ball game. And for those engineers who rarely if ever touch a Cab Cab it would be like learning something new all over again at engine school. There are at least five crew bases that regularly touch a train with a Cab Car. Two of which do NOT use motors but diesel units. Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and New York Zone 2 consistently handle Keystone trains with Cab Cars. Especially Harrisburg as virtually every job out of there is a Keystone train. I think only one doesn’t deal with Keystone trains. That is the job that brings the Pennsylvanian to Philadelphia. But I can guarantee you that they take a Keystone train back to Harrisburg. Springfield, MA and New Haven, CT handle the shuttle trains between the two points. But the Shuttles don’t use motors. Only diesels.
> 
> Bottom line, Push Pull operations with a motor isn’t really a good idea IMO.


Well I see your point, but I said CALIDOT when referring to the cars, not CalTrans. I know what CalTrans is.


----------



## jis

Acela150 said:


> I’ve already made my argument against trainsets and it’s a pretty good reason.
> 
> Bottom line, Push Pull operations with a motor isn’t really a good idea IMO.


And yet the entire world is moving towards those, so I guess you will just have to suck it up and bear it. 

BTW, in terms of overall rail passenger ridership in the US, I suspect a vast majority ride on either push pulls or EMUs/DMUs in the US. single direction loco pulled is a minority operation already by a long shot. I am not aware of any commuter service in the North East or Chicagoland that is not push-pull with a cab car at one end and a loco at the other end, unless of course it is EMU.

My crystal ball says that in the next gen all operations of Amtrak Regional service on the NEC will transition over to push-pull or pull-pull with cabs at both ends, loco or cab car, just like is happening in California. Anything else simply does not make much sense.


----------



## Gemuser

Acela150 said:


> Irrelevant. The California Department of Transportation has always been referred to as Caltrans. I don’t see how calling Caltrans Calidot has anything to do with the State of Illinois.
> 
> I also wanted to point out something to those who are in favor of Push-Pull style equipment with Cab Cars.
> 
> I’ve already made my argument against trainsets and it’s a pretty good reason.
> 
> For those of you who have never had the experience of riding in the cab of a Metroliner Cab Car let me edumacate you on Cab Car operations.
> 
> When the current electric motor fleet was brought online their was a problem with the throttle communication between the Cab Car and motor. The motor would NOT take power in Notch 1. This was an on going problem that was later fixed. Now imagine after the train was pulled from Harrisburg and you’re now sold out going to NYP and you take power and instead of getting a nice gentle bump you get slammed into by the motor cause it wouldn’t take power in Notch 1. Let me tell you. It sucks! But yet again that problem was rectified.
> 
> The major problem with Cab Car operations is ride quality. Which is why I’m vehemently against a Cab Car style operation becoming the new norm. The ride is not as nice when you’re being pulled by a motor with an Engineer who has great train handling skills. With a Cab Car operation you’re more likely to be jolted around during periods of acceleration, deceleration, and especially braking. I have had the privilege of being able to ride one way in the cab of a Cab Car and the other way in a new motor. I will hands down take the motor over the Cab Car. As will every engineer out there. Cab Cars make Train handling conditions a whole different ball game. And for those engineers who rarely if ever touch a Cab Cab it would be like learning something new all over again at engine school. There are at least five crew bases that regularly touch a train with a Cab Car. Two of which do NOT use motors but diesel units. Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and New York Zone 2 consistently handle Keystone trains with Cab Cars. Especially Harrisburg as virtually every job out of there is a Keystone train. I think only one doesn’t deal with Keystone trains. That is the job that brings the Pennsylvanian to Philadelphia. But I can guarantee you that they take a Keystone train back to Harrisburg. Springfield, MA and New Haven, CT handle the shuttle trains between the two points. But the Shuttles don’t use motors. Only diesels.
> 
> Bottom line, Push Pull operations with a motor isn’t really a good idea IMO.



While you MAY be correct about Metroliner cab cars it is pretty irrelevent to compare something from the 1980? with current practice.
My exprience is from 2016/17 mainly with Swiss Railways [federal & private]. I have ridden in cab cars of various types and all of them have been fine and the same as other cars,The various Swiss railways use them with electric locos [at the outer end of 12 car trains, sometimes at both ends with the loco in the middle], EMUs [2, 3, 4, 6, 9 & 12 car sets, single & double deck] and even with 3 car EMUs pulling/pushing 7 car rakes of ordinary carriages. Never in over 10 weeks riding [over the two trips] never a problem.

Now I must admit that compared to rail tracks in the USA Swiss tracks are built & maintained to a much higher standard, so is rolling stock and operational response to problems would leave you breathless! But to simply dismiss a current world "best practise" only because of limited exprience with old equipment seems to be asking for trouble and depriving Amtrak of the advantages.


----------



## jis

Metroliner cab cars are early 1970s vintage, converted to their present form sometime between 1987 and 1989 according to Goldberg and Warner's tome on Metroliners.


----------



## PVD

There's some LIRR runs that are loco at both ends.


----------



## NSC1109

mainemanman said:


> It's called CALIDOT because IDOT also purchased the cars.



Except IDOT doesn’t have cab cars.


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> There's some LIRR runs that are loco at both ends.


Yup. The double length DE/DM powered trains. Some call such things pull-pull.

Amtrak has done such on some Empire trains when they were unable to send them to Sunnyside to get turned during track construction in Penn Station too.


----------



## mainemanman

NSC1109 said:


> Except IDOT doesn’t have cab cars.


The new cars are called CALIDOTs. They have cab cars. These ones.


They are called CALIDOT because both the Illinois DOT and CalTrans purchased them.


----------



## PVD

The article I pointed out lays out the differences between the California and Midwest sets.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> Metroliner cab cars are early 1970s vintage, converted to their present form sometime between 1987 and 1989 according to Goldberg and Warner's tome on Metroliners.


They go back a bit further...the first Metroliner's were ordered in 1966, and delivered to the PRR by Budd in the fall of '67. After a period of trial's and modification's, they went into regular service on the Penn Central in 1969.


----------



## mainemanman

PVD said:


> The article I pointed out lays out the differences between the California and Midwest sets.


Ah, thanks. So the IDOT ones are only coaches.


----------



## NSC1109

mainemanman said:


> Ah, thanks. So the IDOT ones are only coaches.



Mmhm. 

It’s fine with me that way. Never liked the look of those cab cars...just too weird.


----------



## PVD

I dont have the article in front of me, I'm on my phone, but I believe IDOT has some cars that are split bc/coach, and some cars that include cafe as well as full coach.


----------



## mainemanman

NSC1109 said:


> Mmhm.
> 
> It’s fine with me that way. Never liked the look of those cab cars...just too weird.


I mean, it suits the chargers.



PVD said:


> I dont have the article in front of me, I'm on my phone, but I believe IDOT has some cars that are split bc/coach, and some cars that include cafe as well as full coach.


You are correct. I wonder if the lounge is getting cut if only half of the car is a cafe.


----------



## NSC1109

[QUOTE="mainemanman]
You are correct. I wonder if the lounge is getting cut if only half of the car is a cafe.[/QUOTE]

Not exactly...the way the IDOT cars are set up, it’s one full car of coach and one full car of BC. They’re a semi-permanently coupled pair. I believe it’s the same with the cafe: married with a coach. That’s a whole ‘nother ball of wax if you want to talk about the logistical challenges that presents, but you should be getting a full cafe and a full BC car instead of the split BC/cafe the Michigan Services are usually running with.


----------



## PVD

At home, re read the articles about the procurement, and it appears that it is indeed 17 married couples with one vestibule in each car for the coach/bc and the same for the coach/cafe sets. Not split cars, but split pairs of full cars The 20 coaches have 2 vestibules each.


----------



## Acela150

jis said:


> And yet the entire world is moving towards those, so I guess you will just have to suck it up and bear it.
> 
> BTW, in terms of overall rail passenger ridership in the US, I suspect a vast majority ride on either push pulls or EMUs/DMUs in the US. single direction loco pulled is a minority operation already by a long shot. I am not aware of any commuter service in the North East or Chicagoland that is not push-pull with a cab car at one end and a loco at the other end, unless of course it is EMU.
> 
> My crystal ball says that in the next gen all operations of Amtrak Regional service on the NEC will transition over to push-pull or pull-pull with cabs at both ends, loco or cab car, just like is happening in California. Anything else simply does not make much sense.



Sadly I know you're right. My main issue is that I don't want to see Amtrak order "trainsets". At least of the semi-permanent coupled variety. It's not easy to drill out a car or two if it has to be removed like the Amfleets or Superliners. And having to shop a car is part of the railroad industry. Things are going to be in need of fixing, and really the only way to fix one car on a trainset is to take the whole thing out. One thing that Amtrak did a few years ago was to move the Business Class and Quiet Cars to the rear of the train. Part of which was to make it easier to take a coach car from the head of the train and use it elsewhere if the need arises. With a trainset you can't do that.


----------



## trainman74

mainemanman said:


> It's called CALIDOT because IDOT also purchased the cars.



Thanks, sorry I sidetracked things by confusing the name being given to the car order with the name of one of the agencies involved.


----------



## Seaboard92

I have my own reasons for not wanting semi-permanent trainsets as well. The more of those we have the less places we can run. Which means less money for the industry and ultimately me. But that’s me being selfish.


----------



## Acela150

Seaboard92 said:


> I have my own reasons for not wanting semi-permanent trainsets as well. The more of those we have the less places we can run. Which means less money for the industry and ultimately me. But that’s me being selfish.



And your reasons IINM relate to PV, nothing related to what I mentioned which is way more justified.


----------



## Seaboard92

Like I said I’m very selfish. Even though I’m not a large fan for your reasons as well


----------



## Thirdrail7

jis said:


> And yet the entire world is moving towards those, so I guess you will just have to suck it up and bear it.
> 
> BTW, in terms of overall rail passenger ridership in the US, I suspect a vast majority ride on either push pulls or EMUs/DMUs in the US. single direction loco pulled is a minority operation already by a long shot. I am not aware of any commuter service in the North East or Chicagoland that is not push-pull with a cab car at one end and a loco at the other end, unless of course it is EMU.
> 
> My crystal ball says that in the next gen all operations of Amtrak Regional service on the NEC will transition over to push-pull or pull-pull with cabs at both ends, loco or cab car, just like is happening in California. Anything else simply does not make much sense.



Again, this depends on the type of service you wish to provide. There is a big difference between turn around commuter service and point to point, multi state service. Amtrak tends to fall into the latter. I'm not aware of any commuter service that operates 600+ miles...one way. I'm not aware of Chicagoland commuter service operating through 9 states...and potentially carrying mail, parcels and private cars.

Additionally, adding another locomotive to your train increases costs and increases inspections.


----------



## Seaboard92

Just the thought of a 600 mile commute anywhere turns me off to whatever job.


----------



## jis

Thirdrail7 said:


> Again, this depends on the type of service you wish to provide. There is a big difference between turn around commuter service and point to point, multi state service. Amtrak tends to fall into the latter. I'm not aware of any commuter service that operates 600+ miles...one way. I'm not aware of Chicagoland commuter service operating through 9 states...and potentially carrying mail, parcels and private cars.
> 
> Additionally, adding another locomotive to your train increases costs and increases inspections.


I guess my focus on using cabs at both ends of a train specifically in the context of NEC-like operations was not clear. I was talking mostly about NEC (or other) Regional type services, which is basically a higher class commuter service in most cases, even though over longer distances, and Acelas already use cabs at both ends, as does everything on Amtrak California.

I agree with you to quite an extent about infrequent (once a day or less) service over longer distances. Specifically services that have 24 hour (or even 8 hour) layovers at each end, do not require quick turnaround, obviously.


----------



## Andrew

Rumor has it that the Hitachi Class 800 Dual Power Integrated Trainset is a strong contender for the Northeast Regional Trains that operate south of Washington, D.C, as well as the Pennsylvania which travels between Pittsburgh and NYC.


----------



## mainemanman

Andrew said:


> Rumor has it that the Hitachi Class 800 Dual Power Integrated Trainset is a strong contender for the Northeast Regional Trains that operate south of Washington, D.C, as well as the Pennsylvania which travels between Pittsburgh and NYC.


Where'd you hear that? Seems odd to use a British design.


----------



## daybeers

When will Amtrak make its decision?


----------



## jis

mainemanman said:


> Where'd you hear that? Seems odd to use a British design.



Yeah. I don’t think Amtrak will go for British loading gauge.


----------



## Andrew

Final bids for the Amfleet Replacement are now due this November 20th.

It would be cool to see coaches for the electric trains--such as the Keystones-- and a Dual Power Integrated Trainset for the trains which require an engine change.


----------



## PerRock

Andrew said:


> Rumor has it that the Hitachi Class 800 Dual Power Integrated Trainset is a strong contender for the Northeast Regional Trains that operate south of Washington, D.C, as well as the Pennsylvania which travels between Pittsburgh and NYC.





mainemanman said:


> Where'd you hear that? Seems odd to use a British design.





jis said:


> Yeah. I don’t think Amtrak will go for British loading gauge.



Well the Class 800/801 is just the UK version of the Hitachi A-Train, so Amtrak would probably get an Americanized version of the A-Train. Just like how the new Acela is an Americanized version of Alstom's Avelia train.

peter


----------



## jis

And also hope that Hitachi does not spend ten years trying to familiarize itself with American railroading practices


----------



## Andrew

For Amtrak trains that currently use Amfleet coaches, would it make more sense to use a dual powered locomotive, or a Dual-Powered Integrated Trainset, in the future?


----------



## lordsigma

How about a two pronged approach. You could do an EMU style for the BOS-WAS trains and Keystones, and then a traditional style fleet for corridor trains that currently need engine changes and for long distance trains. This would free up a lot of Sprinter electric locomotives. On the remaining traditional style equipment sets you could assign a dedicated sprinter and charger paired together that would just stay on the train all the time. I guess the disadvantage is you’d have to drag the inactive engine but it would eliminate the changes and would make use of assets they currently have. I’m sure given the manufacturing similarities between the Sprinter and Charger locomotives you could probably do it.


----------



## PVD

Since a BOS-WAS run involves 3 separate power systems, any EMU would be a bit pricey/complex. Dual modes tend to be less reliable than units that are one or the other. Neither is a show stopper, but must be considered.


----------



## frequentflyer

Andrew said:


> For Amtrak trains that currently use Amfleet coaches, would it make more sense to use a dual powered locomotive, or a Dual-Powered Integrated Trainset, in the future?



Makes too much sense, Amtrak will not do it.......Its up an running the UK, most of the bugs have been worked out or at least identified.

A Hitachi Regional will have Regional passengers not missing the Acela IIs amenities except for the extra "speed". Hmmm, I see a significant price increase for Regional fares in the future if Amtrak goes the Hitachi route.


----------



## Gemuser

PVD said:


> Since a BOS-WAS run involves 3 separate power systems, any EMU would be a bit pricey/complex. Dual modes tend to be less reliable than units that are one or the other. Neither is a show stopper, but must be considered.


While this used to be true, these days the standard EMUs from European manfactures [don't know about Asian ones] tend to be quadri mode or very near, straight out of the factory. Dual power ones [electric/desiel] are another matter, although they do exist.


----------



## PVD

I don't think it's changed that much, but others are more willing to deal with it. Dealing with multiple voltages and frequencies is clearly manageable, ACS-64 do it everyday, but it is a "complicating factor"


----------



## jis

Since everything becomes DC on the main link, the frequency thing only affects the transformer as does the HV input voltage The backend drive control remains the same no matter how many different input profiles you throw at it. Indeed DC input is the biggest pain to deal with unless it is at the link voltage.


----------



## TC_NYC

I just don't see too many advantages of a dual mode locomotive. Amtrak will still schedule the trains to stop in Washington for 20-30 minutes and the Acela will still be billed as the "premium" service. EMUs would make a lot of sense, since the trains have frequent stops.


----------



## Seaboard92

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it now. ÖBB/ĆD Railjets would make a lot of sense. Great trainsets that are semi permanently coupled meaning you could add cars at any time, and take them out. And you can just change the engine in DC between whatever Amtrak starts using on the Virginia regionals in the next few years, and the sprinters. To be honest I find the Railjets a superior train to most high speed trains out there and I want to say they are capable of 150 mph. 

But what do I know about trains, it’s not like I was an airline executive.


----------



## jis

Railjets use basically the same Viaggio cars as Brightline.


----------



## PerRock

jis said:


> Railjets use basically the same Viaggio cars as Brightline.



And the new trainsets for the Midwest, Cali & VIA.

peter


----------



## west point

It might be the best once enough EMUs delivered is to operate them EMU on the electrified portion and just couple a diesel with compatible HEP for trains outside electrified territory ? That would speed up some for southbound trains at WASH and much faster for northbound trains as engineer could board EMU and once diesel departs stat his updating of the EMU with various procedures required ?

This procedure as well at New Haven and NYP for any thru trains for Albany.


----------



## jis

Why not simply order EDMUs instead? The rest of the world is using them quite successfully. 

Actually depending on planned usage the order could be for a mix of EMUs and EDMUs like has been done in the UK for instance.


----------



## philabos

Good point. The U.K. Equipment can run electric and then switch over to diesel on non electrified portions.
Would they meet FRA crash standards though?
Seem to run fine along with freight in the UK.


----------



## jis

There is nothing UK specific about the EDMU technology. They could as easily be hosted on a Viaggio or similar US certified platform. Stadler has them available on US certified platform already, though has not been ordered by anyone in US yet, to my knowledge.


----------



## JustOnce

jis said:


> Since everything becomes DC on the main link, the frequency thing only affects the transformer as does the HV input voltage The backend drive control remains the same no matter how many different input profiles you throw at it. Indeed DC input is the biggest pain to deal with unless it is at the link voltage.


I agree. Really it's a matter of designing the transformer big enough for 25 Hz* (and European systems go as low as 16.7 Hz) and having an 11/12 kV tap and a 25 kV tap with an auto tap changer. The input inverters will handle any voltage discrepancy between 11 kV PRR and 12.5 kV MetroNorth. 



*=low frequency AC means larger transformers but smaller electric motors when "universal" motors were used. Universal motors were essentially DC motors (brushes and commutators) and lower frequencies eased commutator arcing.


----------



## west point

The Amtrak PRR CAT voltage is now 12 Kv nominal +/- 10% . Has been since the 1980s when they went from 11.5 Kv.


----------



## drdumont

Maybe it is covered elsewhere, but this is a long thread. Was I wrong in assuming the NEC is AC, and when NJT updated the Morristown lines, did it not convert to AC at that time?


----------



## jis

drdumont said:


> Maybe it is covered elsewhere, but this is a long thread. Was I wrong in assuming the NEC is AC, and when NJT updated the Morristown lines, did it not convert to AC at that time?


Both are AC but of different flavors.

NEC South is 12kV 25Hz.

NJT is 25kV 60Hz. (both Morristown and Gladstone Lines and Coast Line South of Matawan to Long Branch)

For the sake of completeness...

MNRR (New Haven Line) is 12.5kV 60Hz. (including Amtrak Hell Gate Line to Gate interlocking)

NEC North (New Haven to Boston) is 25kV 60Hz.


----------



## drdumont

Thanks for clearing the fog from my harbor, JIS!
Didn't know they were still using 25 cycle power.
Again, Thanks!


----------



## Andrew

I wonder if Amtrak would just one company, such as Siemens, for the new passenger coaches coupled with electric locomotives and Dual-Powered Integrated Train-sets manufactured by another company, such as Hitachi?

Or it would make more financial sense for Amtrak to go with one manufacture for the entire Amfleet replacement?


----------



## Ryan

jis said:


> NEC North (New Haven to Boston) is 25V 60Hz.



25*k*V, right?


----------



## jis

Ryan said:


> 25*k*V, right?


Right. Corrected. Thanks.


----------



## JustOnce

jis said:


> Both are AC but of different flavors.
> 
> NEC South is 12kV 25Hz.
> 
> NJT is 25kV 60Hz. (both Morristown and Gladstone Lines and Coast Line South of South Amboy to Long Branch)
> 
> For the sake of completeness...
> 
> MNRR (New Haven Line) is 12.5kV 60Hz. (including Amtrak Hell Gate Line to Gate interlocking)
> 
> NEC North (New Haven to Boston) is 25kV 60Hz.


NJT switches to 25kV/60Hz at Matawan. I believe they were able to extend to Matawan off the original grid ending at South Amboy.


----------



## jis

JustOnce said:


> NJT switches to 25kV/60Hz at Matawan. I believe they were able to extend to Matawan off the original grid ending at South Amboy.



You are correct the changeover is just south of Matawan. Corrected. Thanks.


----------



## frequentflyer

Anderson's latest appearance before congress committee he touched on the Amfleet replacement, and it seems Amtrak is going EMU/DMU for replacements. Hitachi 802? Or maybe Siemens if they have a product.


----------



## PerRock

Almost everyone that makes trains makes an EMU/DMU... and often a couple different ones depending on the need. It'll go thru a bidding process, but my guess is that it'll end up being either Alstom or Siemens.

peter


----------



## rickycourtney

The Amfleet replacement RFP said that Amtrak was open to complete trainsets, self-propelled multiple units, or individual railcars.

The more recent "Equipment Asset Line Plan" even included this fun graphic:


If they go the DMU route, the only US compliant equipment currently being produced are the Stadler FLIRT, Stadler GTW and the Nippon Sharyo DMU.

Honestly, I don't think Amtrak is going to go the DMU/EMU route. They just spent 466 million dollars purchasing 70 Siemens Sprinter electric locomotives and they are about to spend 850 million dollars to purchase 75 Siemens Charger diesel locomotives.

I think there will be a lot of companies pitching the contract. 

Depending on how the RFP is written, Siemens may have an edge over everyone else. They are currently building single-level railcars for the US market and having a proven track record with a proven product is often heavily weighted. Siemens has also shown that they are willing to build the equipment as complete trainsets or as individual railcars, and with locomotives on either end or with a cab car.

That said, if it's a large enough order, any company could afford to do a clean sheet design, or adapt a foreign design to the US standards.


----------



## frequentflyer

rickycourtney said:


> The Amfleet replacement RFP said that Amtrak was open to complete trainsets, self-propelled multiple units, or individual railcars.
> 
> The more recent "Equipment Asset Line Plan" even included this fun graphic:
> View attachment 16193
> 
> If they go the DMU route, the only US compliant equipment currently being produced are the Stadler FLIRT, Stadler GTW and the Nippon Sharyo DMU.
> 
> Honestly, I don't think Amtrak is going to go the DMU/EMU route. They just spent 466 million dollars purchasing 70 Siemens Sprinter electric locomotives and they are about to spend 850 million dollars to purchase 75 Siemens Charger diesel locomotives.
> 
> I think there will be a lot of companies pitching the contract.
> 
> Depending on how the RFP is written, Siemens may have an edge over everyone else. They are currently building single-level railcars for the US market and having a proven track record with a proven product is often heavily weighted. Siemens has also shown that they are willing to build the equipment as complete trainsets or as individual railcars, and with locomotives on either end or with a cab car.
> 
> That said, if it's a large enough order, any company could afford to do a clean sheet design, or adapt a foreign design to the US standards.



The Charger purchases were to replace Genesis which are mostly LD, so that means nothing in this decision. The Sprinters are just a version of the Vectron sold worldwide. By the time the EMUs are delivered the Sprinters will be 5-7 years old and snapped up by Septa, NJT,MART, etc.


----------



## frequentflyer

Start at 2:18


----------



## rickycourtney

Here's a transcript of Anderson's statement:


> Congressman thank you for your remarks, we're in the midst of the largest re-fleeting in Amtrak's history. So, part of what we've been trying to do is conserve our cash. And our balance sheet now. We just got an investment grade upgrade, because we bought the new locomotives for the National Network, the Siemens Charger locomotives which will ensure that the long-distance network and the National Network has a really good locomotive fleet. So, that was number one.
> 
> Number two is the newest Acela trainsets, 29 of them, will start delivering in 2021, they're being made in New York.
> 
> Number three, we have got to replace the Amfleet I fleet, which is the Northeast Regional fleet. In the quarter, it has to be replaced. It's going to reach the end of its life.
> 
> We have, you know, we get some criticism for holding cash on our balance sheet, but we're holding that cash cause we need to spend, probably about $2 billion, to re-fleet the Northeast Corridor, and the state-supported network.
> 
> We aren't going to ask our state partners to help fund that, we want to fund it directly from Amtrak, but it's probably the most critical thing we need to do in the Corridor, is replace the Amfleet I's and Amfleet II's. I think that order, and the tough thing is there's just not that many people who make this equipment, but we should have that order placed in the next six months.
> 
> And we hope to go to modern unit trains, much like Europe. You know, where you have basically, you don't need a cab car or a cafe car in the corridor, it will be much like the Acela, in the Regional fleet.
> 
> Then our goal is, once we do that, is to have more stops on the corridor and connect more cities up and down the corridor and have the flexibility with a lighter weight, less expensive, more energy-efficient, less emission trainset, to be able to do the expansion that the national network really needs. And we have all those locations identified where corridor service with a modern trainset could be very effective and help us grow Amtrak, grow Amtrak jobs and serve the American public more effectively.


So yes, he could be describing self-propelled multiple units (DMU or EMU), but he could also be describing complete locomotive-hauled trainsets. 

An example would be the ÖBB/ČD Railjet which is a series of Siemens Viaggo Comfort cars, coupled together as a married trainset. They are hauled by a Siemens EuroSprinter locomotive and they do have a cab car. Same design as new VIA trainsets, similar to the Brightline trainsets (Brightline uses 2 locomotives instead of a cab car) and the new California trainsets.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

rickycourtney said:


> The Amfleet replacement RFP said that Amtrak was open to complete trainsets, self-propelled multiple units, or individual railcars.
> 
> The more recent "Equipment Asset Line Plan" even included this fun graphic:
> View attachment 16193
> 
> If they go the DMU route, the only US compliant equipment currently being produced are the Stadler FLIRT, Stadler GTW and the Nippon Sharyo DMU.
> 
> Honestly, I don't think Amtrak is going to go the DMU/EMU route. They just spent 466 million dollars purchasing 70 Siemens Sprinter electric locomotives and they are about to spend 850 million dollars to purchase 75 Siemens Charger diesel locomotives.
> 
> I think there will be a lot of companies pitching the contract.
> 
> Depending on how the RFP is written, Siemens may have an edge over everyone else. They are currently building single-level railcars for the US market and having a proven track record with a proven product is often heavily weighted. Siemens has also shown that they are willing to build the equipment as complete trainsets or as individual railcars, and with locomotives on either end or with a cab car.
> 
> That said, if it's a large enough order, any company could afford to do a clean sheet design, or adapt a foreign design to the US standards.



The best choice for Amtrak in this situation is going to be EDMUs (Amtrak needs to also solve the engine switch problem). There will ultimately be two contenders (Stadler and Hitachi Rail), though I think Hitachi's A-Train might win out over Stadler's FLIRT because the A-Train is not articulated (makes maintenancr easier). Perhaps this design would be called the Cityliner.
Of course this would supplant many ACS-64s but they can find new life with MBTA and SEPTA


----------



## chrsjrcj

The ACS-64s will still have some use with the 3.5 long distance trains that use the Corridor, plus maybe the Palmetto and Carolinian too (if they're not replaced by new DMUs). 

I wonder if a EDMU makes sense for trains like the Palmetto and Carolinian?


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

chrsjrcj said:


> The ACS-64s will still have some use with the 3.5 long distance trains that use the Corridor, plus maybe the Palmetto and Carolinian too (if they're not replaced by new DMUs).
> 
> I wonder if a EDMU makes sense for trains like the Palmetto and Carolinian?



Has Amtrak looked at using DMUs for those two? If so then they can just use the Cityliners (perhaps they can make the lead cars incorporate a baggage component)


----------



## rickycourtney

What is the life-cycle cost of a dual-mode multiple unit trainset compared to a locomotive-hauled trainset?

Right off the top of my head, I can think of a few problems with a DMMU/EDMU...
They are far more complex with electric and diesel equipment squeezed into the car body envelope.
They must weigh a lot more than a regular trainset or a pure EMU or DMU.
If one of the engines goes down, which seems common with Amtrak's maintenance practices, the whole trainset is out of service.
Engines need regular overhauls, so when the car is in the shop, it's out of service, even if it's possible to just swap out the engine.​So with all of that in mind, what is the benefit of a DMMU/EDMU versus a Railjet/Brightline style locomotive-hauled trainset?


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

rickycourtney said:


> What is the life-cycle cost of a dual-mode multiple unit trainset compared to a locomotive-hauled trainset?
> 
> Right off the top of my head, I can think of a few problems with a DMMU/EDMU...
> They are far more complex with electric and diesel equipment squeezed into the car body envelope.
> They must weigh a lot more than a regular trainset or a pure EMU or DMU.
> If one of the engines goes down, which seems common with Amtrak's maintenance practices, the whole trainset is out of service.
> Engines need regular overhauls, so when the car is in the shop, it's out of service, even if it's possible to just swap out the engine.​So with all of that in mind, what is the benefit of a DMMU/EDMU versus a Railjet/Brightline style locomotive-hauled trainset?



Multiple units offer better acceleration and traction (and also place less wear and tear on the tracks) compared to traditional locomotive-hauled trains. This makes sense for the Northeast Regional due to the many stops it makes.

If diesels would make things too complex then Amtrak can replace the diesel with battery (which can be charged by the overhead wires) and it would be an EBMU

Also, Amtrak has looked into using EDMUs for several of its NEC trains (they also looked into using the ALP45-DP electro-diesel locomotive but concluded that it's too slow and heavy).





Alon Levy explains EMUs vs locomotives better


----------



## MARC Rider

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> The best choice for Amtrak in this situation is going to be EDMUs (Amtrak needs to also solve the engine switch problem). There will ultimately be two contenders (Stadler and Hitachi Rail), though I think Hitachi's A-Train might win out over Stadler's FLIRT because the A-Train is not articulated (makes maintenancr easier). Perhaps this design would be called the Cityliner.
> Of course this would supplant many ACS-64s but they can find new life with MBTA and SEPTA


Does Stadler make the FLIRT in and 8 or 9 car configuration? Most Northeast Regionals are at least 8 cars long, and maybe they should even be longer (or be able to be made longer) to increase capacity. Based on the examples we rode in Texas at the Gathering, the design seems to be more like an upgraded light rail car, which provides level boarding at low platforms. I'm not sure how the design would be modified for the high platforms of the NEC.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

MARC Rider said:


> Does Stadler make the FLIRT in and 8 or 9 car configuration? Most Northeast Regionals are at least 8 cars long, and maybe they should even be longer (or be able to be made longer) to increase capacity. Based on the examples we rode in Texas at the Gathering, the design seems to be more like an upgraded light rail car, which provides level boarding at low platforms. I'm not sure how the design would be modified for the high platforms of the NEC.



They did make a 12-car FLIRT

Stadler has made higher-floor FLIRTs for the UK and Scandinavia (which tend to have higher platform heights than the rest of Europe), so they can build a high-floor one adapted to the NEC.


----------



## frequentflyer

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> They did make a 12-car FLIRT
> 
> Stadler has made higher-floor FLIRTs for the UK and Scandinavia (which tend to have higher platform heights than the rest of Europe), so they can build a high-floor one adapted to the NEC.



After thinking about Anderson stating they would be lightweight cars, I am leaning more towards Stadler's Flirt like the ones built for UK's Greater Anglia. 12 car consists with two diesel power cars for Virginia and Pennsylvania running. Build them at Stadler's Utah plant.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

frequentflyer said:


> 12 car consists with two diesel power cars for Virginia and Pennsylvania running. Build them at Stadler's Utah plant.



Don't forget the New Haven-Springfield segment of the NEC.
Maybe Stadler could also build a varation of the Cityliner/FLIRT for the MNCR and LIRR to replace those P32s and DE30AC/DM30ACs respectively (are third-rail FLIRTs possible?).


----------



## rickycourtney

MARC Rider said:


> Does Stadler make the FLIRT in and 8 or 9 car configuration? Most Northeast Regionals are at least 8 cars long, and maybe they should even be longer (or be able to be made longer) to increase capacity. Based on the examples we rode in Texas at the Gathering, the design seems to be more like an upgraded light rail car, which provides level boarding at low platforms. I'm not sure how the design would be modified for the high platforms of the NEC.


Stadler makes two models:
The *GTW* looks very much like a light rail car. That model is used by CapMetro in Austin and the A-train in Denton County, near Dallas.
The *FLIRT* looks like a larger heavy rail train. That model is used by TEXRail in Fort Worth. Currently, that's the only like using the FLIRT in the US, but Stadler has orders for more.​
The downside to the design is the single truck shared by adjacent cars. There are benefits to that design, but one huge downside: it's really difficult to add and remove cars from a trainset. It can be done, but it takes several hours to add or replace just one car. That means that during busy periods (like Thanksgiving) Amtrak won't be able to simply add a few cars to the NER trains, but is that downside a dealbreaker for Amtrak?

The other head-scratching thing is that it takes Amtrak 30 minutes to switch from an electric locomotive to a diesel locomotive and that the only solution is to buy dual-mode locomotives or dual-mode multiple unit trainsets. That misses the totally obvious solution: find a way, using new technologies, to shorten the exchange. Railroads worldwide have found ways to do this in under 5 minutes.

Also, based on Anderson's testimony, it sounds like Amtrak is not interested in purchasing new cafe cars or cab cars for the NEC corridor trains. 

I believe the part about the cafe cars, but if they're really looking at EMU/DMU trainsets, cab cars are kind of a big deal. Which is why I caution that you can't read too much into this testimony.

We will know everything once the purchase announcement is made.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

rickycourtney said:


> The downside to the design is the single truck shared by adjacent cars. There are benefits to that design, but one huge downside: it's really difficult to add and remove cars from a trainset. It can be done, but it takes several hours to add or replace just one car. That means that during busy periods (like Thanksgiving) Amtrak won't be able to simply add a few cars to the NER trains, but is that downside a dealbreaker for Amtrak?



Thanksgiving is when Amtrak NEC ridership peaks at its highest for the year, so it could take too much time for Amtrak to add cars to it. Which was why I brought up the Hitachi A-Train/Class 802/Azuma as another contender design for an Amtrak EDMU, as it is not articulated like the FLIRT.



rickycourtney said:


> The other head-scratching thing is that it takes Amtrak 30 minutes to switch from an electric locomotive to a diesel locomotive and that the only solution is to buy dual-mode locomotives or dual-mode multiple unit trainsets. That misses the totally obvious solution: find a way, using new technologies, to shorten the exchange. Railroads worldwide have found ways to do this in under 5 minutes.



Wonder what's making engine switching take too long for Amtrak compared to elsewhere like in Europe?


----------



## frequentflyer

rickycourtney said:


> Stadler makes two models:
> The *GTW* looks very much like a light rail car. That model is used by CapMetro in Austin and the A-train in Denton County, near Dallas.
> The *FLIRT* looks like a larger heavy rail train. That model is used by TEXRail in Fort Worth. Currently, that's the only like using the FLIRT in the US, but Stadler has orders for more.​
> The downside to the design is the single truck shared by adjacent cars. There are benefits to that design, but one huge downside: it's really difficult to add and remove cars from a trainset. It can be done, but it takes several hours to add or replace just one car. That means that during busy periods (like Thanksgiving) Amtrak won't be able to simply add a few cars to the NER trains, but is that downside a dealbreaker for Amtrak?
> 
> *The other head-scratching thing is that it takes Amtrak 30 minutes to switch from an electric locomotive to a diesel locomotive and that the only solution is to buy dual-mode locomotives or dual-mode multiple unit trainsets. That misses the totally obvious solution: find a way, using new technologies, to shorten the exchange. Railroads worldwide have found ways to do this in under 5 minutes.*
> 
> Also, based on Anderson's testimony, it sounds like Amtrak is not interested in purchasing new cafe cars or cab cars for the NEC corridor trains.
> 
> I believe the part about the cafe cars, but if they're really looking at EMU/DMU trainsets, cab cars are kind of a big deal. Which is why I caution that you can't read too much into this testimony.
> 
> We will know everything once the purchase announcement is made.



There was a post by Amtrak or former Amtrak employees describing the process. It boils down to new FRA rules and its not changing. 30 minute engine changes are here to stay.


----------



## rickycourtney

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> Wonder what's making engine switching take too long for Amtrak compared to elsewhere like in Europe?


I think in large part it comes down to technology.

The US has stubbornly held onto the Janney or knuckle coupler for use on passenger trains. While the physical coupler is at least semi-automatic, crews still need to manually detach/attach the brake hose, the cable for power and in many cases the cable for push-pull control. So when a locomotive change is required, crews need to set handbrakes on the passenger cars, shut down the head-end power, detach the power cable from the locomotive, release the coupler, remove/replace the locomotive, connect the brake hose, re-pressurize the brake line, connect the power cable, restart head-end power, release the handbrakes, do a brake check, and then the train can depart.

Meanwhile in Europe, passenger trains use the Scharfenberg coupler, which allows for fully automatic coupling. When the trains make contact, the coupler automatically connects the brake line and makes the electrical connections for push-pull control. When I was in France, it took about 90 seconds for the SNCF crew to decouple two TGV trainsets, pull them apart, do a brake check, close the shroud over the couplers and continue on down the tracks. Honestly, yer part that seemed to take the most time was closing the shroud over the couplers because that involved opening a hatch on the side of the locomotive and closing it.

Problem is, that as far as I can recall, the Scharfenberg coupler does not support head-end power connections. But, that doesn't mean the process can't be automated.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

What has the FRA said about scharfenberg couplers? If they're not prohibited then Amtrak can start buying fleet that has them


----------



## rickycourtney

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> What has the FRA said about scharfenberg couplers? If they're not prohibited then Amtrak can start buying fleet that has them


I don't think that the FRA has any rules against Scharfenberg couplers on passenger railroads. All of the Stadler equipment we were discussing use Scharfenberg couplers here in the US. The biggest issue for Amtrak would be that it regularly borrows freight locomotives to "tow" trains when their equipment dies. If Amtrak switches to Scharfenberg couplers, that's no longer an option, and trains could be stuck until another Amtrak train can reach the disabled train.

In practice, that means that Amtrak would need to have a much larger locomotive fleet. They would likely need to return to using three locomotives on long-distance trains, or strategically place spare locomotives along lines (like the spare locomotive they used to keep in Albuquerque).


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

rickycourtney said:


> In practice, that means that Amtrak would need to have a much larger locomotive fleet. They would likely need to return to using three locomotives on long-distance trains, or strategically place spare locomotives along lines (like the spare locomotive they used to keep in Albuquerque).



Which will cost more? Amtrai buying more locomotives with Scharfenberg couplers (as well as modifying their fleet to have them) or the freight railroads sending their locos to get fitted with Scharfenberg couplers


----------



## rickycourtney

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> Which will cost more? Amtrai buying more locomotives with Scharfenberg couplers (as well as modifying their fleet to have them) or the freight railroads sending their locos to get fitted with Scharfenberg couplers


The freight railroads would never fit their locomotives with Scharfenberg couplers, they aren't suited for pulling heavy loads. Plus it would be a very involved process to change out a coupler.

There are pros and cons to everything... MU trainsets vs. locomotive-hauled trainsets... articulated connections vs. individual cars with open gangways vs. individual cars with traditional gangways... Janney couplers vs. Scharfenberg couplers... cab cars vs. no cab cars. Amtrak is almost certainly weighing those choices right now and I think nothing is completely "settled" until it's delivered.


----------



## jis

Scharfenberg Couplers are usually not used in heavy drawbar load situations. For that reason there are very few locomotives (specially powerful ones) fitted with Scharfenberg Couplers.

They are typically used to couple together self contained self powered units of EMU/DMU with other ones to make longer trains, so that one just needs to connect control lines and brake lines, and not hotel power lines, and there is relatively low drawbar load on the coupler. They facilitate quick separation/joining of units allowing a train to depart with multiple units from a central station and then easily split it into separate units headed to different terminals.

I have mentioned this earlier in a discussion of this subject - mainly in response to Thirdrail7 about something that I forget the details of. In particular it is unlikely that Scharfenberg couplers will be useful on P42s and Amfleet/Superliner/Viewliner cars. So we may be barking up a wrong tree here.


----------



## Bluejet

I’ve ridden the Stadler Flirt over in Switzerland. It was nice but the seating was a bit odd at different levels depending on your position in the car. I think at least it was the flirt. Cool cool train... narrow gauge and a cog capability to climb the steep mountain passes between Lucern and Interlaken.


----------



## rickycourtney

jis said:


> Scharfenberg Couplers are usually not used in heavy drawbar load situations. For that reason there are very few locomotives (specially powerful ones) fitted with Scharfenberg Couplers.
> 
> They are typically used to couple together self contained self powered units of EMU/DMU with other ones to make longer trains, so that one just needs to connect control lines and brake lines, and not hotel power lines, and there is relatively low drawbar load on the coupler. They facilitate quick separation/joining of units allowing a train to depart with multiple units from a central station and then easily split it into separate units headed to different terminals.
> 
> I have mentioned this earlier in a discussion of this subject - mainly in response to Thirdrail7 about something that I forget the details of. In particular it is unlikely that Scharfenberg couplers will be useful on P42s and Amfleet/Superliner/Viewliner cars. So we may be barking up a wrong tree here.


Interesting, thanks for sharing.


----------



## railiner

frequentflyer said:


> There was a post by Amtrak or former Amtrak employees describing the process. It boils down to new FRA rules and its not changing. 30 minute engine changes are here to stay.


I am wondering what those new FRA rules are?
Years ago, Amtrak routinely changed locomotives in New Haven in what, 7 minutes?
Similar times at Harrisburg and Croton-Harmon...


----------



## PerRock

Bluejet said:


> I’ve ridden the Stadler Flirt over in Switzerland. It was nice but the seating was a bit odd at different levels depending on your position in the car. I think at least it was the flirt. Cool cool train... narrow gauge and a cog capability to climb the steep mountain passes between Lucern and Interlaken.



I believe the low-level Flirts, like what is used in Switzerland, have the "multiple" levels; but the high-level Flirts, like what we'd use on the NEC or are in use in the UK, are all one level.

As for other DMU/EMU platforms beyond Stadler:

Alstom has the Coradia (used in Ottowa) [both]

Siemens has the Desiro (used in San Diego) & Mireo [Both, EMU]

CAF has the Civity [Both]

Hitachi has the A-Train [Both]

Bombardier has the Aventra & Talent [EMU, EMU]

Skoda has the 7Ev [EMU]

Newag has the Impuls & Vulcano [EMU, DMU]

And then there are these companies that make EMUs & DMUs (or similar products) but don't have a platform:

Kawasaki
Nippon Sharyo
J-TREC
Hyundai Rotem
Kinki Sharyo
Bookville
Wabtec
Peter


----------



## frequentflyer

railiner said:


> I am wondering what those new FRA rules are?
> Years ago, Amtrak routinely changed locomotives in New Haven in what, 7 minutes?
> Similar times at Harrisburg and Croton-Harmon...



https://discuss.amtraktrains.com/threads/the-engine-switcharoo.63037/#post-581322

Scenerio for ground Power

1.Show up as train arrives,

2.Call K Tower to lock up switches for Blue Flag Protection

3. When confirmed put Blue lights in track front and rear.

4.Put Blue light in engine cab

5..Power Off

6. Detach locomotives cables, turn off air supplies

7.. call K tower and remove blue flag protection.

8. Take blue lights off track

9. Take blue light off engine

10. Turn off overhead lights

11. uncouple locomotive

12. wait for locomotive to clear track and switches

13. Call K Tower to lock up switches for Blue Flag Protection

14. When confirmed place blue light in track in front and rear.

15. Turn on Blue overhead lights

16. Attach Ground power cables at one end of consist

17. Loop 480 cables at other end of consist

18. Turn on Ground Power

19. Call K Tower give up Blue Flag Protection

20. Remove Blue lights from track

21.Turn off overhead lights.

21. Diesel Locomotive arrives

22. Couple up locomotive

23. Call K Tower to lock up switches for Blue Flag Protection

24. Put Blue lights in track front and rear. Put Blue light on engine

25. Turn on Blue overhead lights

26. Turn off Ground power

27. Detach Ground power cables

28. attach cables, brake hoses and main recseviour air to locomotive

29. Do brake test

30. Call K tower and give up Blue Flag Protection,

31. blue take lights out of track

32. turn off overhead blue lights

33. remove bue light from engine cab

33. Train can leave

Putting the train on ground power will likely lengthen the time the train is without power!


----------



## frequentflyer

From the above thread by Third Rail, again why it takes so long to change locomotives in DC

VentureForth:

The funny thing about your post is your statement about 100-year old procedures and process that can't be changed because this is the way we've always done it. The truth is, nothing could be further from the truth. This stuff wasn't done 100 years ago. It was barely done 30 years ago. Such onerous rules have been building in the name of safety over time but they've become almost crippling in the last 10 years. The procedure that guest laid out only rose in the last 10 years or so. This is why when people comment about how quickly things were done years ago, most of us say the rules were completely different.

Besides, your comparison to a plane is unrealistic. When they chock the plane and put it on ground power, are they attempting to remove the engines from the wing? I suspect not. Trains are removing part of the consist and the FRA is quite insistent that people not get injured by mistake while they are in between equipment.

Again, this is a far cry from yesteryear where we used to couple on one end while uncoupling on the other end at the same time. If the equipment rolled, the employees would roll right with it. Employees were taught how to get on and off moving equipment as well. Try that now and you'll receive an astronomical fine. Washington Terminal and Penn Station Baltimore have overhead blue lights that allowed personnel to work on the equipment without putting a supplemental flag in the gauge at each end of the equipment. Some years ago, the FRA decided this longstanding practice was no longer good enough. If the procedures that Guest was kind enough to type up are not followed (and technically Guest never actually coupled up the new engine or re-looped the auxiliaries) in that order, the fines will flow.

These are NEW procedures. I watched a train go down recently, waiting for protection on an adjacent track. It's called a hold because the FRA decreed that only certain people are now allowed to "foul" a track and the procedure now requires paperwork and additional training. By the time the dispatcher was able to provide the "hold," it was entirely too late to save the train. Years ago, when the first train went by, the crew would have hopped off, gone between the equipment and had the whole procedure done in 2 minutes.

If that crew took that chance today and got caught by the FRA or something went wrong, things would get ugly and fast.


----------



## west point

Can steps 12 - 21 be skipped if the diesel is ready to back up to train set as soon as first motor ( loco ) clears ?


----------



## Palmetto

ALL the steps could be skipped if the appropriate equipment is used for regional trains heading to Virginia. Amtrak is thinking the same way apparently. There's no reason, I guess, that dual mode engines couldn't be used on trains going south of Richmond.


----------



## cocojacoby

PerRock said:


> As for other DMU/EMU platforms beyond Stadler:



I'm sure Talgo could come up with something too.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> Can steps 12 - 21 be skipped if the diesel is ready to back up to train set as soon as first motor ( loco ) clears ?


In all my travels through Washington DC on Silver Service or Carolinian I have never seen ground power connected to the train during loco change in Washington. So all the bits about ground power are generally not done.

Once they get the ground crew in place I have seen loco changes take as little as 15 minutes. Usually what takes time is marshaling the necessary crew in place. This is even more so at Albany than in Washington.



Palmetto said:


> ALL the steps could be skipped if the appropriate equipment is used for regional trains heading to Virginia. Amtrak is thinking the same way apparently. There's no reason, I guess, that dual mode engines couldn't be used on trains going south of Richmond.


I think dual mode makes sense for the Virginia trains. I would not use a dual mode for trains going south into NC and further. You will require way too many dual modes to pull that off, and those suckers are expensive and less reliable than single mode units. Additionally, they also carry a lot of extra dead weight around - not good for energy efficiency either.


----------



## west point

Dual modes have to carry diesel fuel and when it spills what then? Can remember GCT tracks that had the dual modes with the diesel fuel smell and track structure black.


----------



## Seaboard92

Of all my travels on the EC with PVs I think Albany is by far one of the most efficient engine change locations. 

DC can be a complete mess and generally it’s that way.


----------



## jis

Seaboard92 said:


> Of all my travels on the EC with PVs I think Albany is by far one of the most efficient engine change locations.
> 
> DC can be a complete mess and generally it’s that way.


OTOH, it is Albany where we have sat on the LSL for 45 minutes waiting for the engine change crew to mosey over from wherever they were to start changing the engine. This caused our departure to get delayed, which caused us to get held before going onto the LAB because a train had been released from Schenectady onto the then single line section, which would have been held had we bothered to depart Albany anywhere near on time. And naturally now CSX had a great excuse to nail us all the way to Cleveland.

My experience at Albany on LSL comes nowhere near the best I am afraid.


----------



## west point

With the VA purchase of the RF&P the number of required cars should increase ? That should make a builder that gets the award more secure ?


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

west point said:


> With the VA purchase of the RF&P the number of required cars should increase ? That should make a builder that gets the award more secure ?



They can start modernizing it. This includes relocating the freight trains away and even electrifying it once frequencies and ridership are sufficient (I can imagine ACS-64s displaced by future EDMUs being used for VRE electric)


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> OTOH, it is Albany where we have sat on the LSL for 45 minutes waiting for the engine change crew to mosey over from wherever they were to start changing the engine. This caused our departure to get delayed, which caused us to get held before going onto the LAB because a train had been released from Schenectady onto the then single line section, which would have been held had we bothered to depart Albany anywhere near on time. And naturally now CSX had a great excuse to nail us all the way to Cleveland.
> 
> My experience at Albany on LSL comes nowhere near the best I am afraid.


I'd have to concur with this, having done many LSL and Empire Service trips. The alternate loco is often parked on the adjacent track on arrival (either direction), but it appears that the same crew move both engines. In other words, the "new" locomotive does not have a hostler onboard waiting. The problem is frequent enough that the dual-modes often run to Buffalo and occasionally even Toronto. (Obviously Chicago on the LSL would be impractical.) I've never noticed the Cardinal change in WUS taking very long - often barely enough time to hop off for a picture of it.


----------



## Palmetto

west point said:


> Dual modes have to carry diesel fuel and when it spills what then? Can remember GCT tracks that had the dual modes with the diesel fuel smell and track structure black.



Dual modes still run into GCT, don't they? Amtrak's 700 series P30 DCMs [or something like that!].


----------



## PVD

Metro North has their own (31) P32-DM fleet, and Amtrak P32-DM have gone into GCT during recent NYP maintenance projects.


----------



## rickycourtney

I wanted to draw attention to this part of Anderson's testimony...


> "...we need to spend, probably about $2 billion, to re-fleet the Northeast Corridor, and the state-supported network. We aren't going to ask our state partners to help fund that, we want to fund it directly from Amtrak."


When I first heard him say that, I was pleasantly surprised that Amtrak was doing something nice for its state partners.

But, my cynicism has kicked in...

Amtrak and Anderson can use this new equipment as both a carrot and a stick with state partners: the new equipment will make them happy now, and over the long-haul, the fact that it's Amtrak owned will make it more difficult for States to dump Amtrak for another operator.

Take, for example, the San Joaquins train. They have made it no secret that they are interested in ditching Amtrak in favor of another operator. They can actually do that because all of the equipment necessary to operate the service is owned by California, not Amtrak.


----------



## jis

States still have a choice to get their own equipment.

Also, Anderson may not be entirely truthful about how nice Amtrak is being. The formula fees for Section 209 contracts includes an amount to create a replacement fund for the equipment for those states that lease equipment from Amtrak. So it is not like they are doing something out of the goodness of their heart. They are obligated to do so since they have afterall been collecting the money to do so. It is the size of that component that was a big bone of contention between Amtrak and NYSDOT at one time.

Incidentally, ditching Amtrak as an operator would only be feasible in those places where there is a trackage agreement in place with the host independent of Amtrak's participation. This was the primary reason that the so called "privately run" Hoosier State was actually operated by Amtrak throughout its entire "private" existence. It will be doubly challenging where Amtrak is involved as a host I suppose.


----------



## Andrew

Does anyone know what the status of the new rail car procurement is and how Coronavirus is impacting the purchase of new Amfleet cars?


----------



## mainemanman

I think the midwestern states ordered around 50 for their services, mostly Illinois and Michigan. One has been delivered; they're testing it on the NEC currently. I assume more will follow, and after some basic testing they'll go into service. I don't know about the status of the RFP, but the NEC testing points to the Viaggios being the probable pick.


----------



## jiml

mainemanman said:


> One has been delivered; they're testing it on the NEC currently. I assume more will follow, and after some basic testing they'll go into service.


It's currently out west somewhere, last seen being pulled by UP power:


----------



## NSC1109

mainemanman said:


> I think the midwestern states ordered around 50 for their services, mostly Illinois and Michigan. One has been delivered; they're testing it on the NEC currently. I assume more will follow, and after some basic testing they'll go into service. I don't know about the status of the RFP, but the NEC testing points to the Viaggios being the probable pick.


California gets their cars first. MI/IL are second.


----------



## jis

Isn't the car being tested one of the California cars?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

At the risk of being pedantic, aren't California Cars a type of bi-level?


----------



## PVD

Ouch. California Cars vs California's Cars. Not a bad catch......JIS is one of the sharpest members of this forum, I would probably feel guilty posting that...…but we all need a chuckle from time to time...


----------



## Trogdor

Green Maned Lion said:


> At the risk of being pedantic, aren't California Cars a type of bi-level?



At the risk of being pedantic, jis said California cars, not California Cars. California, in this case, being used as an adjective to describe the common noun “cars.”


----------



## sttom

Well there are California's Cars and California Cars. One is a batch of single level cars we are getting against our will and the other is our bilevel cars.


----------



## Steve4031

So is this a discussion of amgrammar or just grammar


----------



## jiml

California coach 1:




California coach 2:




California car:


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Dude, you are dating yourself.






 That is a California car in 2020.

lol


----------



## frequentflyer

GML is right about the new California car, the Prius is so 2010s.

So many here think the Siemen's coach is most likely candidate for the Amfleet 1s. We will see, still think the NEC is getting DMU/EMUs.


----------



## PVD

I'm not sure it has to be either or...The states that pay for equipment may have things in mind. PA & NY as an example...


----------



## Green Maned Lion

The Viaggio design is available in EMU format iirc


----------



## Andrew

frequentflyer said:


> GML is right about the new California car, the Prius is so 2010s.
> 
> So many here think the Siemen's coach is most likely candidate for the Amfleet 1s. We will see, still think the NEC is getting DMU/EMUs.



If the NEC gets DMU/EMUs, than what happens to the Sprinter locomotives?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

They get a big bow placed on top of them and get presented to a politically connected scrapping operation, most likely.


----------



## jiml

frequentflyer said:


> GML is right about the new California car, the Prius is so 2010s.


I just travel in less wealthy areas.


----------



## StanJazz

Green Maned Lion said:


> Dude, you are dating yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a California car in 2020.
> 
> lol





Green Maned Lion said:


> Dude, you are dating yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a California car in 2020.
> 
> lol


That is not a California car. It is an European car. Look at the wide license plate.


----------



## Green Maned Lion




----------



## Ziv

Amtrak paid over $560mn for the 70 ACS-64 locos and the service contract. I doubt they will scrap them anytime soon.
If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. 



Green Maned Lion said:


> They get a big bow placed on top of them and get presented to a politically connected scrapping operation, most likely.


----------



## west point

It does not make any sense IMO to get DMUs - EMUs that would be limited in usage. It is better to have just one type equipment that can be used nationwide. Who knows what ridership divisions will be in the future ? Now if Amtrak ever got to 3000 passenger cars it might mean some diffusion would be possible ?


----------



## mainemanman

jiml said:


> It's currently out west somewhere, last seen being pulled by UP power:



Oh good! I'm taking it they're gonna have to hook it to the Horizon set. There'll be good catches, I'm sure!

On the topic of EMUs, I gotta agree with west point. Don't they frequently use NEC equipment outside the NEC, on the Downeaster, Empire Service, and even the long-distance Palmetto and Pennsylvanian? Or is the proposal to replace all those with straight DMUs? I think coaches would be better since the ACS-64 and SC-44s have just started their lifespans, and to negate their use at this point would honestly be such a waste. EMUs, IMO, are better suited for frequent-stop, shorter distance commuter ops than long-distance regional services.


----------



## Steve4031

How is the Downeaster equipment operated on the corridor? It would seem that for the most part this equipment would operate between north station and Portland. I could see some rotation during maintenance cycles if there were no facilities in Boston or Maine. 

How does this work anyway?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Steve4031 said:


> How is the Downeaster equipment operated on the corridor? It would seem that for the most part this equipment would operate between north station and Portland. I could see some rotation during maintenance cycles if there were no facilities in Boston or Maine.
> 
> How does this work anyway?


There is a non-revenue route through Cambridge used to transport equipment between South Station and North Station.


----------



## west point

Have often seen and rode AM-1s on the Crescent usually blocked off south of Atlanta.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

My I suggest you look into a concept called the sunk-cost fallacy, and consider it carefully.

EMUs are exactly what the corridor needs, and buying ones that are capable of being effectively put in neutral and being locomotive hauled by a diesel when needed has a lot of sense to it. There is also no reason why these single level cars can’t be ordered in both EMU and trailer form. Kicking the EMU transition the NEC truly needs down the road 50 years because they bought the wrong equipment 5 years ago is not a sensible decision.


----------



## Trogdor

west point said:


> It does not make any sense IMO to get DMUs - EMUs that would be limited in usage. It is better to have just one type equipment that can be used nationwide. Who knows what ridership divisions will be in the future ? Now if Amtrak ever got to 3000 passenger cars it might mean some diffusion would be possible ?



The NEC is by far large enough and busy enough to handle a fleet that is specialized to it. In fact, it already does (the Acela). There's no reason for it to be hamstrung by some random need for the equipment to be able to work just as well in Los Angeles or Oklahoma City. The Northeast is the one part of the country where we actually have halfway decent, passenger-centric intercity railroad infrastructure. Why wouldn't we want to take full advantage of that?


----------



## jiml

What would be smart is the dual-mode trains that are used several places in Europe and the UK (formerly in Europe). That would allow EMU's to continue to all those destinations south of WAS, now served by Northeast Regional trains, without a loco change. I believe both Hitachi and Siemens have products that would work well.


----------



## mainemanman

Steve4031 said:


> How is the Downeaster equipment operated on the corridor? It would seem that for the most part this equipment would operate between north station and Portland. I could see some rotation during maintenance cycles if there were no facilities in Boston or Maine.
> 
> How does this work anyway?


Grand Junction Line through Cambridge. It's used for both MBTA and Amtrak equipment, and for transfer of cars to Beech Grove.


----------



## Trogdor

jiml said:


> What would be smart is the dual-mode trains that are used several places in Europe and the UK (formerly in Europe). That would allow EMU's to continue to all those destinations south of WAS, now served by Northeast Regional trains, without a loco change. I believe both Hitachi and Siemens have products that would work well.



The question is what would the net cost/benefit be of dual-mode locomotives vs. standard EMUs that become regular trailers pulled by a diesel locomotive when off wire.

With Virginia taking steps to electrify the corridor south of DC towards Richmond, the long-term costs of building in DMU capability into these cars might outweigh their benefit.


----------



## sttom

Siemens already makes dual mode locomotives so its not like they couldn't include a few of them in an order for more Viaggio cars and train sets. I also don't really get why the engine swap at Washington is that big of a deal. I've been on European trains that had to split a train and swap the engines and this was still done in about 20 minutes. If a crew change and a smoke break is included in the stop at Washington, 20 minutes isn't too much to ask.

As for a "standardized fleet" to replace the Superliners with single level equipment, you'd need to replace 2 Superliners with 3 single level cars to have a near even capacity. And I don't know how standardized the fleet would be since it would probably take 20 years for CAF to finish enough Viewliners for a 1 to 1 replacement of the Superliners let alone replacing them at the same capacity. 

Best case scenario would be if Siemens or Stadler adapted the Viewliner design to the Viaggio Classic design or the coaches that Stadler makes on occasion. If that were the case, I am not sure how "standardized" those would be compared the the original Viewliners and the CAF Viewliners.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

The Viaggio car shells are made in lounge, dining, and sleeper configurations. The Viewliners were a massive mistake. CAF should take their tail, shove it fully up their tuchus, and beat it back to whatever country they come from that tolerates ID-10T errors throughout their business model.


----------



## Palmetto

I presume CAF did what they were ordered to, by Amtrak. I believe we could put at least a little of the blame there. I was also interested to know that lounge cars exist, but could not find any info on them on the Siemens website.


----------



## NativeSon5859

west point said:


> Have often seen and rode AM-1s on the Crescent usually blocked off south of Atlanta.



Yep, when I worked as a TA on the Crescent, an AM-1 did pop up on more than one occasion for the short haul riders heading north of ATL. 

When the train ran with four coaches, two were used on an average day out of NOL, the two closest to the diner. We'd put all pax except for BHM/ATL in one car, and one car for BHM/ATL only. The other two (next to the engine) were opened up in ATL. So generally by the time the train was in the Carolinas, it was running probably 95%-100% full in coach. That system worked pretty well. Same thing south, basically. All four in use until ATL, and then the two forward coaches would be closed unless a sporting event, mardi gras, jazz fast, french quarter fest, etc. was going on in NOL.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Palmetto said:


> I presume CAF did what they were ordered to, by Amtrak. I believe we could put at least a little of the blame there. I was also interested to know that lounge cars exist, but could not find any info on them on the Siemens website.



Your presumption is largely in error according to the OIG.


----------



## sttom

Palmetto said:


> I presume CAF did what they were ordered to, by Amtrak. I believe we could put at least a little of the blame there. I was also interested to know that lounge cars exist, but could not find any info on them on the Siemens website.



I'm not sure if Siemens makes any "lounge cars" in the Sightseer Lounge sense, but the Viaggio Classic is the base design for many new overnight trains in Europe. They are a flexible design and they are the base design for what is the Viaggio Comfort that we are getting in California. Sort of like how the Superliner is the base of the original California Car. 

Siemens also makes the Viaggio Twin which is a "bi level" (we'd call it a multi-level). It could be adapted into being Superliner compatible. They are about a foot narrower than a Superliner, about as tall as the old Hi-Level cars, and 19 inches longer than the Superliners. Adapting existing designs to semi custom orders is well within Siemen's wheelhouse. And with the US's changes in passenger crash test standards, adapting them would be the easiest course of action for future car orders. 

Viaggio Classic Brochure


https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:278fd95b02f19e03c6f9b72ba6e72443e48f90ad/version:1447843866/sic_00010138.pdf




https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:06167be1914022d2c93c796addd7063859c09054/version:1521629949/viaggio-classic-rzd-english.pdf



Viaggio Twin Brochure


https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:aa463aa5a466a190aaf5b102789cfd245a086211/version:1447843871/sic_00010150.pdf



Stadler Sleeper Brochure


https://www.stadlerrail.com/media/pdf/wady0814en.pdf


----------



## railiner

Noticed that in the specs listed for the 'Classic' cars, it allows a higher speed (200k for the 1435mm gauge tracks, versus 160 for the 1520mm gauge tracks).

That seems contrary to logic...you would think the wider gauge could handle higher speeds....must have something to do with the general condition of the different railways?


----------



## rickycourtney

Green Maned Lion said:


> Kicking the EMU transition the NEC truly needs down the road 50 years because they bought the wrong equipment 5 years ago is not a sensible decision.


We are still talking about Amtrak, right? They’re not exactly known for making the most sensible decisions.

No matter the logic behind the purchase, I have to imagine that the political and public optics of purchasing EMU trainsets and scrapping the ACS-64 locomotives is weighing heavily on the decision makers at Amtrak.


----------



## west point

Let us look at this logically from past purchases. The Acela-2s are not EMUs but rather motor loco at each end. I would think with the many slow sections the AX-2s would be a candidate to be an EMU for quicker acceleration.
There appears to be at least 2 engineering impediments and one regulatory. The FRA is reported to not allow a power bus along the whole length of a train. It may be that there is concern that a bus would be too close to the CAT just above especially at NYP. No operator wants power going to a bus when pans are retracted for some reason. For present married pair EMUs there is a short jumper that actually hangs down between the married pair cars .

It is reported that EMUS at speeds above 100 - 110 set up harmonic waves in the PRR type CAT when more than 2 Pans are contacting the CAT. That causes one or more of the pans to loose contact. Can imagine how continuous interruptions of CAT power to an EMU's electronics would cause premature failures.

So what are solutions ? Get FRA to change its mind ? Well there may be technical reasons why not.
Update the whole PRR CAT to constant tension ?. That includes reducing spacing of CAT hangers to 
approximately hangers every 120 feet from 180 feet. Maybe just insert another hanger at 90 foot location ? At the present rate of the upgrading going on now 50 years might be about right ? 
Then we have the problem of MNRR. Some one note did MNRR add extra hanger between the New Haven hanger holders as they go to constant tension ? As far as this poster knows MNRR does not exceed 100 MPH ?


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

jiml said:


> I believe both Hitachi and Siemens have products that would work well.



So far, it's just been Hitachi and Stadler, though Siemens would very likely make an electro-diesel multiple unit variant of their Desiro and Mireo if they want to compete with Stadler. Stadler has done this the most but I'm not sure if Amtrak would want an articulated design for the Northeast Regional.



Trogdor said:


> The question is what would the net cost/benefit be of dual-mode locomotives vs. standard EMUs that become regular trailers pulled by a diesel locomotive when off wire.



Amtrak looked into an existing electro-diesel locomotive used in the US (ALP-45DP) and deemed it to be too slow and heavy for corridor services. This was of course in comparison to electro-diesel multiple units.



sttom said:


> Siemens already makes dual mode locomotives so its not like they couldn't include a few of them in an order for more Viaggio cars and train sets. I also don't really get why the engine swap at Washington is that big of a deal. I've been on European trains that had to split a train and swap the engines and this was still done in about 20 minutes. If a crew change and a smoke break is included in the stop at Washington, 20 minutes isn't too much to ask.



FRA laws make it much longer to change locomotives. It wouldn't be too problematic on long distance trains like the Silvers but for corridor serives it could pose a problem.

Maybe to reduce weight instead of doing electro-diesel, Amtrak could do electro-battery. Have the batteries be powered by the overhead wires as it goes on the NEC.


----------



## Thirdrail7

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> FRA laws make it much longer to change locomotives. It wouldn't be too problematic on long distance trains like the Silvers but for corridor serives it could pose a problem.




This is at least the second time you've brought up laws regarding engines changeswithoug any sort of citation. As I previously mentioned, I'm guessing you're referring to blue flag rules.


The reality of the situation is most of the time in WAS is a result of dwell time to allow one of the busiest stations in the system to load and unload on a low-level platform and to allow trains to assume their slots on the connecting divisions.

Washington's track configuration also doesn't help and lacks the relay tracks that can expedite the change that is present in Albany or New Haven.

20-minute engine/crew changes to departure (or less---the best I've seen is 12 minutes) and servicing routinely occur in WAS, especially on trains that do not have to worry about loading passengers. Take a look at trains like 90, 92, and 50 over the last few weeks and you'll the arrival to departure time is in the 16-22 minute range.


----------



## west point

Can you imagine passengers for an Amtrak train trying to board or discharge when a VRE train is loading or discharging on the same platform ? Until the station is rebuilt as proposed the ability to clear the lower platform will not happen. All passengers going down the escalator automatically prevent exiting passengers on the platform to ride up. Also the opposite also happens. The rebuilt will have three ways for passengers to get to / from the station level.


----------



## Andrew

Who are the final bidders for the Amfleet Replacement Project?


----------



## Thirdrail7

Andrew said:


> Who are the final bidders for the Amfleet Replacement Project?



Why are you asking us? Who do you know that submitted bids?


----------



## sttom

Andrew said:


> Who are the final bidders for the Amfleet Replacement Project?


So far, we don't know. From what I can tell, there hasn't been hard reporting in about a year on this.


----------



## nullptr

sttom said:


> So far, we don't know. From what I can tell, there hasn't been hard reporting in about a year on this.



Maybe not necessarily reporting, but as recently as January the Section 305 Next Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee (NGEC) had a quote in their meeting minutes that said


> They continue to be in the bid review phase by the Amtrak technical and finance committees and it is hoped that a decision will be made by March 2020.





http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20Activities%20Reports/2020/305%20activities%20report%20-%20monthly%201-31-20.docx



Of course, there have been some disruptions since then, but I'm still a little surprised we haven't heard anything. The NGEC hasn't posted their minutes since February.


----------



## CraigDK

nullptr said:


> Of course, there have been some disruptions since then, but I'm still a little surprised we haven't heard anything. The NGEC hasn't posted their minutes since February.



I believe the minutes are posted by the board secretary, which if remember correctly changed sometime around the new year. The biweekly board meetings have also not been posted since April. Earlier in the year they were often posted a week or two after the fact. In past years they generally went up in a day or two.


----------



## Acela150

CraigDK said:


> I believe the minutes are posted by the board secretary, which if remember correctly changed sometime around the new year. The biweekly board meetings have also not been posted since April. Earlier in the year they were often posted a week or two after the fact. In past years they generally went up in a day or two.



They actually may not be meeting due to Covid-19.


----------



## CraigDK

Acela150 said:


> They actually may not be meeting due to Covid-19.



Certainly possibly. I had just always assumed that most of the meetings were done online from the start.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

An RFP is not bid , its like individual asking car dealers what you got , what do you propose for us (customer)


----------



## Mailliw

cpotisch said:


> I really don't think that a typical American long distance passenger will be willing to have a bed but no real privacy (and not just a curtain). There is reason Amtrak never ran open sections...



Well, none of the Eastern LDs are longer than a single night and people ride them in economy coach. The Canadian is 4 nights and it has open sections. This would just be an upgrade to coach. They could be used on the overnight Boston-DC.


----------



## rickycourtney

I found that Amtrak published a new FY20-FY25 Asset Line Plan document with a section called "Amfleet I Replacement / Intercity Trainset Procurement; Acquisition of Dual-Power Equipment" which has some interesting information...

In January 2019, we issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for 75 new trainsets (or railcar equivalents) to replace our fleet of 458 Amfleet I railcars, 16 ex-Metroliner railcars, and five Talgo VI trainsets jointly owned by us and the Washington state partner. The RFP also called for up to 50 additional trainsets as options. Bids have been received and are being evaluated. An award is expected later in 2020.​​The new trainsets are slated to operate on Northeast Regional, the long-distance Palmetto and a series of state corridors, including _Amtrak Cascades_, _Northeast Regional_ Virginia extensions, _Keystone Service_, _Empire Service_, _Downeaster_, _Pennsylvanian_, _Carolinian_, _Adirondack_, _Vermonter_, _Ethan Allen Express_, and New Haven-Springfield trains. As nearly half of our nationwide ridership occurs on these routes, we are enthusiastic about this once-in-a-generation opportunity to significantly improve both train performance and customer experience. Additionally, options to the base equipment order are intended to equip service growth on state corridors into the 2030s and can be used to replace the Horizon fleet.​​We seek equipment of a common trainset product family which can come in varying consist capacities and with varying propulsion types including diesel, catenary-electric and dual-power propulsion for both diesel-catenary and diesel-third rail environments. Dual power, catenary-electric consists will enable us to eliminate engine changes in Washington, DC, Philadelphia, PA and New Haven, CT. Eliminating engine changes will bring several benefits for our customers, including:​
Speeding up passenger trips through Washington through the removal of engine change time from train schedules between the NEC and stations on state corridors (and the Palmetto).
Eliminating delays in Washington Terminal through reduced platform dwell time utilization for existing frequencies, elimination of light engine movements in the First Street Tunnel, and a reduction in station-to-yard light engine movements before and after engine changes.
Continuous operation of on-board lighting, climate control and restrooms, all of which are disrupted during engine changes today.
On-board the trains, we seek improvements to reliability, performance and customer experience. Double-ended consists will reduce requirements for turnaround time on some Northeast Regional, Empire Service and other corridor trains which currently do not have engineer’s cabs on both ends of the train, providing redundancy in case of a failure in one cab through the use of a wye or loop track. Well-known problem areas for customer satisfaction and mechanical reliability such as restrooms, vestibules, HVAC systems and door systems will be addressed through new design and configuration. Semi-permanent couplings between trainset units are under consideration and would provide an additional layer of reliability for trainwide systems (such as public address systems) and climate control when passing through cars. The new equipment would be fully compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements for new-build equipment rather than grandfathered equipment, providing a better experience for customers with disabilities. We also seek a TSSSA as part of this trainset procurement which, similar to the agreement in place for ALC-42 units, would provide for stiff penalties unless a material reduction in en route failures and ready availability of spare parts are achieved.​​Since the Amfleet railcar order was placed nearly fifty years ago, most nations with advanced rail passenger networks have migrated away from individual rail cars in favor of integrated, double-ended trainsets with hardened connections between cars. Maintenance is performed at the trainset level as opposed to the individual car level, and often in modern facilities as opposed to open rail yards. Trainset units are now constructed for modular replacement; a critical failure to any one component in a railcar can be addressed through removal and replacement of that component (e.g., crane replacement of overhead HVAC unit) during an overnight servicing, instead of having to “set out” an individual railcar for days. Tasks historically assigned to major multi-year overhauls are instead performed one-at-a-time as add-ons to shorter, scheduled maintenance tasks at outlying maintenance facilities. This “continuous maintenance” program yielded positive results when we applied it to our Acela trainsets; continuous maintenance decreased downtime, allowing us to extend Acela service later on weeknights in January 2013, expand weekend Acela service in April 2017, and introduce Acela Nonstop on top of a full hourly pattern of weekday service in September 2019. As a result of this generational evolution in trainset maintenance, mechanical facilities and servicing schedules are being reviewed as part of the operational and technical evaluations of vendor bids underway.​​Funding for the trainsets will come from a variety of sources, including cash reserves, NEC operating surpluses (which can be reinvested for NEC capital uses, such as Northeast Regional fleet replacement), and state partner funding under the PRIIA 209 Equipment Capital Use Charge. We also collaborate with our state partners on applications for federal discretionary grants (such as Federal-State Partnership grants) for portions of the procurement.​​We anticipate the new base order of equipment to start entering service in the mid-2020s, with any options trainsets coming online in the late 2020s.​


----------



## frequentflyer

Sounds like EMU/DMUs to me.


----------



## west point

I worry that the union set up in the USA will make the operating and maintenance problem get worse. Just look at the Chicago mess with maintenance. As far as semi permanent connections. Might work for 8 - 10 years but then ? ? Power, communications and etc are not that different either way. As long as the semi permanent can be converted to individual later if needed .......
We have to wonder if the Amtrak has the passenger density to allow for fixed consists. If it does not the operating costs per not needed cars will wreck the push for many routes to become profitable. Example if only 4 revenue cars needed on an 8 car train then the extra crew has to be paid ?


----------



## Trogdor

west point said:


> We have to wonder if the Amtrak has the passenger density to allow for fixed consists.



On the northeast corridor, where the bulk of this fleet would operate, the answer is yes.


----------



## cocojacoby

How does the newer Tier III regulations effect this? I believe "trainsets" would be allowed higher speeds. Would this be a factor at all?


----------



## Acela150

frequentflyer said:


> Sounds like EMU/DMUs to me.



If that's the route they go, I'm sorry to say this but it would be just dumb. Amtrak just spent millions on the Sprinters for the Corridor and they're not even 10 years old yet. Granted their are a decent amount of issues with a few of them that shouldn't be happening at their age, but that's the problem with the way Amtrak utilizes their Motors. They run the living daylights out of them and then they have some kind of issue. That is the problem with anything that's "new". Their are so many computers in these things that it causes issues. AEM-7's, F40's, etc. Didn't have much in the way of computers. They would just go until they had some kind of issue arise. Which wasn't as much as it is with the Sprinters, at least with the AEM-7's to my knowledge. 

Now, what I would be ok with is something along the lines of the ALP-45DP. Which would eliminate the need for a power swap in DC and NHV. Possibly PHL. 

I'm against the concept of a trainset compared to individual cars. But they don't ask folks who have experience with the equipment what they would want, what they'd like to see, or what makes sense operationally.


----------



## Chris I

Trogdor said:


> On the northeast corridor, where the bulk of this fleet would operate, the answer is yes.


And in the NW, and in California. We've been using fixed trainsets for Cascades since the late 90s. It's time to catch up with the rest of the world.


----------



## rickycourtney

west point said:


> We have to wonder if the Amtrak has the passenger density to allow for fixed consists.


Also, semi-permanently coupled doesn't mean permanently fixed. 

Siemens says the semi-permanently coupled train cars take two people about 35 minutes to couple/uncouple. 

It's not something you'd want to do every day... but it's a lot faster than the Talgos or the Alstom Acela trainsets which require a crane and several hours to couple/uncouple.


----------



## Acela150

rickycourtney said:


> Siemens says the semi-permanently coupled train cars take two people about 35 minutes to couple/uncouple.



And pulling a Cut Bar to uncouple cars take 2 seconds. 

This is the main reason I'm against the concept of "trainsets" for trains on the NEC. If one thing goes wrong enroute, then you have an issue. I've seen it with the current Acela fleet once or twice. But, I do have to say that I'm probably fighting a losing battle here. But I seriously wish that crews that have operational experience have their opinion heard as to what would make sense operationally, and have passengers opinions heard so they can have a say on what would go into a coach.


----------



## west point

It takes more than 2 seconds to remove a car with the cut bar.
1. Set up blue flag protection.
2. go between cars to pull HEP cables and train control pyle connector. For most trains the loco control 27 point connector also stowed. 
3. Turn brake line hose off for part of train that will be moved. Also the MR air line ( second air hose). 
4. disconnect between cars curtains from vestibule. pull safety bar from storage position to safety bar location.
5. Repeat for other end of car if it is going to RIP track.
6.. Clear perspnnel between all cars.
7. Remove blue flags
8.. Now pull cut bar and signal engineer of loco to pull car(s).

Its not just going to be just 2 seconds


----------



## Chris I

Acela150 said:


> And pulling a Cut Bar to uncouple cars take 2 seconds.
> 
> This is the main reason I'm against the concept of "trainsets" for trains on the NEC. If one thing goes wrong enroute, then you have an issue. I've seen it with the current Acela fleet once or twice. But, I do have to say that I'm probably fighting a losing battle here. But I seriously wish that crews that have operational experience have their opinion heard as to what would make sense operationally, and have passengers opinions heard so they can have a say on what would go into a coach.



As a passenger, I want coupled trainsets, due to the many benefits for riders.


----------



## frequentflyer

Acela150 said:


> And pulling a Cut Bar to uncouple cars take 2 seconds.
> 
> This is the main reason I'm against the concept of "trainsets" for trains on the NEC. If one thing goes wrong enroute, then you have an issue. I've seen it with the current Acela fleet once or twice. But, I do have to say that I'm probably fighting a losing battle here. But I seriously wish that crews that have operational experience have their opinion heard as to what would make sense operationally, and have passengers opinions heard so they can have a say on what would go into a coach.



I get what you are saying about asking people who actually operate the equipment for their feedback. But this is not a new novel idea, and has been proven in Europe. European trainsets are good enough for Acela, why not Regioinal?


----------



## Acela150

west point said:


> It takes more than 2 seconds to remove a car with the cut bar.
> 1. Set up blue flag protection.
> 2. go between cars to pull HEP cables and train control pyle connector. For most trains the loco control 27 point connector also stowed.
> 3. Turn brake line hose off for part of train that will be moved. Also the MR air line ( second air hose).
> 4. disconnect between cars curtains from vestibule. pull safety bar from storage position to safety bar location.
> 5. Repeat for other end of car if it is going to RIP track.
> 6.. Clear perspnnel between all cars.
> 7. Remove blue flags
> 8.. Now pull cut bar and signal engineer of loco to pull car(s).
> 
> Its not just going to be just 2 seconds



Fair point, keep in mind that I come from freight where it really does take 2 seconds. 



frequentflyer said:


> I get what you are saying about asking people who actually operate the equipment for their feedback. But this is not a new novel idea, and has been proven in Europe. European trainsets are good enough for Acela, why not Regioinal?



Fair enough. Like I said, I know I'm fighting a losing battle.


----------



## jis

cocojacoby said:


> How does the newer Tier III regulations effect this? I believe "trainsets" would be allowed higher speeds. Would this be a factor at all?


It doesn't because none of these new sets are supposed to operate over 125mph.

They are all essentially Tier I items.

Frankly, the actual end to end running time difference is so minimal that there is little sense in spending a lot of extra money for making everything Tier III capable, when most of them will be running in relatively frequent stop service and have little opportunity to take advantage of even the minimal amount of high speed trackage that can be somehow put together on the NEC given its various real estate related issue including frequent curves, cramped track center and on and on, pre-historic catenary.

There is a reason that the Nozomi sets ar a different animal from the Hikari and Kodama sets. Learn fro the Japanese experience.

Simlarly, the Brits have the Siemens Eurostars and the Hitachi Javelins on HS-1.


----------



## rickycourtney

We're America -- we are "exceptional" -- and we don't like to learn from the experience of other countries. We insist on learning everything for ourselves.


----------



## Andrew

Would it make sense for Amtrak to use one only company to replace the entire Amfleet or go with a mixed fleet built by different companies, such as Alstom, Siemens and Stadler?


----------



## Chris I

Andrew said:


> Would it make sense for Amtrak to use one only company to replace the entire Amfleet or go with a mixed fleet built by different companies, such as Alstom, Siemens and Stadler?


There are benefits and drawbacks to both approaches. There are definitely maintenance and operational benefits to having a unified fleet, and you can negotiate lower unit prices when making large orders. However, it can be risky to put all your eggs in one basket. If this new unified fleet has defect or longevity issues, it could be hugely expensive and disruptive. Lastly, with a country this large, does it make sense to apply the same equipment on every route? Some routes have different needs and customers who demand different things.


----------



## cocojacoby

Standardization for reasons of equipment, servicing, parts, tools, interchangeability, training, etc., etc., etc.


----------



## Andrew

Amtrak is looking at DMU's and electric powered trainsets so maybe they can use Stadler for the DMU and someone else for the Regional, Keystone and Empire Services, etc. 

(I would find it hard to believe that one company could quickly manufacture 500 coaches).


----------



## PVD

Time to manufacture and deliver is often a consideration in major acquisition programs. They don't have to be winner take all. In NYC when buying transit buses a split award between NovaBus and New Flyer is not uncommon, allowing them to get into service more quickly. ex: we want to buy 500 buses.. if Nova or NF gets the whole deal maybe 2 1/2 years, split, maybe 2 years (6 month's sooner) considering companies can only build at a certain pace without incurring considerable added costs


----------



## MARC Rider

PVD said:


> Time to manufacture and deliver is often a consideration in major acquisition programs. They don't have to be winner take all. In NYC when buying transit buses a split award between NovaBus and New Flyer is not uncommon, allowing them to get into service more quickly. ex: we want to buy 500 buses.. if Nova or NF gets the whole deal maybe 2 1/2 years, split, maybe 2 years (6 month's sooner) considering companies can only build at a certain pace without incurring considerable added costs


In the Defense procurement world, the "loser" of the bidding process often gets to build some of the product, I think mainly so that our military might isn't dependent on a monopoly source. I once visited the Bath Iron Works in Maine, where they were building guided missile destroyers, and the tour guide mentioned that they were actually a subcontractor for their competitor, a shipyard in Mississippi, that actually won the contract.


----------



## jis

In rail equipment procurement usually you need to have a large volume to split orders and yet remain cost effective. I suspect Amtrak probably does not quite make the volume thing to be fully cost effective, since its funding tends to have the orders roll out in dribs and drabs. But of course we'll see. NYMTA does split orders quite regularly for the same class of cars with slightly different design coming from different vendors.

Currently, collectively they have to maintain a parts inventory for the Siemens cars. Adding another type will mean adding a completely separate set of parts inventory on an ongoing basis. That is usually also a consideration.

Really large systems acquire a license to do derivative manufacturing and then choose manufacturing outfits to sublicense it to, so they can spread out the order among multiple manufacturers. But that requires huge needs running into thousand plus cars per year usually. This is the standard practice at outfits like the Indian and Chinese railways. For example Indian Railways has the Alstom/LHB derivative cars manufactured at 4 different factories, some publicly owned and some privately owned. But then they by at least a couple of thosand cars a year, year in and year out.


----------



## railiner

I think it is a good thing to split large order's among more than one builder, for all the reasons previously cited. Like as jis pointed out, the NYMTA does. The MTA 'owns' the design, then awards contracts from several builder's to build essentially the same car. One other benefit of 'spreading the wealth', is to insure that there are more than one source of future orders...


----------



## west point

The best way for a really large order is get 2 or more bilders to build the shells. Same exact exterior and connection design but each meet the 800,000# requirement. Then specify the auxillaries to be of same dimensions for all cars and be modular for quick replacement. All modular connections the same. Provide extra spaces for A/C units in case more efficient units be developed which are usually larger in today's market. Then any builder of various parts can compete with a large performance bond say 10 years MTBF . For electrical and electronics use common connectors such as usb , coax, HDMI, etc. As well car shells have extra conduits for anything conceived in the future.


----------



## rickycourtney

In the plan Amtrak speaks to the maintenance question. The plan is to have more modular components. They also plan to have a TSSSA (Technical Support and Spares Supply Agreement) as part of the procurement. The agreement, “would provide for stiff penalties unless a material reduction in en route failures and ready availability of spare parts are achieved.”


----------



## NSC1109

Andrew said:


> Would it make sense for Amtrak to use one only company to replace the entire Amfleet or go with a mixed fleet built by different companies, such as Alstom, Siemens and Stadler?



This is exactly my area of expertise, since Supply Chain is my area of study at school.

Everything I have read this far is generally correct. Standardization is a big thing in transportation.You want something, or maybe a few somethings, that can cover as many missions as possible but at the same time, have the same parts across the board so you can keep your costs down. That’s why you see variants of aircraft in an airline fleet. The A318/319/321 are all variants of the same thing, the A320, just lengthened (321) or shortened (318/319) to cover a wide range of missions for the airlines.

At the same time, the supplier selection also has a big role in how you pick. We’ll use your three examples: Siemens, Stadler, and Alstom.

Siemens is currently building the CALIDOT order for locomotives and cars as well as the ALC-42s and SC-44s for a variety of commuter services. They have a good working relationship with Amtrak. They have an idea what Amtrak is looking for since they are replacing the P-series, and the quality they have put out is generally good. Not to mention the fact that they’re a little ahead of schedule for CALIDOT. However, this is a large order, and it might spread Siemens too thin.

Stadler hasn’t built anything for Amtrak or for heavy rail in the US (that I know of, please correct me if I am wrong). They do have experience in DMU/EMU and therefore could be an attractive candidate. But the inexperience with the US heavy rail regulations (again, correct me if I’m wrong) may result in another N-S conundrum, which wouldn’t be good.

Alstom is building the _Liberty_ trainsets, has a good working relationship with Amtrak, and is especially tuned to the limitations and specifics of the NEC that Siemens and Stadler may not necessarily have. Additionally, Alstom (I believe) also does DEMU production for Europe, so that gives them a technical advantage as well.

It would not be unheard of to split suppliers. If Amtrak can determine that the fleet needs within the NEC and outside the NEC are different, then they can have Alstom build DEMUs for the NEC and have Siemens build coaches like CALIDOT for the NN. You’ll lose your standardization, the ability to shift capacity during fluctuations in demand, and it might be more expensive (suppliers generally give a bigger discount the more you buy).

The big thing my profs taught me about procurement was this: *there is almost never a “right/wrong” answer. You have to justify the selection you make and why it’s best for the company. But you will likely never be in a situation with a clear winner. *


----------



## jiml

NSC1109 said:


> Stadler hasn’t built anything for Amtrak or for heavy rail in the US (that I know of, please correct me if I am wrong).


Texas commuter service uses Flirt trainsets.


----------



## PVD

Those are FRA compliant, IIRC


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> Those are FRA compliant, IIRC


Yes. They are compliant with the current FRA regulations after the last updates. Before that they were not.


----------



## PVD

THX


----------



## NSC1109

jiml said:


> Texas commuter service uses Flirt trainsets.



Right, I knew some commuter lines had them, but I wasn't sure if they were considered heavy or light rail.


----------



## jis

NSC1109 said:


> Right, I knew some commuter lines had them, but I wasn't sure if they were considered heavy or light rail.


According to the admittedly odd FRA definitions, Heavy Rail is what normal people call Subway. Light Rail is - well - Light Rail. What runs on main line railroad is Commuter Rail and Regional and Long Distance Service. Admittedly there is some confusion of categories in the way they define things.

What is important though, irrespective of what it is called, is whether they fall under the jurisdiction of FRA and if they do whether they meet the FRA Buff Strength regulations or not. Even if the don't they can be operation under an exemption based on Temporal Separation, like the RiverLINE in NJ. There are lines that are basically Subway lines that for weird historical reasons fall under FRA jurisdiction - like PATH in NY-NJ.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> There are lines that are basically Subway lines that for weird historical reasons fall under FRA jurisdiction - like PATH in NY-NJ.



Or, the Staten Island Railway...even though they used the same R-44 subway car as the NY Subway, they had to add high headlight, certain grab irons, and other hardware differences to meet FRA requirements.


----------



## NSC1109

jis said:


> According to the admittedly odd FRA definitions, Heavy Rail is what normal people call Subway. Light Rail is - well - Light Rail. What runs on main line railroad is Commuter Rail and Regional and Long Distance Service. Admittedly there is some confusion of categories in the way they define things.
> 
> What is important though, irrespective of what it is called, is whether they fall under the jurisdiction of FRA and if they do whether they meet the FRA Buff Strength regulations or not. Even if the don't they can be operation under an exemption based on Temporal Separation, like the RiverLINE in NJ. There are lines that are basically Subway lines that for weird historical reasons fall under FRA jurisdiction - like PATH in NY-NJ.



The issue is that I’m not sure you’re going to get temporal separation on basically any Amtrak corridor service out of Chicago. My understanding is that freight and passenger can’t be anywhere near each other in such an environment. I would presume that includes adjacent tracks as well as the one the Stadler is on.

I think it could potentially work on the NEC provided that the freight railroads play ball, but anywhere else I think it’s very unlikely, resulting in a split order.


----------



## rickycourtney

NSC1109 said:


> Stadler hasn’t built anything for Amtrak or for heavy rail in the US (that I know of, please correct me if I am wrong). They do have experience in DMU/EMU and therefore could be an attractive candidate. But the inexperience with the US heavy rail regulations (again, correct me if I’m wrong) may result in another N-S conundrum, which wouldn’t be good.


They are also building the EMU trainsets for Caltrain. Those are built to heavy/commuter/intercity/whatever rail standards. Although the point remains, they’ve only tackled relatively small orders up until now 



NSC1109 said:


> Additionally, Alstom (I believe) also does DEMU production for Europe, so that gives them a technical advantage as well.


They have. Siemens has built MU trainsets for the European market as well.


----------



## AGM.12

I believe Stadler, in their plant in Europe, built eight cars for the Rocky Mountaineer. I am not sure of the configuration of these cars, but this could be a potential Superliner replacement? They do have a plant here in the US.


----------



## jis

NSC1109 said:


> The issue is that I’m not sure you’re going to get temporal separation on basically any Amtrak corridor service out of Chicago. My understanding is that freight and passenger can’t be anywhere near each other in such an environment. I would presume that includes adjacent tracks as well as the one the Stadler is on.
> 
> I think it could potentially work on the NEC provided that the freight railroads play ball, but anywhere else I think it’s very unlikely, resulting in a split order.


You won't need temporal separation with the current Stadlers that are the evolution from what is used on the RiverLINE because they are compliant with the new FRA standards. So it is a non-issue.


----------



## Andrew

Maybe Amtrak can choose the Venture Coaches for the Cascades Service but Alstom for all of the NEC trains?


----------



## keelhauled

Amtrak isn't going to choose anything for the Cascades, that will be a Washington/Oregon order.


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> Maybe Amtrak can choose the Venture Coaches for the Cascades Service but Alstom for all of the NEC trains?


What Alstom passenger cars did you have in mind? Currently, other than the LHB cars, which are entirely manufactured in India at present, Alstom really does not have a single self standing passenger car product, other than what they have manufactured in the US based on old designs essentially handed to them. They do however have some excellent DMU/DEMU/EMU products, but all will require some tweaking for the American market.

After they merge with Bombardier's Rail Transport division they will have a bunch, almost all we are familiar with, since they are all 20th century technology products and derivatives based in North America. For single level cars, Comet/Horizon Cars anyone?


----------



## Seaboard92

Statler actually has quite a few operations in the USA/Canada now that one sits and thinks about it. Chances are they could do a good job at it. However I hope the entire contract goes to Siemens but I'm bias I have 1,000 shares in my portfolio of Siemens.


----------



## NSC1109

keelhauled said:


> Amtrak isn't going to choose anything for the Cascades, that will be a Washington/Oregon order.



Washington DOT stated that they're going to tack on to the Amtrak order, so in effect, Amtrak is going to choose for the Cascades.


----------



## NSC1109

Seaboard92 said:


> Statler actually has quite a few operations in the USA/Canada now that one sits and thinks about it. Chances are they could do a good job at it. However I hope the entire contract goes to Siemens but I'm bias I have 1,000 shares in my portfolio of Siemens.



I agree. I think Siemens is the right choice, considering it will provide Amtrak with a large standard fleet like the Amfleets were in the '70s. They've shown they can handle it and I haven't heard anything bad about the Brightline cars.


----------



## NSC1109

AGM.12 said:


> I believe Stadler, in their plant in Europe, built eight cars for the Rocky Mountaineer. I am not sure of the configuration of these cars, but this could be a potential Superliner replacement? They do have a plant here in the US.



It's possible. The dimensions are roughly the same. The RM _Goldleaf _coaches are 89', while the Supers are 85. About the same width (10 ft), and the _Goldleaf _cars are two feet higher than the Supers, at just over 18'.



https://www.stadlerrail.com/media/pdf/wrm0816e.pdf



They haven't built anything other than coaches though in that config.


----------



## Seaboard92

NSC1109 said:


> It's possible. The dimensions are roughly the same. The RM _Goldleaf _coaches are 89', while the Supers are 85. About the same width (16 ft), and the _Goldleaf _cars are two feet higher than the Supers, at just over 18'.


To be honest I don't know how successful a Superliner at 18' would be. It's not just tunnels that can cause clearance issues but also, platform canopies, and bridges.


----------



## NSC1109

Seaboard92 said:


> To be honest I don't know how successful a Superliner at 18' would be. It's not just tunnels that can cause clearance issues but also, platform canopies, and bridges.



Agreed. I’m fairly certain that unless the Supers are rebuilt, they will slowly be phased out of service in favor of longer single level trains.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

jis said:


> After they merge with Bombardier's Rail Transport division they will have a bunch, almost all we are familiar with, since they are all 20th century technology products and derivatives based in North America. For single level cars, Comet/Horizon Cars anyone?



They'll most likely get the NJT bilevel cars at the very least. Them getting the Canadian BiLevels is up to whether the Canadian antitrust authorities will let them have the Thunder Bay plant. Alstom has three manufacturing sites in Canada (Brampton, Sorel-Tracy and Ottawa). As they have announced that they will retain the La Pocatiere plant, Canadian antitrust authorities will likely not want Alstom to have an outright monopoly on Canadian railcar manufacturing so pretty likely they will be forced to give up one of their plants in exchange for the La Pocatiere plant. As Alstom plans to invest heavily in Quebec, they can give away the Brampton plant (perhaps to Stadler, and Stadler having a Canadian plant would be perfect for when GO Transit announces rolling stock orders for their RER program, especially as it lies directly on the Kitchener line, and their KISS bi-level EMU would be well-suited for GO RER). This would leave the Thunder Bay and Kingston plants to be taken by someone else. I can see Siemens getting the Kingston plant (especially as VIA has selected Siemens as their go-to provider) and Hitachi getting the Thunder Bay plant (and thus the Canadian bilevels), which would align well with Hitachi Rail's plans concerning international expansion.


----------



## railiner

NSC1109 said:


> It's possible. The dimensions are roughly the same. The RM _Goldleaf _coaches are 89', while the Supers are 85. About the same width (16 ft), and the _Goldleaf _cars are two feet higher than the Supers, at just over 18'.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.stadlerrail.com/media/pdf/wrm0816e.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> They haven't built anything other than coaches though in that config.


16 feet wide? I don't think so...somewhere between 10 feet and 10 feet 6 inches....


----------



## west point

About 18 foot Superliner type passenger cars. There are only 2 present Superliner route locations that I know of that could not operate them. That is Chicago Union station and Washington Union station. WASH due to CAT and Canopy clearances that will be corrected once the rebuilding of the platforms is complete raising the CAT and the second 1st street tunnel is build. Does anyone know of any present Superliner route that cannot operate with double stacks and 20 foot auto racks? That is clearance diagrams of plate "H"

Auto train might be a great route for 18 footers. However they would not be able to go to WASH since the 1st street tunnel does not have that clearance.
But the Chicago clearances are a very big problem. If the future possibilities of HSR into Chicago comes about then those clearances below the CAT will be needed anyway.

Now we will have to admit that some of the western stations with off main track platforms might have to trim overhead canopies. But that will be a minor expense compared to the Chicago mess. 

But until Chicago is fixed there are only 3 present Amtrak routes that could operate with 18 footers. Auto Train, Sunset, and Coast Starlight. And for equipment interchange that would require Sunset SLs restored from NOL to Sanford / Orlando. Plus somewhow get those cars for major overhauls back to Beech Grove.

Longer range befoe Chicago is fixed maybe a restoration of the Royal Palm From Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit / Toledo, Indianaopolis -- Cincinnattii - Atlanta, -- Florida.


----------



## NSC1109

railiner said:


> 16 feet wide? I don't think so...somewhere between 10 feet and 10 feet 6 inches....



Yeahhhhh I looked at the wrong line. My apologies! It has been corrected.


----------



## railiner

west point said:


> Now we will have to admit that some of the western stations with off main track platforms might have to trim overhead canopies.


The first pair of those 'ultra-domes', built for Princess Cruise Lines, from former gallery cars, was on a nationwide tour for travel agents back in the '80's. Before they could park them on the "Uncle Sam Spur" at Denver Union Station, they had to cut back the canopy. They had already cut back the other canopies to accommodate the Superliner's.


----------



## jis

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> They'll most likely get the NJT bilevel cars at the very least. Them getting the Canadian BiLevels is up to whether the Canadian antitrust authorities will let them have the Thunder Bay plant. Alstom has three manufacturing sites in Canada (Brampton, Sorel-Tracy and Ottawa). As they have announced that they will retain the La Pocatiere plant, Canadian antitrust authorities will likely not want Alstom to have an outright monopoly on Canadian railcar manufacturing so pretty likely they will be forced to give up one of their plants in exchange for the La Pocatiere plant. As Alstom plans to invest heavily in Quebec, they can give away the Brampton plant (perhaps to Stadler, and Stadler having a Canadian plant would be perfect for when GO Transit announces rolling stock orders for their RER program, especially as it lies directly on the Kitchener line, and their KISS bi-level EMU would be well-suited for GO RER). This would leave the Thunder Bay and Kingston plants to be taken by someone else. I can see Siemens getting the Kingston plant (especially as VIA has selected Siemens as their go-to provider) and Hitachi getting the Thunder Bay plant (and thus the Canadian bilevels), which would align well with Hitachi Rail's plans concerning international expansion.


All that sounds good, but in this day and age, IPR transactions are not driven by plants. It is quite conceivable that Alstom gets access to the bi-level IPR without getting the plant. It is not a huge problem converting another plant to build the bi-levels. So I think that part of the analysis is flawed at best. Indeed the IPR could be nonexclusive to Alstom, i.e. the Canadians can require giving non-exclusive access to that IPR to another Canadian company, perhaps with the plant in question. That would in general be good for competition instead of just having a single source for those cars.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

jis said:


> All that sounds good, but in this day and age, IPR transactions are not driven by plants. It is quite conceivable that Alstom gets access to the bi-level IPR without getting the plant. It is not a huge problem converting another plant to build the bi-levels. So I think that part of the analysis is flawed at best. Indeed the IPR could be nonexclusive to Alstom, i.e. the Canadians can require giving non-exclusive access to that IPR to another Canadian company, perhaps with the plant in question. That would in general be good for competition instead of just having a single source for those cars.



Given that the Canadian bilevel orders are what's been keeping the Thunder Bay plant going, should Alstom get the design then that's basically it for them, and the residents at Thunder Bay are gonna fight tooth and nail to keep the plant up. Guess we can have the Canadian bilevel car design shared between Hitachi and Alstom. Though probably I expect Hitachi to the primary handler whilst Alstom can handle the Quebec-based orders of it


----------



## jis

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> Given that the Canadian bilevel orders are what's been keeping the Thunder Bay plant going, should Alstom get the design then that's basically it for them, and the residents at Thunder Bay are gonna fight tooth and nail to keep the plant up. Guess we can have the Canadian bilevel car design shared between Hitachi and Alstom. Though probably I expect Hitachi to the primary handler whilst Alstom can handle the Quebec-based orders of it


Considering that Hitachi and Bombardier are in partnership on several European large deals including the bid for HS-2 in UK, after Bombardier Transportation and Alstom merge it is Alstom and Hitachi that will be in those partnerships. It involved a large Trenitalia order in addition to the HS-2 bid among others. I wonder if the Europeans will ask for some changes there. So far they haven;t said much AFAIK.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

jis said:


> Considering that Hitachi and Bombardier are in partnership on several European large deals including the bid for HS-2 in UK, after Bombardier Transportation and Alstom merge it is Alstom and Hitachi that will be in those partnerships. It involved a large Trenitalia order in addition to the HS-2 bid among others. I wonder if the Europeans will ask for some changes there. So far they haven;t said much AFAIK.



One of the conditions of the acquisition was that Bombardier gives away their Zefiro (in this case specifically to Hitachi) and Talent designs (I see this going to Hitachi) to another company due to their overlap with the Avelia and Coradia+X'Trapolis designs respectively (as well as their Henningsdorf plant). Hitachi and Alstom aren't gonna be partnered in the HS2 bid (besides Alstom has their own HSR design with the Avelia). Very likely the Europeans will ask for more conditions down the line, especially in Spain, the UK, Germany, Italy and even Poland as Alstom and Bombardier are pretty well-built up there. This would include limiting what designs and facilities Alstom can get out of Bombardier. Aside from the Zefiro and Talent, there's no way they would let Alstom have the Movia, TRAXX, Flexity and TWINDEXX designs as Alstom has designs that overlap with them (Metropolis, Prima, Citadis, and bilevel Coradia+X'Trapolis respectively)


----------



## 20th Century Rider

keelhauled said:


> 75 trainsets or equivalent in individual cars to replace Amfleet I/Metroliner fleet


News release appears to have been made Jan 20, 2019 or one and a half years ago. I am not a fan of Amfleet because they are claustrophobic and tight for seating and overhead bins. I don't see the rationale for that design to begin with when the whole idea of taking the train is to provide more passenger space. Is there more current news than this???








After 40-plus years, Amfleet I replacements sought - Railway Age


Amtrak on Jan. 18 released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a new fleet of single-level passenger cars to replace its dependable but decades-old, 470-unit stable of Amfleet I and ex-Metroliner cars, which were converted from electric-multiple-units years ago. The Amfleet I cars date to 1975...




www.railwayage.com


----------



## PVD

Back in the day, the thought was they looked modern and streamlined sort of like an airplane fuselage...Obviously that thinking has come and gone., for the most part, but the corrugated stainless still has some fans...


----------



## jis

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> One of the conditions of the acquisition was that Bombardier gives away their Zefiro (in this case specifically to Hitachi) and Talent designs (I see this going to Hitachi) to another company due to their overlap with the Avelia and Coradia+X'Trapolis designs respectively (as well as their Henningsdorf plant). Hitachi and Alstom aren't gonna be partnered in the HS2 bid (besides Alstom has their own HSR design with the Avelia). Very likely the Europeans will ask for more conditions down the line, especially in Spain, the UK, Germany, Italy and even Poland as Alstom and Bombardier are pretty well-built up there. This would include limiting what designs and facilities Alstom can get out of Bombardier. Aside from the Zefiro and Talent, there's no way they would let Alstom have the Movia, TRAXX, Flexity and TWINDEXX designs as Alstom has designs that overlap with them (Metropolis, Prima, Citadis, and bilevel Coradia+X'Trapolis respectively)


Very good info. Thanks!

What I find interesting is that the Europeans are willing to give away a huge stash of European technology to a Japanese company in order to try to maintain one globally competitive European company. It would be ironic if tomorrow Hitachi eats the new Alstom's lunch using the suite of Bombardier technology that was essentially gifted to them by the Europeans, and Europe is left with nothing, or are stuck bailing out Alstom one more time..


----------



## MARC Rider

20th Century Rider said:


> I am not a fan of Amfleet because they are claustrophobic and tight for seating and overhead bins. I don't see the rationale for that design to begin with when the whole idea of taking the train is to provide more passenger space. Is there more current news than this???



Actually, I have to disagree. I don't find the Amfleets to be particularly claustrophobic. The seating space is as roomy as the heritage cars they replaced, and I've had no problems with the capacity of the overhead luggage racks. For one thing, they're open racks, not bins, so I can easily fit a pair of 210 cm cross country skis up there. There's plenty enough room for any kind of suitcase that someone can reasonably carry aboard, there's a railing that keeps luggage from sliding off the rack, and it seems to me that the racks are a bit lower and are easier to hoist stuff on to, as opposed to old fashioned open luggage racks of the type that you can still find on the old single-level MARC cars. I also like the indirect lighting, which makes the interior much more restful and calming than, say, the Acelas, whose bright overhead lights and white walls has all the ambiance of those old single-level MARC commuter cars. 

That said, the Amfleet windows are definitely too small, and the setup on the Am-1s, where one row of seats in the middle has absolutely no window, would be a bit claustrophobic for those forced to sit in that row. 

However, given that these cars were put into service in 1975 and are still running strong is pretty amazing. I hope that when they're retired, a lot of them end up in museums and on heritage railways so that future generations can see what we rode on for close to 50 years.[/QUOTE]


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

jis said:


> Very good info. Thanks!
> 
> What I find interesting is that the Europeans are willing to give away a huge stash of European technology to a Japanese company in order to try to maintain one globally competitive European company. It would be ironic if tomorrow Hitachi eats the new Alstom's lunch using the suite of Bombardier technology that was essentially gifted to them by the Europeans, and Europe is left with nothing, or are stuck bailing out Alstom one more time..



They did let Hitachi buy AnsaldoBreda+STS (the only other company who would have brought it would have been CRRC, which was the catalyst for Alstom's failed merger with Siemens and now their acquisition of Bombardier). Hitachi has stated that the parts of Europe they desire to serve are the German, Benelux and Scandinavian markets (in addition to the existing UK and Italian markets). For Germany, I see Hitachi getting most of Bombardier's facilities (including their Kassel and Bautzen plants), Siemens gets some (including their Henningsdorf plant), and Alstom gets the rest (such as the Görlitz plant). For Austria and Switzerland, I don't really see Alstom really breaking into those two markets, so their facilities in Villeneuve and Zürich Switzerland and Vienna Austria facilities can be taken by Hitachi. Hitachi can serve the Benelux market by acquiring Bombardier's Crespin France plant. Scandinavia is gonna be complicated as both Bombardier and Alstom have a sizeable number of facilities but they're all service centers. Perhaps what could be done is Hitachi to get Bombardier's four Västerås facilities (including their manufacturing facility), their Göteborg (Alstom has two in the city), Luleå service center, and the Stockholm engineering site. The rest are a tossup between the two (though I could see Alstom get the Kalmar site and restart manufacturing there to compete with Hitachi should they get the Västerås plant as it turns out that all Bombardier did to the former Kalmar Verkstad site was reduce it to a service center).


----------



## jis

Here is a nice article in _Railway Age_ on the _Alstom_ acquisition of _Bombardier Transportation_ and what concessions were agreed upon to meet EU's anti-competitive concerns.









EC Approves Alstom’s Bombardier Transportation Acquisition - Railway Age


The European Commission (EC) has approved Alstom’s bid to take over rival Bombardier Transportation, a move which will create the second largest manufacturer in the rail sector behind CRRC.




www.railwayage.com





There is another more recent article on Alstom's concerns with Bombardier Transportation's poor market results.









Alstom to Consider Weak Bombardier Transportation Results in Takeover Talks - Railway Age


Alstom says it will “take into account the consequences” of the operating and financial developments at Bombardier Transportation in forthcoming takeover discussions after the company reported an adjusted Ebit loss of $383 million in the second quarter of 2020.




www.railwayage.com





Mods: It might be time to split this Alstom-Bomnbardier thing into a separate thread since it has little to do with Amtrak or Amfleet I replacement except perhaps peripherally, while it has immense effect on the the worldwide rail equipment market scene.


----------



## railiner

MARC Rider said:


> Actually, I have to disagree. I don't find the Amfleets to be particularly claustrophobic. The seating space is as roomy as the heritage cars they replaced, and I've had no problems with the capacity of the overhead luggage racks. For one thing, they're open racks, not bins, so I can easily fit a pair of 210 cm cross country skis up there. There's plenty enough room for any kind of suitcase that someone can reasonably carry aboard, there's a railing that keeps luggage from sliding off the rack, and it seems to me that the racks are a bit lower and are easier to hoist stuff on to, as opposed to old fashioned open luggage racks of the type that you can still find on the old single-level MARC cars. I also like the indirect lighting, which makes the interior much more restful and calming than, say, the Acelas, whose bright overhead lights and white walls has all the ambiance of those old single-level MARC commuter cars.
> 
> That said, the Amfleet windows are definitely too small, and the setup on the Am-1s, where one row of seats in the middle has absolutely no window, would be a bit claustrophobic for those forced to sit in that row.
> 
> However, given that these cars were put into service in 1975 and are still running strong is pretty amazing. I hope that when they're retired, a lot of them end up in museums and on heritage railways so that future generations can see what we rode on for close to 50 years.


[/QUOTE]
Totally agree with your observation...I like the Amfleet design very much. They still seem 'modern' to my eye. I think the overhead racks are roomy enough to crawl into, and sleep in...and indeed before they installed those extra 'baffles', some folks did. I like the original carpeted and flat ceiling panels better than when they were 'modernized'. I find the indirect 'cove lighting' restful, too. And the steady 'whoosh' from the A/C vents blankets other sounds to put me right to sleep. And I'm one of those PVD referenced above, as liking the corrugated and polished stainless steel look...


----------



## cocojacoby

west point said:


> About 18 foot Superliner type passenger cars. There are only 2 present Superliner route locations that I know of that could not operate them. That is Chicago Union station and Washington Union station. WASH due to CAT and Canopy clearances that will be corrected once the rebuilding of the platforms is complete raising the CAT and the second 1st street tunnel is build. Does anyone know of any present Superliner route that cannot operate with double stacks and 20 foot auto racks? That is clearance diagrams of plate "H"


Do you think it's possible to just lower the tracks in Chicago Union Station? Would there be many obstructions a couple of feet under the tracks?

If Amtrak did go this way the efficiency would be really impressive. It would be like putting one Viewliner sleeper on top of another (maybe minus two roomettes for the stairwell). You could even have pass-throughs on both levels.


----------



## Seaboard92

cocojacoby said:


> Do you think it's possible to just lower the tracks in Chicago Union Station? Would there be many obstructions a couple of feet under the tracks?
> 
> If Amtrak did go this way the efficiency would be really impressive. It would be like putting one Viewliner sleeper on top of another (maybe minus two roomettes for the stair well. You could even have pass-throughs on both levels.



The only reason I think they would have a lot of trouble with this is the fact that CUS is one of the busiest stations in the system. On the southern side you have 12 LD's, 8 MI trains, 8 STL Trains, and 8 IL Trains. And lets not forget the Empire Builder sends two trains thru the station daily, and one Hiawatha set goes to the yard once a day. Then you have the gigantic amount of Metra BNSF line trains using the south side. And a few SWS, and heritage corridor trains. So lowering the tracks would be very difficult without causing a massive service disruption of some sorts. Even if you raise clearances it will be a massive disruption.


----------



## MisterUptempo

Seaboard92 said:


> The only reason I think they would have a lot of trouble with this is the fact that CUS is one of the busiest stations in the system. On the southern side you have 12 LD's, 8 MI trains, 8 STL Trains, and 8 IL Trains. And lets not forget the Empire Builder sends two trains thru the station daily, and one Hiawatha set goes to the yard once a day. Then you have the gigantic amount of Metra BNSF line trains using the south side. And a few SWS, and heritage corridor trains. So lowering the tracks would be very difficult without causing a massive service disruption of some sorts. Even if you raise clearances it will be a massive disruption.


Also, if things proceed as planned, the disused mail platform on the south side will be converted into two platforms servicing four through tracks. Access to those platforms, as well as the waiting areas for the trains using the new platforms, will be located under the tracks and platforms. Lowering the tracks will not happen.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't Amtrak and CDOT go after the owners of the buildings that sit atop the tracks to rebuild the ceilings that were crumbling and had caused injuries to passengers? Perhaps modification of the clearance could be part of the deal, if technically feasible?


----------



## sttom

As for the Stadler bi level cars, there are some differences between it and the Superliners, along with Siemens Viaggio Twin. The Stadler cars are ~2 feet taller than a Superliner and ~4 feet longer than a Superliner. From the diagrams on the brochure, the Stadler cars look like they are two single level cars stacked on top of each other whereas the Superliners have a low floor section. The Viaggio Twin is basically a multilevel car that is as tall as a Santa Fe Hi Level car and ~19 inches longer. As for which one of the two could be adapted into a Superliner compatible variant, that's up to the bidding process and engineers to hash out. But they would likely be the favorites to build more Superliner compatible equipment unless Alstom modernizes the designs they've accumulated over the years. And with Alstom that seems like a big if. They seem to have gone entirely into the direction of EMUs if you look at their products and services section on their website. Given that the rail manufacturing industry is consolidating into a handful of competent and reputable companies, I see Stadler and Siemens being the ones to stick around since they have a diverse number of products, the ability to adapt their designs and will make "custom designs" when needed. I do think spreading the orders between multiple companies would be a good thing just to prevent Siemens from becoming a monopoly and whomever survives just being the company that picks up the scraps that Siemens doesn't have the capacity for. But this would require the federal government have 1 design for single level cars, multilevel cars and bilevel cars and require that these designs for any train order that is buying individual cars with federal money use 1 of the three basic designs. And have the designs be licensed to whatever manufacture wins the various contracts. But a healthy industry that lacks a monopoly is going to require a consistent stream of federal money going into the rail industry instead of doing things in fits and starts every other decade.


----------



## frequentflyer

I know Stadler/Cruise cars are rated for at least 79mph running, but they do not operate at that speed. The Superliners were beautifully engineered to have a low CG. Send the Stadler cars on the CONO on some bad CN track at 79 mph then get back to me.


----------



## sttom

Its extremely unlikely that Amtrak would want a car that is a 1 to 1 match to the existing Gold Leaf cars. What is likely to happen is adapting it to the requirements Amtrak would put on the project. Which would mean taking the closest existing design the company has and fitting it to the requirements. There is a reason why things are manufactured to templates. Its easier and takes less time to adapt an existing design than to it is to redesign the wheel every time consumer tastes change slightly. For example, even the new Venture cars are not the exact same as the equipment used by the Austrian Railways or even exactly the same between the California ones and the Midwest ones.


----------



## rickycourtney

I just don't see Amtrak buying new bi-level equipment to replace the Superliners. They might be better for sightseeing purposes, but they're not ideal for people who use wheelchairs.

Yes, they have "accessible" roomettes and coach seating areas... but those limit people who use wheelchairs or people with limited mobility to use only a very small portion of the train. They don't have the freedom to visit the lounge car, the cafe, or the dining car. In fact, they must ask an employee to purchase food for them if they want to eat or have a drink.

By comparison, in single-level cars, everyone has the freedom to move about the train on their own schedule.

It reminds me very much about the national discussion around wheelchair lifts on buses. Many cities wanted to only provide "paratransit" services to those using wheelchairs. It provided a way to get around, but they required reservations. Once wheelchair lifts were installed, it gave everyone the freedom to travel where they wanted, when they wanted.


----------



## PVD

Even the single level train have very limited access for regular wheelchairs. and full width walkers. If you are in a sleeper, you can get from the H room in the car used as the diner vestibule, but not from any further sleepers. Depending where a cafe car is, the same may apply from the coaches.


----------



## NES28

west point said:


> Does anyone know of any present Superliner route that cannot operate with double stacks and 20 foot auto racks?


Responding to West Point's August 2 post one place that I am aware of that can accommodate Superliners but not auto racks is at the famous 3 level crossing on the former Seaboard route just south of Main Street Station in Richmond. Virginia's plan is to re-route all passenger trains to the south this way (the S Line) reducing freight conflicts on the A Line as well as serving downtown. The Auto Train must stay on the A Line. 
Regarding Chicago Union Station, don't even think about running anything taller than a Superliner (or Metra gallery car.


----------



## west point

NES28: Thanks for that about the 3 level crossing. That really hurts any consideration of having thru cars from the Capitol to Meteor with Superliners. However I suspect that Capitol may go single level once the Siemens single level cars are in service in large numbers ?

A possible problem of lowering the tracks at CHI Union station is that it might put the tracks below the water level of the Chicago river. Remember the great flood of the old access subways there in the past. 
Now those in the know is there is a present basement below the passenger level. I seem to remember that there was a slopped baggage ramp there that went under the passenger level ? ?


----------



## PVD

Switching the CL has come up before, and is always worth a look. When the Siemens cars are all in, hopefully enough single level are freed up, with enough Horizon available for refurb into LD configuration. Since I believe they have manual doors, they are better off on a long haul than a corridor anyway. Food service and sleepers we have, and the concept of a through sleeper off the Penn becomes possible, although I don't know the timekeeping well enough to say whether or not it would be a good idea.


----------



## NSC1109

west point said:


> NES28: Thanks for that about the 3 level crossing. That really hurts any consideration of having thru cars from the Capitol to Meteor with Superliners. However I suspect that Capitol may go single level once the Siemens single level cars are in service in large numbers ?
> 
> A possible problem of lowering the tracks at CHI Union station is that it might put the tracks below the water level of the Chicago river. Remember the great flood of the old access subways there in the past.
> Now those in the know is there is a present basement below the passenger level. I seem to remember that there was a slopped baggage ramp there that went under the passenger level ? ?



Yeah there are ramps that slope down at CUS. I think they’re used by both train crews and the bag guys running stuff to and from the train so they don’t deal with the mess in the waiting areas.


----------



## MARC Rider

NSC1109 said:


> Yeah there are ramps that slope down at CUS. I think they’re used by both train crews and the bag guys running stuff to and from the train so they don’t deal with the mess in the waiting areas.


Yes, I was once taken down there when my checked baggage arrived a day before I did and was taken out of the lost and found closet upstairs.


----------



## Mailliw

PVD said:


> Even the single level train have very limited access for regular wheelchairs. and full width walkers. If you are in a sleeper, you can get from the H room in the car used as the diner vestibule, but not from any further sleepers. Depending where a cafe car is, the same may apply from the coaches.


The Siemens Venture cars actually exceed ADA requirements and provide disabled access to the entire train set.


----------



## PVD

The FRA is studying new guidelines which expand access, and recognize both shifts in population, and the changes in mobility aids (like more WhMD) Would expect seeing much of this in the next gen of single level cars..


----------



## daybeers

sttom said:


> Its extremely unlikely that Amtrak would want a car that is a 1 to 1 match to the existing Gold Leaf cars. What is likely to happen is adapting it to the requirements Amtrak would put on the project. Which would mean taking the closest existing design the company has and fitting it to the requirements. There is a reason why things are manufactured to templates. Its easier and takes less time to adapt an existing design than to it is to redesign the wheel every time consumer tastes change slightly. For example, even the new Venture cars are not the exact same as the equipment used by the Austrian Railways or even exactly the same between the California ones and the Midwest ones.





Mailliw said:


> The Siemens Venture cars actually exceed ADA requirements and provide disabled access to the entire train set.





PVD said:


> The FRA is studying new guidelines which expand access, and recognize both shifts in population, and the changes in mobility aids (like more WhMD) Would expect seeing much of this in the next gen of single level cars..


I can tell you there will most likely be more orders for Venture cars with even more expanded access, namely in the bathrooms for large motorized wheelchairs.


----------



## PVD

It is certainly a leading contender. The FRA report is very detailed


https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2020-07/Inclusive%20and%20Universal%20Accessible%20Design%20Guidelines%20for%20Next%20Gen%20Passenger%20Rail-A.pdf


----------



## sttom

daybeers said:


> I can tell you there will most likely be more orders for Venture cars with even more expanded access, namely in the bathrooms for large motorized wheelchairs.


This doesn't exclude the possibility of more bilevel or multilevel cars being built. Chair lifts could be included and the report above shows that the FRA is looking into the possibility of including them in multilevel and bilevel cars. The questions that would follow are is putting a chair lift in trains feasible, if so should it be considered a reasonable accommodation or not and is keeping bilevel cars worth the extra capacity and good for viewing the scenery. The last one is a solid yes, the the capacity is a yes, and the last one is on the FRA and potentially Congress. 

If Amtrak were to go all single level, I fully expect them to botch it. They already have a car shortage, replacing the capacity of 2 Superliners would require at least 3 single level cars. I really doubt Amtrak leadership would be smart enough or have a solid enough back bone to argue for what will seem like fleet expansion when it is really capacity preservation. This is on top of Amtrak needing more cars in general and Congress not being a home to rationality. 

My only issue with pinning ourselves to Siemens is the possibility of building a monopoly on rail equipment in this country. Monopolies are not a good thing to entertain, they can sour and I'd rather not risk it.


----------



## jis

Mailliw said:


> The Siemens Venture cars actually exceed ADA requirements and provide disabled access to the entire train set.


Indeed, and using regular wheelchairs.

The Venture and Brightline cars will require relatively minor tweaks to meet the new standards being discussed by the FRA alluded to by @PVD.

Bi-Level cars will be a problem unless they can get the "elevator" thing figured out.


----------



## daybeers

daybeers said:


> I can tell you there will most likely be more orders for Venture cars with even more expanded access, namely in the bathrooms for large motorized wheelchairs.


I am alluding to a 60" turning radius inside the bathroom for wheelchairs.

I agree, bi-levels are a problem until they can get the elevator figured out. How do carriers to it in Europe with bi-levels and accessibility?


----------



## jis

daybeers said:


> I agree, bi-levels are a problem until they can get the elevator figured out. How do carriers to it in Europe with bi-levels and accessibility?


They don't. European accessibility laws do not require such. Indeed there is relatively little level boarding in Europe either. Almost evreything requires stepping up into the car from the platform.


----------



## joelkfla

Mailliw said:


> The Siemens Venture cars actually exceed ADA requirements and provide disabled access to the entire train set.


They're coaches. Can roomettes be placed along both sides of a car, and still leave enough room for an ADA-compliant aisle down the middle? There's already barely room to stand between the deployed lower berth and the wall of the compartment.

And then there's the issue of the transitions between the center aisle in the roomettes section and the side aisle in the bedrooms section, and back to the centered door at the end of the car, which might require the elimination of at least one room to accommodate the curves. And if it is theoretically possible, does a design exist that has been produced and placed in service anywhere in the world, or would it require starting from scratch?


----------



## daybeers

jis said:


> They don't. European accessibility laws do not require such. Indeed there is relatively little level boarding in Europe either. Almost evreything requires stepping up into the car from the platform.


What?! That's so silly! How do those with wheelchairs get around? I know the ADA has its issues but at least we have level boarding in many places now.


----------



## rickycourtney

Yeah, glancing at that FRA report (thanks for the link PVD!) the potential issues with adding an elevator to a bi-level car are pretty significant. 

The FRA would want the elevator to continue to function after a high-velocity "acceleration event" (in other words, a crash), they've never been tested at higher speeds (remember, the SWC goes 90 mph), and they need to be able to carry 800 lbs. They also pointed out that are conflicting requirements between building elevator requirements and railroad regulations, so there would need to be an effort to harmonize standards and requirements.



sttom said:


> My only issue with pinning ourselves to Siemens is the possibility of building a monopoly on rail equipment in this country. Monopolies are not a good thing to entertain, they can sour and I'd rather not risk it.


No offense, but I think that concern is a bit overblown. There is strong competition to Siemens in the global railcar market and in North America too.

I think a lot of people are pulling for them because they have a track record for delivering a good, proven product, on time and at the agreed cost.

It's the exact opposite of the CAF Viewliner debacle. For the record, if that whole project wasn't so badly botched, they would be a serious contender to build the Amfleet II/Superliner replacements.


----------



## jis

daybeers said:


> What?! That's so silly! How do those with wheelchairs get around? I know the ADA has its issues but at least we have level boarding in many places now.


Just like we do here at low level platform stations. With wheel chair lifts or with appropriate bridge plates for a short segment of higher platform. US is actually at least aspirationally one of the most disabled friendly places.

Incidentally, the UK is much better than continental Europe when it comes to level boarding, but still it is nowhere near universal and nowhere near about to become so.

As for bilevels, Except for a few exceptions like Finland, Europe mostly has multi-level cars, with a middle level like the NJT MLVs, with door vestibule at the middle level. Accommodation is provided for Wheelchairs at the middle level adjacent to a suitably equipped toilet. But getting into the middle level from a standard platform is a different matter altogether.


----------



## PVD

couple of things to note: looking at 800lb lift/ramp capacity up from 600, excluding sleepers from most of the discussion, having seating to accommodate obese


----------



## Anthony V

PVD said:


> Switching the CL has come up before, and is always worth a look. When the Siemens cars are all in, hopefully enough single level are freed up, with enough Horizon available for refurb into LD configuration. Since I believe they have manual doors, they are better off on a long haul than a corridor anyway. Food service and sleepers we have, and the concept of a through sleeper off the Penn becomes possible, although I don't know the timekeeping well enough to say whether or not it would be a good idea.


If the Capitol Limited goes single level, that should provide enough Superliners to make the Sunset Limited daily. UP has since done a lot of the upgrades they asked for in 2010 themselves. The only barriers to daily service on the SL today are lack of Superliners and adequate funding.


----------



## jis

Anthony V said:


> If the Capitol Limited goes single level, that should provide enough Superliners to make the Sunset Limited daily. UP has since done a lot of the upgrades they asked for in 2010 themselves. The only barriers to daily service on the SL today are lack of Superliners and adequate funding.


And of course starting and conclusion of negotiations with UP to do so. Last time as I recall it was that negotiation stage where the thing blew up. Until that happens we don;t even know what the bill will be.


----------



## railiner

Some of the Alaska 'ultra-dome' cars already have wheelchair lifts to enable access between the two levels of the car...


----------



## west point

CAF has even screwed up the New Calendonia overnight trains as there is a lot of nagging problem that it does not seem to want to fix. o not know the number of cars but suspect it is around 40 cars total. That includes full sleepers, couchettes, and coaches.


----------



## rickycourtney

railiner said:


> Some of the Alaska 'ultra-dome' cars already have wheelchair lifts to enable access between the two levels of the car...


Yeah I didn’t know that until reading that FRA report on wheelchair access.

The elevators are in cars built by Colorado Railcar for the Alaska Railroad, Rocky Mountaineer and Holland America. Stadler also built a bilevel car with an elevator for Rocky Mountaineer. 

The report details some of the issues with the elevators on those Stadler cars... but they’re an interesting proof of concept.


----------



## jrud

As another data point, the new Caltrain Stadler EMUs have wheelchair lifts to provide access to the lower and intermediate levels for the entire length of the train (now up to seven from six cars). With only one rest room per train and provision for boarding on both of these levels, this is necessary.



https://www.stadlerrail.com/media/pdf/kcal0716us.pdf


----------



## jis

west point said:


> CAF has even screwed up the New Calendonia overnight trains as there is a lot of nagging problem that it does not seem to want to fix. o not know the number of cars but suspect it is around 40 cars total. That includes full sleepers, couchettes, and coaches.


And this after all the delays getting them up and running too. But that part about delays in getting things up and running seems to be [ar fopr the course for everything in the UK these days.


----------



## jiml

west point said:


> CAF has even screwed up the New Calendonia overnight trains as there is a lot of nagging problem that it does not seem to want to fix. o not know the number of cars but suspect it is around 40 cars total. That includes full sleepers, couchettes, and coaches.


If you mean the _Caledonian Sleeper_ in the UK, you're correct. I don't think New Caledonia has any trains.


----------



## Andrew

Would it make sense for Amtrak to use a version of the new Acela cars for the next generation of Amfleet coaches? Alstom already has a lot of experience with the Northeast Corridor.


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> Would it make sense for Amtrak to use a version of the new Acela cars for the next generation of Amfleet coaches? Alstom already has a lot of experience with the Northeast Corridor.


No. Amfleet replacements are unlikely to be Jacobs truck articulated things, and those cars are much shorter than the standard 85' cars too.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> No. Amfleet replacements are unlikely to be Jacobs truck articulated things, and those cars are much shorter than the standard 85' cars too.



How long are the new Acela coaches? 

OK, than if you had to predict, what do you think that Amtrak will honestly do? For example, would it make sense for Amtrak to use one company, such as Siemens, for the dual powered trains, and another, such as Alstom, for the electric powered trains, including the Keystone?

Also, regarding Motive Power, do you think that Amtrak will use bi-mode trains, such as the Hitachi 800, or dual-powered locomotives, such as modified Charger?


----------



## jis

Fortunately I don't have to predict. Since you are into predicting, go for it.


----------



## Andrew

Either Siemens gets the contract for all of the new Amfleet coaches or Siemens gets to build new Cascades trains and Alstom will build the coaches that operate on the Northeast Corridor, such as the Regional.

I'm pretty sure that the Venture coaches do not meet the platform levels of Penn Station.


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> I'm pretty sure that the Venture coaches do not meet the platform levels of Penn Station.


They actually do. You really need to change your information provider


----------



## Andrew

I thought that Venture coaches have a platform height of 4 feet but the Amfleets in the NEC are 51 inches?


----------



## jis

Standard American high level platform height is 4'. Specially given the auto deployed bridge plates which are standard equipment in the Siemens cars that 3" difference does not matter. That is well within the variation the bridge plates can handle. And for those that are not rolling a wheel chair on board of course a 3" difference and more is something they deal with at almost every NEC station even with Amfleets, since the track - platform alignment is not that precise anyway. Have'nt you ever ridden a train on the NEC?


----------



## Andrew

I would hope that the auto deployed bridge plates are sturdy enough to last several decades of daily use! 

I just wonder when Amtrak will announce which company they have chosen.


----------



## NSC1109

Andrew said:


> I would hope that the auto deployed bridge plates are sturdy enough to last several decades of daily use!
> 
> I just wonder when Amtrak will announce which company they have chosen.



When they’re ready to. Procurement folks play their cards pretty close to the vest especially when it’s something of this scale. When Amtrak is ready to announce who they’re going with, we will know. It’s not gonna be some press release that’s going to get buried either. It’ll be all over their social media.


----------



## PVD

The company/companies involved will usually post press releases also, as will any state that will see considerable economic activity resulting from the award.


----------



## railiner

PVD said:


> , as will any state that will see considerable economic activity resulting from the award.


Especially before an election, eh?


----------



## cocojacoby

jis said:


> Standard American high level platform height is 4'. Specially given the auto deployed bridge plates which are standard equipment in the Siemens cars that 3" difference does not matter. That is well within the variation the bridge plates can handle. And for those that are not rolling a wheel chair on board of course a 3" difference and more is something they deal with at almost every NEC station even with Amfleets, since the track - platform alignment is not that precise anyway. Have'nt you ever ridden a train on the NEC?



I have seen railcars that have the capability to rise and lower automatically to match platform heights. Don't know if these cars or Amfleet II have/will have that feature.


----------



## jis

cocojacoby said:


> I have seen railcars that have the capability to rise and lower automatically to match platform heights. Don't know if these cars or Amfleet II have/will have that feature.


They don't.


----------



## NSC1109

Andrew said:


> I would hope that the auto deployed bridge plates are sturdy enough to last several decades of daily use!
> 
> I just wonder when Amtrak will announce which company they have chosen.





http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20Activities%20Reports/2020/August/305%20activities%20report%20-%20monthly%207-31-20.pdf



Charlie King at Amtrak confirms that they're keeping the lid tight, but they are working through some “technical packages” and apparently they hope to make an announcement by the end of the summer.

They also appear to confirm that WSDOT will be tacking on to the Amtrak order.


----------



## sttom

rickycourtney said:


> No offense, but I think that concern is a bit overblown. There is strong competition to Siemens in the global railcar market and in North America too.
> 
> I think a lot of people are pulling for them because they have a track record for delivering a good, proven product, on time and at the agreed cost.
> 
> It's the exact opposite of the CAF Viewliner debacle. For the record, if that whole project wasn't so badly botched, they would be a serious contender to build the Amfleet II/Superliner replacements.



With our buy America requirements and Siemens seeming to be the only long standing rail equipment manufacturer, it very much can become a monopoly, at least in the US. Globally it won't, but why should we make it, or any company the default choice in this country? We aren't likely to get rid of the buy American rule and setting up new manufacturing capacity is fairly difficult which is part of what hurt CAF. So if Amtrak and the states pick Siemens and only Siemens, and local governments go for Siemens LRVs, who is going to survive the dry spells in rail spending? Siemens will for sure, but who else will? That is the problem I have with only selecting Siemens is we will eventually build a local monopoly with high barriers to entry for competition. 

As for botching an all single level replacement, I'm not talking about anything on the manufacturer side, I'm talking about the number of cars ordered in general. A single level replacement would require at least 50% more pieces of individual equipment which will have to be funded by Congress. And Congress is not a rational place, so explaining to them why they will need 720 new cars instead of 480 is going to go over about as well as a lead balloon. And I seriously doubt that Amtrak leadership will be able or willing to explain why they would need that many new cars and why they would need more beyond that since a single level car will have less capacity than a bilevel car and there is already an equipment shortage, a transition and Congress's willful stupidity when it comes to transportation will just make that worse.


----------



## sttom

daybeers said:


> I am alluding to a 60" turning radius inside the bathroom for wheelchairs.
> 
> I agree, bi-levels are a problem until they can get the elevator figured out. How do carriers to it in Europe with bi-levels and accessibility?


Putting in chair lifts will also be an if until a proper study can be done as to whether or not it is feasible for them to be put into cars and under what circumstances would they be required, if any. As other people have pointed out, the aisles in sleeping cars are fairly narrow and part of the logic behind non discrimination laws is to increase access to previously excluded groups, but not in a way that would generally make business harder just for the sake of expanding access. Which would make the question that needs to be answered is can any sleeping car be designed in a way that preserves current room dimensions and have a wheel chair accessible aisle and fit on the railways? Answering that question will be on the people doing the study so we'll have to wait and see what is concluded. 

I know on most overnight trains in Europe and even some day trains, they don't really expect passengers to move between cars unless there is a dining car on the train, which really varies between railways. So other than crew, no one really is moving between the cars on some trains since there isn't a reason to. Which means accessibility between cars is less of a concern.


----------



## PVD

A very large part of of a railcar is made up of components sourced from other suppliers and assembled by the prime. There are certainly car builders in the US aside from that can fabricate shells and assemble cars, Bombardier in Plattsburgh, Alstom in Hornell (subject to marriage vows), Kawasaki in Lincoln, NE and Yonkers, although they have been a subway car builder to date, Stadler, volume ability tbd CAF, we are living through that....CRRC, Hyundai/Rotem


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> A very large part of of a railcar is made up of components sourced from other suppliers and assembled by the prime. There are certainly car builders in the US aside from that can fabricate shells and assemble cars, Bombardier in Plattsburgh, Alstom in Hornell (subject to marriage vows), Kawasaki in Lincoln, NE and Yonkers, although they have been a subway car builder to date, Stadler, volume ability tbd CAF, we are living through that....CRRC, Hyundai/Rotem


In the global reality of things, I think we can safely discount the possibility of CRRC getting another order in the US for the foreseeable future.


----------



## PVD

Fair point, but they have quite a bit going on in the US already. By the time that runs out, things could be different. If they are employing people in this country, and buying the components from US sources, people might have short memories, or seem to put the blinders on.


----------



## rickycourtney

sttom said:


> With our buy America requirements and Siemens seeming to be the only long standing rail equipment manufacturer, it very much can become a monopoly, at least in the US. Globally it won't, but why should we make it, or any company the default choice in this country? We aren't likely to get rid of the buy American rule and setting up new manufacturing capacity is fairly difficult which is part of what hurt CAF. So if Amtrak and the states pick Siemens and only Siemens, and local governments go for Siemens LRVs, who is going to survive the dry spells in rail spending? Siemens will for sure, but who else will? That is the problem I have with only selecting Siemens is we will eventually build a local monopoly with high barriers to entry for competition.


You're totally ignoring the fact that there are several other companies that are established here in the US.

Building off what PVD said...
Bombardier has been providing a seemingly endless stream of its iconic and Buy America-compliant BiLevel coaches to American customers for nearly three decades. Alstom has a plant in Hornell that's making the next-gen Acela and previously built the Surfliner cars and more than 1,000 R160 cars for the NYC Subway. Those two companies are about to merge into one mega-company that will challenge Siemens and CRRC on the world (and US) stage. I'm sure they will survive the "dry spells in rail spending."

Beyond that, Hyundai Rotem, Kawasaki, and Stadler all have recently built equipment for the US market... and are major international players (especially Kawasaki).



sttom said:


> part of the logic behind non discrimination laws is to increase access to previously excluded groups, but not in a way that would generally make business harder just for the sake of expanding access.


The FRA just published a lengthy report that we were discussing that concluded, "the next generation of passenger rail vehicles can be designed to be more inclusive and universal, providing accessibility for passengers using WhMD (wheeled mobility devices)." Clearly the thinking on accessibility is shifting from that definition you shared.

Plus you're discussing sleeping cars... which Amtrak isn't even contemplating purchasing at this time. The leadership clearly wants more clarity on the future of the long-distance network before investing in new equipment.


----------



## me_little_me

PVD said:


> A very large part of of a railcar is made up of components sourced from other suppliers and assembled by the prime. There are certainly car builders in the US aside from that can fabricate shells and assemble cars, Bombardier in Plattsburgh, Alstom in Hornell (subject to marriage vows), Kawasaki in Lincoln, NE and Yonkers, although they have been a subway car builder to date, Stadler, volume ability tbd CAF, we are living through that....CRRC, Hyundai/Rotem


Then, of course, should there be no US competitors, a future congress can change the Buy-American act or modify it to allow portions built in other countries and final assembly here which will give a competitor a less expensive way to at least open plants for only a portion of the construction which later can be expanded if the rule relaxation is temporary, to spread out their costs for plants over many years.


----------



## west point

How about one elevator per train set ? That is a problem with reduntacy but can imagine elevator could have a standby mechanical operation. Place it in a lounge car!


----------



## jis

me_little_me said:


> Then, of course, should there be no US competitors, a future congress can change the Buy-American act or modify it to allow portions built in other countries and final assembly here which will give a competitor a less expensive way to at least open plants for only a portion of the construction which later can be expanded if the rule relaxation is temporary, to spread out their costs for plants over many years.


Under the current political atmosphere, irrespective of who gets elected, I don't think a dilution of the Buy American requirements is on the cards for quite a while. Have you seen some of Biden's recent TV commercials?

To some extent at the cost of additional time to delivery fabrication abroad can already be done. Rotem did that with the SEPTA cars. They shipped the Stainless Steel sheets to Korea to be fabricated into car shells that were then shipped back to the US for completion. There is a proportion of the net value that has to be sourced in the US. You can slice things the way you want as long as you meet those requirements. Nobody who is supplying hundreds of cars, and are sane, would go for such a risky proposition in the production line. For a small order yeah, it may be useful.


----------



## railiner

I am wondering how far that "buy American" rule extends to Amtrak purchasing. The reason I asked is, when I worked at the Denver station in the '70's and '80's, we replaced our Army surplus hand-me-down Clark fork lifts with a Japanese tractor and fork lift....


----------



## PVD

In some cases, it depends on the item, and how it is financed. On the other hand, a Japanese name doesn't always mean made in Japan, and a so-called American name does not mean made in the USA. Right now, many of the vehicles with the highest US content are manufactured in the US by Honda and Toyota.


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> I am wondering how far that "buy American" rule extends to Amtrak purchasing. The reason I asked is, when I worked at the Denver station in the '70's and '80's, we replaced our Army surplus hand-me-down Clark fork lifts with a Japanese tractor and fork lift....


I suspect that back then the equivalent of the current Buy American laws were very different. I am not even sure what they were. The current laws are of much more recent vintage..

Basically there are two factors that play into this, one legal and one political...

1. Legally, any purchase funded by federal funds has to abide by the current Buy American laws. If you are not using federal funds you can do whatever, like NJT bought a bunch of rolling stock that was self funded with no federal funding component which did not meet the Buy America requirements. This included the Stadlers for the RiverLINE.

2. Political. Brightline from the getgo being politically savvy said and adhered to Buy American irrespective of who was funding the purchase. It just plays well to the gallery, and in this case also helped establish Siemens with a factory for main line equipment in the US. This was a case where Buy American, though not legally required, worked well for all parties concerned and incidentally for Amtrak and Amtrak run state outfits too.


----------



## rickycourtney

railiner said:


> I am wondering how far that "buy American" rule extends to Amtrak purchasing. The reason I asked is, when I worked at the Denver station in the '70's and '80's, we replaced our Army surplus hand-me-down Clark fork lifts with a Japanese tractor and fork lift....


In really simple terms, if any of the funding for the purchase of rolling stock comes from Federal tax dollars, “the cost of the components and subcomponents produced in the U.S. must be more than 70 percent. Final assembly for rolling stock also must occur in the U.S.”

There’s also a provision that explains the partial foreign assembly that jis described, “For rolling stock purchases for which the average cost of the vehicle is more than $300,000, the FAST Act allows the cost of steel or iron produced in the U.S. and used in the rolling stock frames or car shells to be included in the domestic content calculation, regardless of whether the frame or car shell is produced in the U.S.”

Source: Federal Transit Administration


----------



## Andrew

NSC1109 said:


> http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20Activities%20Reports/2020/August/305%20activities%20report%20-%20monthly%207-31-20.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie King at Amtrak confirms that they're keeping the lid tight, but they are working through some “technical packages” and apparently they hope to make an announcement by the end of the summer.
> 
> They also appear to confirm that WSDOT will be tacking on to the Amtrak order.



I wonder if any of the bids or "technical packages" includes a consortium, such as Siemens parterning with Stadler.


----------



## NSC1109

Andrew said:


> I wonder if any of the bids or "technical packages" includes a consortium, such as Siemens parterning with Stadler.



Wouldn’t be unheard of. Lots of companies do that sort of thing (ULA for example).


----------



## Andrew

I just find it hard to believe that only one company would build 500 coaches.


----------



## PVD

Sometimes it is a matter of timing. What is already going on in their factories? 
You can build a certain quantity in a given period of time. Increasing the rate may involve hiring and training, factory size and space, overtime costs, storage space. Sometimes, it is financially favorable to sub contract or share. Convair didn't sell very many 880/990, but others contracted fabrication of fuselage sections to them. Delivering 125 cars a year for 4 years is a vastly different proposition than 250 a year for 2 or 500 for 1.


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> I just find it hard to believe that only one company would build 500 coaches.


Why? There are four or five companies in India, most of them subsidiaries of Indian Railways, each of which build over 500 cars per year with variety of furnishing, year in and year out for many years. If there is actual demand, sure that can be done by a single company, or even many companies.

CRRC is another example in China.


----------



## NSC1109

Andrew said:


> I just find it hard to believe that only one company would build 500 coaches.



It’s really not hard to believe at all...


----------



## joelkfla

jis said:


> Why? There are four or five companies in India, most of them subsidiaries of Indian Railways, each of which build over 500 cars per year with variety of furnishing, year in and year out for many years. If there is actual demand, sure that can be done by a single company, or even many companies.
> 
> CRRC is another example in China.


And then there is Bombardier.


----------



## jis

joelkfla said:


> And then there is Bombardier.


In India Bombardier has licensed CLW and DLW to manufacture electric locomotives based on two original Bombardier TRAXX designs and derivatives designed by IR's RDSO Research and Design outfit. Those two together manufacture around 750-850 electric locomotives a year, all delivered to IR basically of three classes freight Co-Co WAG-9, passenger Bo-Bo WAP-5 (200kph/125 mph) and and passenger Co-Co WAP-7 (160kph/100mph).


----------



## Willbridge

PVD said:


> Sometimes it is a matter of timing. What is already going on in their factories?
> You can build a certain quantity in a given period of time. Increasing the rate may involve hiring and training, factory size and space, overtime costs, storage space. Sometimes, it is financially favorable to sub contract or share. Convair didn't sell very many 880/990, but others contracted fabrication of fuselage sections to them. Delivering 125 cars a year for 4 years is a vastly different proposition than 250 a year for 2 or 500 for 1.


One batch of Denver RTD's LRV's was delivered later than originally planned to better fit into the Siemens production line. There were economic benefits, but in general I've noticed that transportation customers can be more flexible when they are certain that they will be getting a long-run good product.


----------



## PVD

That depends on how much they need the product, and/or if it brings them a measurable economic benefit.


----------



## joelkfla

jis said:


> In India Bombardier has licensed CLW and DLW to manufacture electric locomotives based on two original Bombardier TRAXX designs and derivatives designed by IR's RDSO Research and Design outfit. Those two together manufacture around 750-850 electric locomotives a year, all delivered to IR basically of three classes freight Co-Co WAG-9, passenger Bo-Bo WAP-5 (200kph/125 mph) and and passenger Co-Co WAP-7 (160kph/100mph).


I was thinking about their in-house manufacturing record in Canada.


----------



## west point

Bombardier Canada has a checkered past especially their airplane parts building. I would not give them a contract to build a horse drawn street car wagon.


----------



## Trogdor

west point said:


> Bombardier Canada has a checkered past especially their airplane parts building. I would not give them a contract to build a horse drawn street car wagon.



TTC already made that mistake: Bombardier completes first delivery of horse-drawn omnibuses to TTC


----------



## jis

west point said:


> Bombardier Canada has a checkered past especially their airplane parts building. I would not give them a contract to build a horse drawn street car wagon.


A Snowmobile on the other hand ...


----------



## Andrew

I wonder which criteria Amtrak will use to make their final decision on which company will get the Amfleet contract.


----------



## me_little_me

Andrew said:


> I wonder which criteria Amtrak will use to make their final decision on which company will get the Amfleet contract.


The one with the worst food, no service and the most delays.

Isn't that obvious?


----------



## sttom

rickycourtney said:


> You're totally ignoring the fact that there are several other companies that are established here in the US.
> 
> Building off what PVD said...
> Bombardier has been providing a seemingly endless stream of its iconic and Buy America-compliant BiLevel coaches to American customers for nearly three decades. Alstom has a plant in Hornell that's making the next-gen Acela and previously built the Surfliner cars and more than 1,000 R160 cars for the NYC Subway. Those two companies are about to merge into one mega-company that will challenge Siemens and CRRC on the world (and US) stage. I'm sure they will survive the "dry spells in rail spending."
> 
> Beyond that, Hyundai Rotem, Kawasaki, and Stadler all have recently built equipment for the US market... and are major international players (especially Kawasaki).
> 
> 
> The FRA just published a lengthy report that we were discussing that concluded, "the next generation of passenger rail vehicles can be designed to be more inclusive and universal, providing accessibility for passengers using WhMD (wheeled mobility devices)." Clearly the thinking on accessibility is shifting from that definition you shared.
> 
> Plus you're discussing sleeping cars... which Amtrak isn't even contemplating purchasing at this time. The leadership clearly wants more clarity on the future of the long-distance network before investing in new equipment.


Bombardier is being bought by Altsom and if that transaction goes through, there is no guarantee that they would keep making Bombardier's bilevels since Altsom has pretty much but its eggs in the EMU basket. And since Bombardier is near the end of its time in the rail market, besides Siemens, the only other companies we have making rail equipment for heavy rail applications at the moment are Alstom and Stadler from the info that I could dig up. Hyundai from what I can tell shut down after the issues with the Silverliners and MBTA orders.

As for lifts in bilevel cars, I am not and have not said that they aren't feasible from an engineering stand point. I am saying that they may not be the best thing for Amtrak financially and the report you link cites this as well on page 135 "Applying vertical access to revenue cars, i.e., coaches and sleepers, will have a direct effect in lost revenue capacity. The physical impact and corresponding fiscal impact would be reviewed prior to any rule-making activities." That is the issue that is the point I am making and why I'm trying to withhold a hard position until there are actual regulations being proposed. Saying we need to be mindful of externalities is not the same as saying something can't be done. 

Amtrak is going to have to replace the Superliners at some point and given that the refresh on the Superliner 1s was a while ago, things on them will break from old age, like HVAC and water systems. With as little faith as I have in Congress, the record for the last 50 years has shown that they may tinker with Amtrak in stupid ways, but they never go through with fully axing it. So I doubt the long distance network will be completely gone anytime soon. As for the leadership "needing clarity", that's more likely code for them not having the ability to profit off of easy real estate deals on the long distance trains because Amtrak owns less valuable real estate as it goes west. If Congress truly wanted to end long distance train travel in this country, they would have done so in 1972.


----------



## Mailliw

west point said:


> How about one elevator per train set ? That is a problem with reduntacy but can imagine elevator could have a standby mechanical operation. Place it in a lounge car!



I could see problems with emergency evacuation. Also that would rule out having the pass through between cars on an intermediate level.


----------



## joelkfla

Mailliw said:


> I could see problems with emergency evacuation. Also that would rule out having the pass through between cars on an intermediate level.


I don't know whether something like this would be acceptable under ADA, and whether it could handle the narrow 90° turns of a railcar stairway.





Evacuation Chair | Stryker


Enables the efficient evacuation of disabled or injured persons from multilevel facilities.




www.stryker.com


----------



## Andrew

Does the fact that Siemens is building cars for Amtrak and has had contracts for Brightline and Via Rail Canada make them the frontrunner for the Amfleet replacement?


----------



## railiner

The lifts in the double deck Alaska cars have a manual backup means to operate if power fails.....just like on a bus lift.


----------



## NSC1109

Andrew said:


> Does the fact that Siemens is building cars for Amtrak and has had contracts for Brightline and Via Rail Canada make them the frontrunner for the Amfleet replacement?



Yes


----------



## Andrew

NSC1109 said:


> Yes



Interesting! 

Would Siemens have to adjust any of their Venture Coach Specifications in order to meet the profile of the Northeast Corridor?


----------



## rickycourtney

Andrew said:


> Interesting!
> 
> Would Siemens have to adjust any of their Venture Coach Specifications in order to meet the profile of the Northeast Corridor?


Doesn't seem like it, but based on the order for the states and VIA... Siemens seems happy to make changes to their product to suit customer needs.


----------



## NSC1109

Andrew said:


> Interesting!
> 
> Would Siemens have to adjust any of their Venture Coach Specifications in order to meet the profile of the Northeast Corridor?



Those specifications likely wouldn’t be anything that we have access to as members of the public. However, as RickyCourtney said, Siemens wouldn’t have much of an issue making changes if needed.


----------



## PVD

Haven't some of the Midwest cars tested on the NEC already?


----------



## Andrew

rickycourtney said:


> Doesn't seem like it, but based on the order for the states and VIA... Siemens seems happy to make changes to their product to suit customer needs.



OK, because the door height of the Venture coaches appears lower than the door height of the current Amfleets.


----------



## NSC1109

PVD said:


> Haven't some of the Midwest cars tested on the NEC already?



One, and that was for CalTrans. None of the Chicago cars were on the NEC as far as I am aware.


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> Interesting!
> 
> Would Siemens have to adjust any of their Venture Coach Specifications in order to meet the profile of the Northeast Corridor?


They don't need any change in the profile as far as the loading gauge and platform heights are concerned. They have also been tested at 125mph on the NEC so that won't need any change either.

I am sure furnishings and details about whether everything will be single cars or some will be married pairs or triplets or such would still remain an issue. Also whether they are packaged as EMUs, DEMUs or what, is also still YTBD.


----------



## PVD

Thx, I guess I swapped the Caltrans with the IDOT ones, but it does answer the profile and speed questions...


----------



## west point

Cannot find the spec but a read specified that the siemens cars were to meet Amtrak ( ---- ) clearance guage specification for single level cars. That IMHO is the NEC.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> Cannot find the spec but a read specified that the siemens cars were to meet Amtrak ( ---- ) clearance guage specification for single level cars. That IMHO is the NEC.


It is Amtrak's so called A Loading Gauge profile. All single level cars of Amtrak have to meet those.


----------



## rickycourtney

Andrew said:


> OK, because the door height of the Venture coaches appears lower than the door height of the current Amfleets.


Taking a wild guess here -- I think you're basing that on videos like this one.


The doors look lower... but it's because they have more features.

I drew a straight red line in Photoshop from the bottom of the door line of the Amfleet... straight across the Venture car. It's the same height. Below the low-platform door on the left (marked with green arrow) are the stairs down. Below the high-platform door on the right (marked with blue arrow) is the box that holds the gap filler.



This is what the gap filler looks like deployed...


----------



## railiner

Wondering why they need a gap filler...are those cars narrower than standard Amtrak cars? Or is it because of the platform size in the above photo?


----------



## Andrew

rickycourtney said:


> Taking a wild guess here -- I think you're basing that on videos like this one.
> 
> 
> The doors look lower... but it's because they have more features.
> 
> I drew a straight red line in Photoshop from the bottom of the door line of the Amfleet... straight across the Venture car. It's the same height. Below the low-platform door on the left (marked with green arrow) are the stairs down. Below the high-platform door on the right (marked with blue arrow) is the box that holds the gap filler.
> View attachment 18556
> 
> 
> This is what the gap filler looks like deployed...




Venture coaches have low boarding at 11 inches, instead of the Amfleet's 17 inch level.


----------



## west point

The Brightline gap fillers are so FEC freight trains can clear the platform by plate"H". That way no Gauntlet track is needed for the freights.


----------



## rickycourtney

Andrew said:


> Venture coaches have low boarding at 11 inches, instead of the Amfleet's 17 inch level.


The low platform boarding doors are much lower and also have automatic steps down to the platform. That means conductors don’t have to place step boxes. Much better for passengers and conductors.



west point said:


> The Brightline gap fillers are so FEC freight trains can clear the platform by plate"H". That way no Gauntlet track is needed for the freights.


Right. This car is for the San Joaquin which also plans to use gap fillers.


----------



## cocojacoby

west point said:


> The Brightline gap fillers are so FEC freight trains can clear the platform by plate"H". That way no Gauntlet track is needed for the freights.



Yeah but Brightline still built freight bypass tracks around their new stations. I still don't get it. Those bypasses cost additional bucks to build and maintain.


----------



## Andrew

Does anyone know if any companies are teaming up with other companies to build the new Amfleet coaches (such as Siemens with Stadler)?


----------



## rickycourtney

Andrew said:


> Does anyone know if any companies are teaming up with other companies to build the new Amfleet coaches (such as Siemens with Stadler)?


Nope. Nobody knows anything about this process except for insiders with Amtrak and the manufacturers who are under the procurement “cone of silence.” Those insiders risk losing the order and their jobs for saying anything to you or the rest of us. The point of the “cone of silence” is to protect the integrity of the procurement process by shielding it from undue influences before the recommendation of contract award.

In their last update to the NGEC last month, Amtrak says they are continuing to work through the technical packages submitted by the bidders and hope to make an announcement by the end of this summer (end of September).


----------



## jis

cocojacoby said:


> Yeah but Brightline still built freight bypass tracks around their new stations. I still don't get it. Those bypasses cost additional bucks to build and maintain.


The bypass tracks serve several purposes:

1. They allow high and wide loads to avoid crashing into the platforms and pass by safely. Admittedly those are few and far between. But they are not restricted from FEC, which they would be if there were no bypass tracks.

2. They allow freight trains to pass by a station which has both platform tracks occupied by passenger trains.

3. When they go to skip stop operations after additional stations are built, they allow a skipping passenger train to pass by a station that has both platform tracks occupied.

All in all they provide flexibility to maintain fluidity of operations. Brightine is building a system with the mindset of providing reliable and on time service as opposed to the BS that passenger trains face all over the country with single platform on double track railroad, insufficient crossovers, passing tracks shorter that train and a litany of other poor design choices for the sake of (often false) economy.


----------



## Seaboard92

jis said:


> The bypass tracks serve several purposes:
> 
> 1. They allow high and wide loads to avoid crashing into the platforms and pass by safely. Admittedly those are few and far between. But they are not restricted from FEC, which they would be if there were no bypass tracks.




Fun fact when you are shipping a passenger car with a freight railroad it gets classified as a high and wide move. I learned that the other day.


----------



## NSC1109

jis said:


> The bypass tracks serve several purposes:
> 
> 1. They allow high and wide loads to avoid crashing into the platforms and pass by safely. Admittedly those are few and far between. But they are not restricted from FEC, which they would be if there were no bypass tracks.
> 
> 2. They allow freight trains to pass by a station which has both platform tracks occupied by passenger trains.
> 
> 3. When they go to skip stop operations after additional stations are built, they allow a skipping passenger train to pass by a station that has both platform tracks occupied.
> 
> All in all they provide flexibility to maintain fluidity of operations. Brightine is building a system with the mindset of providing reliable and on time service as opposed to the BS that passenger trains face all over the country with single platform on double track railroad, insufficient crossovers, passing tracks shorter that train and a litany of other poor design choices for the sake of (often false) economy.




Couldn't agree more. It was bad before but with the Class I companies continuing with PSR, it's just gonna get worse. Trains that are 12000+ feet in length fit very few places, and since no one wants to spend the money to upgrade the infrastructure...


----------



## jiml

NSC1109 said:


> Couldn't agree more. It was bad before but with the Class I companies continuing with PSR, it's just gonna get worse. Trains that are 12000+ feet in length fit very few places, and since no one wants to spend the money to upgrade the infrastructure...


Another nail in the coffin of passenger service on freight railroads. Even if the freights wanted to get out of the way, they're too long to take the sidings in most cases. Even "saw-bys" don't really work anymore with super-long trains, since the passenger train must come to a full stop to wait for the back end of the freight to clear the switch.


----------



## NSC1109

jiml said:


> Another nail in the coffin of passenger service on freight railroads. Even if the freights wanted to get out of the way, they're too long to take the sidings in most cases. Even "saw-bys" don't really work anymore with super-long trains, since the passenger train must come to a full stop to wait for the back end of the freight to clear the switch.



I wouldn't say it's a nail in the coffin _yet_. There is still a chance IF the federal government starts taking enforcement seriously.


----------



## jiml

NSC1109 said:


> I wouldn't say it's a nail in the coffin _yet_. There is still a chance IF the federal government starts taking enforcement seriously.


True, of course, but are they going to mandate shorter freight trains? PSR could easily become a reason for non-compliance... "Oh we wanted to clear the main for Amtrak, but the train was simply too long for the siding. Sorry." Between railcam watching and my nearby CN mainline, I've seen some monsters lately. It's all about moving the maximum number of loads with minimum crew - even if it does take 8 locomotives dispersed through the consist to do it.


----------



## me_little_me

jiml said:


> True, of course, but are they going to mandate shorter freight trains? PSR could easily become a reason for non-compliance... "Oh we wanted to clear the main for Amtrak, but the train was simply too long for the siding. Sorry." Between railcam watching and my nearby CN mainline, I've seen some monsters lately. It's all about moving the maximum number of loads with minimum crew - even if it does take 8 locomotives dispersed through the consist to do it.


No. The freights can be "precision scheduled" so as not to interfere with the passenger train. With only one or two passenger trains in each direction on most routes, that's not rocket science but could be made punitive if the freight RR fails to comply.


----------



## cocojacoby

jis said:


> The bypass tracks serve several purposes:
> 
> 1. They allow high and wide loads to avoid crashing into the platforms and pass by safely. Admittedly those are few and far between. But they are not restricted from FEC, which they would be if there were no bypass tracks.
> 
> 2. They allow freight trains to pass by a station which has both platform tracks occupied by passenger trains.
> 
> 3. When they go to skip stop operations after additional stations are built, they allow a skipping passenger train to pass by a station that has both platform tracks occupied.
> 
> All in all they provide flexibility to maintain fluidity of operations. Brightine is building a system with the mindset of providing reliable and on time service as opposed to the BS that passenger trains face all over the country with single platform on double track railroad, insufficient crossovers, passing tracks shorter that train and a litany of other poor design choices for the sake of (often false) economy.



I appreciate your feedback. As far as your #2 example (which has been mentioned by others before), I can't really see the need for a slower longer freight train to pass a "high-speed" passenger train. Just saying.

And if Brightline gets to the point of needing passenger trains passing other passenger trains, I will be greatly impressed. But who knows . . . they are talking commuter service now too


----------



## Ryan

The fact that you can't imagine the need for operational flexibility says more about your imagination than the need for operational flexibility.

While not common, situations that make the bypass track useful will come up when things get weird and that flexibility is going to be needed. The outfit actually operating the trains felt it worthwhile to spend their own money constructing them, something that they wouldn't have done had they not thought that they would have utility. I'll take their assessment over the guesses of a random person on the internet.


----------



## jis

cocojacoby said:


> I appreciate your feedback. As far as your #2 example (which has been mentioned by others before), I can't really see the need for a slower longer freight train to pass a "high-speed" passenger train. Just saying.
> 
> And if Brightline gets to the point of needing passenger trains passing other passenger trains, I will be greatly impressed. But who knows . . . they are talking commuter service now too


I guess you are somewhat ignorant about operating patterns of Brightline and freight. Just because you can't see it in your imagination does not mean there is no need for it, since it does happen, specially at West Palm Beach, and would happen at any station which is a service termination point where trains spend some time at the platform.


----------



## west point

It may be that the STB will have require passing tacks ()sidings ) to be istalled of 20,000 feet or sidings at least 1000 - 2000 feet longer than the longest train allowed on any route. 2000 feet would allow Amtrak to tuck behind a mega freight . That includes freight only routes so long trains do not impact grade crossigs . For example CSX only has one siding from ATL - LaGrange ga that is less than their longest PSR train. Then you have the NS problem of too short sidings Birmingham - New Orleans. They do have a few but not enough to make the route fluid for freights and Amtrak. The warning that FRA and STB issued to all class ones applies to this NS route.


----------



## me_little_me

cocojacoby said:


> I appreciate your feedback. As far as your #2 example (which has been mentioned by others before), I can't really see the need for a slower longer freight train to pass a "high-speed" passenger train. Just saying.


Uh! What about a southbound freight passing a northbound passenger train while the latter is in the station?


----------



## jis

west point said:


> It may be that the STB will have require passing tacks ()sidings ) to be istalled of 20,000 feet or sidings at least 1000 - 2000 feet longer than the longest train allowed on any route. 2000 feet would allow Amtrak to tuck behind a mega freight . That includes freight only routes so long trains do not impact grade crossigs . For example CSX only has one siding from ATL - LaGrange ga that is less than their longest PSR train. Then you have the NS problem of too short sidings Birmingham - New Orleans. They do have a few but not enough to make the route fluid for freights and Amtrak. The warning that FRA and STB issued to all class ones applies to this NS route.


STB did not require anything in this case. It was entirely an FECR/Brightline decision to design things the way they are. STB's concern is mostly about passing tracks on single track railroads. Double track railroads with crossovers and bidirectional signaling on both tracks make the issue of passing tracks much less urgent as far as they are concerned.


----------



## cocojacoby

me_little_me said:


> Uh! What about a southbound freight passing a northbound passenger train while the latter is in the station?


Umm . . . they would just pass each other in the station on separate tracks?

You can watch it here if you want (at 1:30):


----------



## joelkfla

west point said:


> It may be that the STB will have require passing tacks ()sidings ) to be istalled of 20,000 feet or sidings at least 1000 - 2000 feet longer than the longest train allowed on any route. 2000 feet would allow Amtrak to tuck behind a mega freight . That includes freight only routes so long trains do not impact grade crossigs . For example CSX only has one siding from ATL - LaGrange ga that is less than their longest PSR train. Then you have the NS problem of too short sidings Birmingham - New Orleans. They do have a few but not enough to make the route fluid for freights and Amtrak. The warning that FRA and STB issued to all class ones applies to this NS route.


Can someone explain how grade crossings fit into this discussion? I'm not seeing the connection between grade crossings and longer sidings.


----------



## NSC1109

jiml said:


> True, of course, but are they going to mandate shorter freight trains? PSR could easily become a reason for non-compliance... "Oh we wanted to clear the main for Amtrak, but the train was simply too long for the siding. Sorry." Between railcam watching and my nearby CN mainline, I've seen some monsters lately. It's all about moving the maximum number of loads with minimum crew - even if it does take 8 locomotives dispersed through the consist to do it.



You wouldn’t have to mandate anything. Tell the railroads that DOT is going to start enforcing the “Amtrak first” policy and they don’t care how it gets done, as long as it’s safe and within the confines of the applicable sections of the CFR. 

Even if you were somehow able to get train length mandates through the government, the AAR would hire the best lawyers they can find and take the feds to court, and that’s a battle I know wouldn’t turn out well for DOT.

CN and NS I think are the worst offenders. CN’s infrastructure is bare-bones (at least in MI) and NS can’t seem to dispatch the Chicago Line properly.


----------



## west point

Requirements for siding lengths to equal or exceed any length of train on a route might make it able to speed up freight trains to travel without delay. To this poster that is as important of not delaying passenger trains.
If the freight RRs are really serious about PSR the unimpeded movements of freight need full attention.


----------



## NSC1109

west point said:


> Requirements for siding lengths to equal or exceed any length of train on a route might make it able to speed up freight trains to travel without delay. To this poster that is as important of not delaying passenger trains.
> If the freight RRs are really serious about PSR the unimpeded movements of freight need full attention.



That could be something that DOT can do. However I’d imagine the AAR is still going to fight it with everything they have.


----------



## west point

I have to agree that RRs would probably fight any requirement but if congress finally passes a law that gives the STB, DOT,and FRA teeth then it might be different. A law could be crafted that would be directed toward better service to the small(er) shippers that are being hurt now days by PSR metrics. The 160% reasonable tariffs that are not enforced very much could come into play.


----------



## MARC Rider

joelkfla said:


> Can someone explain how grade crossings fit into this discussion? I'm not seeing the connection between grade crossings and longer sidings.


Really long trains, especially if operated to relatively low speeds, could seriously block road traffic at grade crossings. So the long trains aren't just a nuisance for passenger trains, they're a nuisance to the communities through which they pass.


----------



## me_little_me

cocojacoby said:


> Umm . . . they would just pass each other in the station on separate tracks?
> 
> You can watch it here if you want (at 1:30):



It was mentioned that there might be two passenger trains in the station.


----------



## joelkfla

MARC Rider said:


> Really long trains, especially if operated to relatively low speeds, could seriously block road traffic at grade crossings. So the long trains aren't just a nuisance for passenger trains, they're a nuisance to the communities through which they pass.


Understood, but how does having a siding available reduce the amount of time that the crossing is blocked? The train is still long, and won't it still be traveling at the same slow speed when it gets moving again? Not arguing, I still just don't see the connection.


----------



## MARC Rider

joelkfla said:


> Understood, but how does having a siding available reduce the amount of time that the crossing is blocked? The train is still long, and won't it still be traveling at the same slow speed when it gets moving again? Not arguing, I still just don't see the connection.


Obviously, longer sidings can't help that, what it means is that there probably need to be limits on train length, or the railroads need to grade-separate their tracks. The cost to do that might be a lot more than the money they're saving by running longer trains.


----------



## tricia

MARC Rider said:


> Obviously, longer sidings can't help that, what it means is that there probably need to be limits on train length, or the railroads need to grade-separate their tracks. The cost to do that might be a lot more than the money they're saving by running longer trains.



Part of the "cost" of how ever-longer freights are currently running is delays to passenger trains the freight RRs are legally obligated to prioritize. Right now, because that priority is not being enforced, the freight RRs are allowed to impose that cost on Amtrak. If they actually incurred meaningful fines for this, building adequate sidings or additional tracks might be considered more cost-effective.


----------



## neroden

PSR has been a scam (it is neither precision nor scheduled), and people have been making up new meanings for the acronym, such as Poor Service Railroading. It's done serious damage to freight service because it is neither precision nor scheduled. The one railroad who has not adopted this short-termist, cash-now-bankruptcy-later cult mentality is BNSF. We can only hope that states buy out the tracks from the other Class Is as they go bankrupt.


----------



## NSC1109

neroden said:


> PSR has been a scam (it is neither precision nor scheduled), and people have been making up new meanings for the acronym, such as Poor Service Railroading. It's done serious damage to freight service because it is neither precision nor scheduled. The one railroad who has not adopted this short-termist, cash-now-bankruptcy-later cult mentality is BNSF. We can only hope that states buy out the tracks from the other Class Is as they go bankrupt.



The only reason BNSF hasn’t is because they’re still privately owned. I bet that if they were public like the others, their shareholders would’ve put the screwed to senior management already to implement PSR.


----------



## Acela150

Ok.... Back on topic here.. Any news on the RFP?


----------



## NSC1109

Acela150 said:


> Ok.... Back on topic here.. Any news on the RFP?



No



Seriously, no news. NGEC didn’t have a meeting in August. Or at least the minutes aren’t online.


----------



## Acela150

NSC1109 said:


> No
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, no news. NGEC didn’t have a meeting in August. Or at least the minutes aren’t online.



I've been keeping an eye out on their website for the minutes. They have been getting really sloppy with the timing of posting the monthly minutes. They used to be posted a few days into the new month. It's the 17th and still nothing has been posted for August.


----------



## nullptr

Acela150 said:


> I've been keeping an eye out on their website for the minutes. They have been getting really sloppy with the timing of posting the monthly minutes. They used to be posted a few days into the new month. It's the 17th and still nothing has been posted for August.


 
Agreed. And they were fairly late last month too, if I remember correctly. 

But I don't expect the news of the selection to be broken by these minutes. I'm guessing there will be a press release from Amtrak and then they'll be in the minutes for the following month.


----------



## NSC1109

nullptr said:


> Agreed. And they were fairly late last month too, if I remember correctly.
> 
> But I don't expect the news of the selection to be broken by these minutes. I'm guessing there will be a press release from Amtrak and then they'll be in the minutes for the following month.



If the decision was made already and they’re included in the meeting minutes, then there’s a good chance the file is sequestered until Amtrak puts out their press release.


----------



## Andrew

Does anyone know what products Alstom and Stadler have that could replace the Amfleets?


----------



## jiml

Andrew said:


> Does anyone know what products Alstom and Stadler have that could replace the Amfleets?


If for no other reason than fleet commonality, why wouldn't they look at the Siemens Venture coaches already rolling off the line?


----------



## cocojacoby

I really want to see one of these attached to a Viewliner and see how the profiles math up.


----------



## jiml

cocojacoby said:


> I really want to see one of these attached to a Viewliner and see how the profiles math up.


I've had the same thought. I guess the ideal thing would be to look for a Midwest train with a baggage car, if there is one in the current schedule.


----------



## sttom

Andrew said:


> Does anyone know what products Alstom and Stadler have that could replace the Amfleets?


Based on their current product lines,

Alstom seems to have put their eggs entirely in the EMU basket so an order for individual cars doesn't seem likely. 

Stadler has built individual cars and probably would if asked, but they are also very big on in the multiple unit market as well. I would bank on Stadler being more open to building individual cars since they have made them recently.

My money would be on Siemens getting the contract should Amtrak go with individual cars and/or train sets of semi permanently coupled cars. Seeing as how they have an active orders and a reasonably proven product in the US.


----------



## PVD

I was under the impression that this acquisition offered the opportunity to propose a mix of solutions, and did not have to be all or nothing. Is that incorrect?


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> I was under the impression that this acquisition offered the opportunity to propose a mix of solutions, and did not have to be all or nothing. Is that incorrect?


Mixed in the sense of a mix of trailers and D/EMUs still stands. It is the vendors that were supposed to propose solutions to meet whatever requirements they were given to fulfill. We won;t know until a vendor and their solution is selected.


----------



## Gemuser

sttom said:


> Stadler has built individual cars and probably would if asked, but they are also very big on in the multiple unit market as well. I would bank on Stadler being more open to building individual cars since they have made them recently.


While Stadler's current offerings run heavely to EMU/DMU trains they have a section on their web site that says they will build any "cumstomised' train carrage you want. Obversiously the kicker here is the price, custom anything tends to be more expensive.

Of Stadler's normal product line the very multi capable FLIRT series would seem to suit at least some of Amtrak's requirement. With a seperate "power" carrage within the train they can offer O/H electric AC 25KV/50/60 Hz, 15k/11kV 16.66 Hz, DC 3,000/1,500V, third rail DC electric from 500 to 1200V [minimum] desiel and multi mode electric/desial. I don't know the maximum power of the desiel engines they can take.

I could see FLIRTS handling the Empire corridor with ease [& even through running with LIRR, if that actually happens as both under & over running third rail shoes could be fitted to the power module] as well as most of the NEC to unelectrified duties.

Slightly off topic: I recently saw a video on the "River Line" in NJ. That certainly look like a straight desiel FLIR, was it?


----------



## PVD

Stadler GTW on the River Line....NYS seems to like DM locomotive hauled, that will certainly influence the Empire Service part of this,,,,


----------



## Andrew

Why not use some Venture Coaches for the trains powered by electric locomotives and the Stadler Flirt for trains that operate to Richmond?


----------



## PVD

Because it might make sense?


----------



## jiml

Stadler FLIRT trainsets would be ideal for the Empire Corridor, as would the Seimens DMU sets such as those VIA is purchasing for their corridor. You're looking at operations that are mostly standardized with train lengths that seldom change. If more capacity is required for peak periods (Thanksgiving?) just lash two sets together "Euro-style". Yes, Amtrak would lose the flexibility of rotating the coaches elsewhere in the system, but on balance does it really matter? Precedent was set with the Rohr Turbos years ago. An added bonus with a Seimens Empire order would be the ability to have sets serviced overnight by VIA should the Maple Leaf and Adirondack ever be restored.


----------



## PVD

It matters what NYS wants, states don't have to use AMTRAK owned equipt, they can buy their own. AMTRAK may be the operator, and may provide maintenance, but the Midwest and California just made major coach and power purchases, returning equipt to AMTRAK that they previously used.


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> It matters what NYS wants, states don't have to use AMTRAK owned equipt, they can buy their own. AMTRAK may be the operator, and may provide maintenance, but the Midwest and California just made major coach and power purchases, returning equipt to AMTRAK that they previously used.


To achieve any of that NYSDOT Empire Corridor management group will need to be staffed at a level greater than two or three where it has hovered for decades. They barely have enough staff to get the basic contracts written and then supervised, forget about buying and managing their own equipment.


----------



## Mailliw

jiml said:


> Stadler FLIRT trainsets would be ideal for the Empire Corridor, as would the Seimens DMU sets such as those VIA is purchasing for their corridor. You're looking at operations that are mostly standardized with train lengths that seldom change. If more capacity is required for peak periods (Thanksgiving?) just lash two sets together "Euro-style". Yes, Amtrak would lose the flexibility of rotating the coaches elsewhere in the system, but on balance does it really matter? Precedent was set with the Rohr Turbos years ago. An added bonus with a Seimens Empire order would be the ability to have sets serviced overnight by VIA should the Maple Leaf and Adirondack ever be restored.


VIA isn't buying DMUs, at least not for the Corridor; they're buying the same Siemens Venture coachs as Brighline and Amtrak California/Midwest are.


----------



## sttom

I highly doubt Amtrak would want a split order between any two companies. Siemens is the most likely winner of a bid (barring lowest bidder rules and other shenanigans) since they can make individual cars, semi permanently coupled cars, multiple units and dual mode engines if need be. Stadler could make some dual mode FLIRTs, individual cars and engines, but I would worry about them having the capacity to build the order in a reasonable amount of time. They are a smaller manufacturer in the US compared to Siemens and an Amfleet replacement would be their biggest US order. 

I'm not too worried about the cost of the cars though. The Viewliner 2 and California 3 cars had a per car cost of ~$3 million when adjusted for inflation and the cars sleeper cars Stadler built recently cost between $3-$4 million USD. And look where the Viewliner 2 and Cal 3 cars are, years late due to a number of issues, but partially down to the old adage of "you get what you pay for". Or who knows, maybe CAF will swoop in with incredibly cheap cars we will get in 20 years.


----------



## NSC1109

sttom said:


> I highly doubt Amtrak would want a split order between any two companies. Siemens is the most likely winner of a bid (barring lowest bidder rules and other shenanigans) since they can make individual cars, semi permanently coupled cars, multiple units and dual mode engines if need be. Stadler could make some dual mode FLIRTs, individual cars and engines, but I would worry about them having the capacity to build the order in a reasonable amount of time. They are a smaller manufacturer in the US compared to Siemens and an Amfleet replacement would be their biggest US order.
> 
> I'm not too worried about the cost of the cars though. The Viewliner 2 and California 3 cars had a per car cost of ~$3 million when adjusted for inflation and the cars sleeper cars Stadler built recently cost between $3-$4 million USD. And look where the Viewliner 2 and Cal 3 cars are, years late due to a number of issues, but partially down to the old adage of "you get what you pay for". Or who knows, maybe CAF will swoop in with incredibly cheap cars we will get in 20 years.



I am almost certain it will be Siemens, and not just for the versatility of their product line. Having an all-Siemens fleet would VASTLY improve fleet standardization and would reduce costs. Any agreement would most likely include a TSSSA clause ensuring that Siemens will help with fleet upkeep and repairs.

Additionally, a standardized fleet will reduce training time and costs for your crews as well as increase fleet flexibility. IF it’s done right.


----------



## Andrew

sttom said:


> I highly doubt Amtrak would want a split order between any two companies. Siemens is the most likely winner of a bid (barring lowest bidder rules and other shenanigans) since they can make individual cars, semi permanently coupled cars, multiple units and dual mode engines if need be. Stadler could make some dual mode FLIRTs, individual cars and engines, but I would worry about them having the capacity to build the order in a reasonable amount of time. They are a smaller manufacturer in the US compared to Siemens and an Amfleet replacement would be their biggest US order.
> 
> I'm not too worried about the cost of the cars though. The Viewliner 2 and California 3 cars had a per car cost of ~$3 million when adjusted for inflation and the cars sleeper cars Stadler built recently cost between $3-$4 million USD. And look where the Viewliner 2 and Cal 3 cars are, years late due to a number of issues, but partially down to the old adage of "you get what you pay for". Or who knows, maybe CAF will swoop in with incredibly cheap cars we will get in 20 years.



What about having Amtrak order mostly Venture coaches and the Stadler SMILE train for Keystone and Regional trains that only operate on electric power?

Will Covid end up postponing a new order of trains for several years?


----------



## sttom

Andrew said:


> What about having Amtrak order mostly Venture coaches and the Stadler SMILE train for Keystone and Regional trains that only operate on electric power?


Siemens has a line of multiple units so there wouldn't be a reason to split the order unless Congress for some reason thought maintain competition for rail equipment was a high priority. Which has a probability of near 0 because if they cared about such things, they would have made sure there was a constant supply of passenger equipment being built like we do with buses. Which would have meant more funding more consistently for passenger trains, which there isn't in this country. We basically do non car transportation in fits and starts every 15 years or so. 

And since both Siemens and Stadler can build cars, multiple units and a variety of engines, it is likely that the contract would go to one company. Again barring any shenanigans that might arise. The only reason that I can see a split order happening is if Amtrak wants both cars and multiple units and Siemens doesn't have the capacity to build a Desiro variant or wants to get one certified for use in the US at this time. But if we are talking an order of at most 1000 cars and whatever number of trainsets that Amtrak wants for the NEC, I doubt they would say no to part of the contract, unless there was some sort of capacity issue or some sort of stupid political reason.


----------



## PVD

Another common reason to split orders is to facilitate faster delivery. Companies have limits on how many cars they can build in given period of time. If they are near or at capacity adding additional production may be costly, if at all possible. Supply chain limitations may also apply. NY MTA has done it with buses with orders split between New Flyer and NovaBus allowing them to shave quite a bit of time to delivery completion.


----------



## Andrew

Amtrak wants 500 coaches...I find it hard to believe that one company could quickly scale that up.


----------



## railiner

The Budd Company cranked out 642 Amfleet I and II's....in a relatively short time, in addition to some SPV's at the same time...


----------



## Gemuser

railiner said:


> The Budd Company cranked out 642 Amfleet I and II's....in a relatively short time, in addition to some SPV's at the same time...


Yes but that was 40 odd years ago, with all that has changed since I some how doubt it.


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> The Budd Company cranked out 642 Amfleet I and II's....in a relatively short time, in addition to some SPV's at the same time...


They were also delivered over four or five years. The production rate was somewhere in the vicinity of 100-150 or so per year as I seem to recall. That is something that any reputable car manufacturer should be able to ramp up to.


----------



## joelkfla

jis said:


> They were also delivered over four or five years. The production rate was somewhere in the vicinity of 100-150 or so per year as I seem to recall. That is something that any reputable car manufacturer should be able to ramp up to.


Unless their name is Bombardier.


----------



## railiner

joelkfla said:


> Unless their name is Bombardier.


Or...CAF?


----------



## jis

joelkfla said:


> Unless their name is Bombardier.


Then again, Bombardier did manage to deliver the Superliner IIs on a not too shabby schedule. And of course soon there will be no Bombardier any more. It will all be Alstom.

But of course an order for 500 cars is somewhat larger than both the Supeliner I order of 284 cars delivered over a tad over 6 years (1975-81) by Pullman) and Superliner II, 195 cars delivered in a tad over 5 years. (1991-96) by Bombardier.

Incidentally, the Amfleet Is from Budd were ordered in multiple tranches:

Tranche 1 57 cars Oct 1973
Tranche 2 200 cars Jun 1974
Tranche 3 35 cars Oct 1974
Tranche 4 200 cars Apr 1975

The cars from the 1973 order did not show up until second half of 1975.

A total of 350 had been delivered by the end of 1976, and the entire order was completed by mid 1977. So overall the 492 cars were delivered in a little under 5 years order to delivery.

The Amfleet II order was a single tranche of 150 delivered by Budd between March 1980 (order date) and June 1983.

It is almost certain that an Alstom or a Siemens would be quite capable of delivering 500 cars over 5 years, similar to what Budd did for Amfleet I.


----------



## toddinde

Great summaries here of the time taken on other Amtrak car orders. I was going to just say that the Amfleet I and II orders were years apart.


----------



## jis

toddinde said:


> Great summaries here of the time taken on other Amtrak car orders. I was going to just say that the Amfleet I and II orders were years apart.


A little under three years (Aug 77 to Mar 80) apart, between the delivery of the last Amfleet I car and the placement of the Amfleet II order.


----------



## west point

Hopefully Siemens can make the order delivery schedule. A problem I see is Siemens has other orders as well. They might have to sub parts out ? Maybe certain interiors ? or just shells ?


----------



## jis

west point said:


> Hopefully Siemens can make the order delivery schedule. A problem I see is Siemens has other orders as well. They might have to sub parts out ? Maybe certain interiors ? or just shells ?


They have to first get the order


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> They have to first get the order



Which company or companies do you think will get the contract?


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> Which company or companies do you think will get the contract?


I have no clue.


----------



## Palmetto

railiner said:


> Or...CAF?


 Or CRRC in Springfield, MA.


----------



## PVD

It depends on who might roll the dice and take a chance. Kawasaki probably already has the capability, Hitachi (Breda) will be building a factory to handle the WMATA order, they might want to be involved. Everything we post is just speculation, in many cases fueled by what we like, or are familiar with. There are companies with broad experience in the market, even if not in the US, where new build passenger rail cars, other than for commuter services, have been relatively scarce.


----------



## jiml

PVD said:


> It depends on who might roll the dice and take a chance. Kawasaki probably already has the capability, Hitachi (Breda) will be building a factory to handle the WMATA order, they might want to be involved. Everything we post is just speculation, in many cases fueled by what we like, or are familiar with. There are companies with broad experience in the market, even if not in the US, where new build passenger rail cars, other than for commuter services, have been relatively scarce.


Hitachi has supplied several designs of LD D/EMU trains to British railroads of late, to widely mixed reviews. Most of the complaints have related to things like seat comfort, etc., rather than reliability however - something that could be easily fixed in an Amtrak order. They've been reported as a possible replacement for the Nippon Sharyo DMU's currently used on Toronto's airport express train, since it is likely the first rail line in Southern Ontario to add electrification and they switch seamlessly between modes. I hadn't seen them mentioned as an Amtrak possibility until @PVD above, but on further thought they might be a good fit in the Empire corridor because of the "off the shelf" dual-mode capability. The British models currently run in Scotland and Northern England, which do see their share of cold weather and snow.


----------



## railiner

Still would like to see an American rail car manufacturer get into the business...there are a few freight car manufacturer's such as Trinity and Greenbrier...


----------



## jiml

railiner said:


> Still would like to see an American rail car manufacturer get into the business...there are a few freight car manufacturer's such as Trinity and Greenbrier...


What happened to US Railcar - the successor to Colorado Railcar?


----------



## railiner

jiml said:


> What happened to US Railcar - the successor to Colorado Railcar?


I wasn't sure if they were still in business....here's their brochure....



http://www.usrailcar.com/documents/US%20Railcar%20Brochure-Nov10.pdf


----------



## jiml

railiner said:


> I wasn't sure if they were still in business....here's their brochure....
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usrailcar.com/documents/US%20Railcar%20Brochure-Nov10.pdf


Wouldn't be a big stretch to modify those double-deckers.


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> Hitachi has supplied several designs of LD D/EMU trains to British railroads of late, to widely mixed reviews. Most of the complaints have related to things like seat comfort, etc., rather than reliability however - something that could be easily fixed in an Amtrak order. They've been reported as a possible replacement for the Nippon Sharyo DMU's currently used on Toronto's airport express train, since it is likely the first rail line in Southern Ontario to add electrification and they switch seamlessly between modes. I hadn't seen them mentioned as an Amtrak possibility until @PVD above, but on further thought they might be a good fit in the Empire corridor because of the "off the shelf" dual-mode capability. The British models currently run in Scotland and Northern England, which do see their share of cold weather and snow.


The Hitachi Class 8xx's in the UK have shall we say, significantly less than stellar reliability indices so far, though they vary quite a lot from TOC to TOC, according to a detailed article in a recent issue of Modern Railways. Hitachi is also getting considerable amount of IPR and facilities in Europe from Alstom/Bombardier as a result of the reshuffle enforced by the EC before allowing the Alstom takeover of Bombardier Transportation. So it is hard to speculate how things will turn out for mainline equipment from Hitachi.

As mentioned before, the WMATA order can be viewed more or less as a continuation of WMATA's relationship with Breda which was absorbed by Hitachi in Europe.



jiml said:


> Wouldn't be a big stretch to modify those double-deckers.


Have they fixed the issue about their cars not being Stainless Steel? Corten is so passe'.  It would have been helpful if they had a reasonable reliability track record about anything, which they don't.


----------



## sttom

Well being as charitable to the manufacturers I know about.

Siemens: It has a flexible product line and a willingness to customize its offerings to what the customer wants. It also already has a production base in the US and a good reputation among the agencies that have bought their equipment over the years. The one downside is they might be overwhelmed from recent orders. 

Stadler: It has an equally as flexible product line as Siemens for the most part and is willing to customize its offerings to what the customer wants. It is building a fairly good reputation in the US. I would also worry about whether or not it could scale to such a large order as well. 

Alstom: It has some designs for individual cars, but its strategy seems to be to go entirely in the EMU direction. Which would be fine on the NEC, but there would be the question of equipment to be used outside the NEC. Would they want to make individual cars or not? Would they want to make a DMU or not? That is a question for their management. 

Hitachi: They have usable solutions in other parts of the world. My question is do they want to expand beyond Breda's footprint or not? 

Kawasaki: I don't know much about them other than they have made equipment for New York's MTA.

CRRC: I doubt Congress would go along with letting a state owned industry from China get a contract from Amtrak. Which is likely since it takes 60 votes to pass anything out of the Senate. 

CAF: They're building cars for Amtrak, so they can totally do it. And their record is stellar! Or to paraphrase a podcast I listen to that mentioned the replacement of the cars for the Highlander "They replaced the knackered cars from the 70s with the ones that break."

Talgo: ?

Then there is what do the states want? I know Washington wants to replace the Talgo 6s with whatever comes out of the Amfleet replacements, should they be satisfactory to them. New York doesn't want multiple units or semi permanently coupled cars last I heard. Assuming these to be true, would also complicate things. 

So there are a lot of moving parts to getting proposals for a replacement that Amtrak and potential suppliers have to handle. Business isn't as simple as "we build rail stuff, we can totally do anything you want!". Businesses have their own strategies and so does Amtrak and its state partners. Which adds complications and frankly more than I have mentioned here. Replacing the Amfleet cars is going to be more than just the ones used on the NEC, and off the NEC is state territory and they have their own wants to deal with beyond what Amtrak may or may not want to do.


----------



## jiml

Good summary.


----------



## sttom

An Addendum to the mess I typed above:

You also have to deal with consumer tastes along with all the other stuff I wrote about above. Amtrak not only needs to take the tastes of the states into consideration, but also what the consumers are willing to put up with. Just because some train fans would love to see a FLIRT running down the NEC doesn't mean that your average consumer is willing to accept one. The soft product of a multiple unit like a FLIRT is different from OBB's RailJet train sets, at least from my experience riding some of them in Europe. Which is something Amtrak would need to work on with who ever they pick for the contract. I remember the newer European trains tended to have less comfortable seats than the older seats on the California Cars. And from what I've seen at least one person comment on about the Talgo 8s is that the Business Class seats are not as comfortable as seats on the Superliners. Which was disappointed the person making the video. Which some people might find surprising that European trains aren't always designed with creature comforts in mind. For example, the refurbished First Class cars in Poland had a seat that was at least as comfortable as older Amtrak California seats, where as the Second Class seat was more or less a city bus seat. I just hope that Amtrak doesn't go too off the shelf when it comes to replacement equipment, since having a comfortable seat is one of Amtrak's main selling points. And getting a different seat isn't the hardest thing in the world, I would be annoyed if they skimped on that just to save a few bucks since it could hurt them in the long run.


----------



## Andrew

sttom said:


> Well being as charitable to the manufacturers I know about.
> 
> Siemens: It has a flexible product line and a willingness to customize its offerings to what the customer wants. It also already has a production base in the US and a good reputation among the agencies that have bought their equipment over the years. The one downside is they might be overwhelmed from recent orders.
> 
> Stadler: It has an equally as flexible product line as Siemens for the most part and is willing to customize its offerings to what the customer wants. It is building a fairly good reputation in the US. I would also worry about whether or not it could scale to such a large order as well.
> 
> Alstom: It has some designs for individual cars, but its strategy seems to be to go entirely in the EMU direction. Which would be fine on the NEC, but there would be the question of equipment to be used outside the NEC. Would they want to make individual cars or not? Would they want to make a DMU or not? That is a question for their management.
> 
> Hitachi: They have usable solutions in other parts of the world. My question is do they want to expand beyond Breda's footprint or not?
> 
> Kawasaki: I don't know much about them other than they have made equipment for New York's MTA.
> 
> CRRC: I doubt Congress would go along with letting a state owned industry from China get a contract from Amtrak. Which is likely since it takes 60 votes to pass anything out of the Senate.
> 
> CAF: They're building cars for Amtrak, so they can totally do it. And their record is stellar! Or to paraphrase a podcast I listen to that mentioned the replacement of the cars for the Highlander "They replaced the knackered cars from the 70s with the ones that break."
> 
> Talgo: ?
> 
> Then there is what do the states want? I know Washington wants to replace the Talgo 6s with whatever comes out of the Amfleet replacements, should they be satisfactory to them. New York doesn't want multiple units or semi permanently coupled cars last I heard. Assuming these to be true, would also complicate things.
> 
> So there are a lot of moving parts to getting proposals for a replacement that Amtrak and potential suppliers have to handle. Business isn't as simple as "we build rail stuff, we can totally do anything you want!". Businesses have their own strategies and so does Amtrak and its state partners. Which adds complications and frankly more than I have mentioned here. Replacing the Amfleet cars is going to be more than just the ones used on the NEC, and off the NEC is state territory and they have their own wants to deal with beyond what Amtrak may or may not want to do.



How do you know what New York wants? 

And who is keeping Siemens so busy that they may find it difficult to build new coaches for Amtrak?

I'm thinking that perhaps Amtrak could ask Alstom to build new Amfleets that closely resemble their Avelias...


----------



## Eric S

Andrew said:


> How do you know what New York wants?
> 
> *And who is keeping Siemens so busy that they may find it difficult to build new coaches for Amtrak?*
> 
> I'm thinking that perhaps Amtrak could ask Alstom to build new Amfleets that closely resemble their Avelias...


Siemens currently has orders for coaches from Brightline, Amtrak California/Midwest, and VIA Rail, right? Any others?


----------



## PVD

I'm not sure how he reached his conclusions, but it has been reported in more than one place that NYS has explored a new purchase of DM power. That sort of says "we want loco hauled coaches" Whether or not Siemens has the capacity (or desire) to deliver on a specific timeline is an unknown, keep in mind they have the order for the 75 LD Chargers to fill. An unknown is time to deliver requirements, whether or not contracts will allow (and to what degree) farming out various parts of an order, and whether or not a company thinks it will make enough money to take on a project to go after it at favorable. If a company has to put on a second shift, or work ot, or expand a plant, it might not be worth it. Siemens has done well in the US market, it's not like they would be inclined to take a project at slim or no margins to establish a market presence.


----------



## sttom

Andrew said:


> How do you know what New York wants?
> 
> And who is keeping Siemens so busy that they may find it difficult to build new coaches for Amtrak?
> 
> I'm thinking that perhaps Amtrak could ask Alstom to build new Amfleets that closely resemble their Avelias...



The New York thing was from a press release a couple years ago that I am having trouble finding again. I'll link it if I ever track it down again. 

Siemens currently has the California and Midwest orders, followed by Via's, Brightline is also getting more cars and they have at last count 200 pending Charger orders. And god knows how many LRVs. San Francisco's order hasn't been fully delivered and there are probably more on order still. 

Alstom doesn't have any individual rail cars in their line up. Which means they may not want to make them. Just because something makes money doesn't mean a company would want to take the job. Companies have their own internal strategy and Alstom's seems to be an EMU only strategy.


----------



## NSC1109

Andrew said:


> How do you know what New York wants?
> 
> And who is keeping Siemens so busy that they may find it difficult to build new coaches for Amtrak?
> 
> I'm thinking that perhaps Amtrak could ask Alstom to build new Amfleets that closely resemble their Avelias...



Siemens is building cars for the California order, the IDOT order, and I’m not sure if they’re totally done with Brightline yet.


----------



## jiml

In the case of one state - use NY for an example, it all depends on their priorities. While they may prefer a traditionally-configured train, are they willing to wait 5 years to get them? If the need and the funds are available sooner and a DMU is available in 2 years, who knows what could happen?


----------



## jiml

Eric S said:


> Siemens currently has orders for coaches from Brightline, Amtrak California/Midwest, and VIA Rail, right? Any others?


Exactly, and the VIA $1 billion CAD order is for 32 trainsets. That could take awhile.


----------



## daybeers

Connecticut is in the bid process for new cars as well, and I'd be very surprised if Siemens didn't bid.


----------



## jis

NSC1109 said:


> Siemens is building cars for the California order, the IDOT order, and I’m not sure if they’re totally done with Brightline yet.


The California and IDOT orders are actually the same order, since it is being handled as such by the states.

Brightline's first tranche has been fully delivered, and I am not sure that they have actually placed a second tranche order yet. They have a whole pile of options to exercise at some point.

VIA has certainly placed a significant order for their new corridor trains.


jiml said:


> Exactly, and the VIA $1 billion CAD order is for 32 trainsets. That could take awhile.


That's about 200 cars starting delivery in 2021, and possibly delivering through 2023. Service using first of the those sets start in 2022. VIA does have an option for 12 more sets.

I guess one can expect Brightline to place the balance of the order sometime this year. That would be 6x4=24 cars to top off the current consist, plus 4 consists of 10 cars = 40 cars, if they place the entire balance in a single order, which rumor has it that they might not.

Any serious hypothetical Amtrak order placed in early 2021 would probably start delivering in large numbers starting early 2023 and would probably deliver through 2027


----------



## rickycourtney

Keep in mind Amtrak is ordering more than 75 trainsets (roughly 600+ cars) and an order that large would keep any manufacturer busy for 4 to 5 years. 

That means that even manufacturers who don't have a current product that meets the standard have the proper financial motivation to make either a clean-sheet design or modify an existing design from overseas.

The edge that Siemens, and to a lesser extent Alstom, has is that they don't have to "bake" that design/testing/factory prep costs into these cars, as they've already passed that cost onto other customers.


----------



## nullptr

It's kind of small potatoes compared to the other orders already mentioned, but there's an order for a handful of chargers for the coaster service in Sad Diego as well.









Rail News - NCTD board approves Siemens locomotive order. For Railroad Career Professionals







www.progressiverailroading.com





Also, did the ACE order get fully delivered already?


----------



## rickycourtney

nullptr said:


> It's kind of small potatoes compared to the other orders already mentioned, but there's an order for a handful of chargers for the coaster service in Sad Diego as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rail News - NCTD board approves Siemens locomotive order. For Railroad Career Professionals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.progressiverailroading.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, did the ACE order get fully delivered already?


That article is over a year old and the Chargers for Coaster are already being delivered... as are the units for ACE. Not sure how many for each are on their property.


----------



## Mailliw

Since Northeast Regional goes off the grid; BMUs would probably be preferable, but locomotive pulled coaches would be easier to implement. Also if/when electrification ever happens in Virginia Amtrak only needs to replace the locomotives. Keystone Service would be ideal for EMUs and of course Amtrak really should've gone with EMUs for Acela 2.0.


----------



## jis

BMUs would be borderline impractical for running all the way to Roanoke and Richmond. DEMUs would work, something like the Hitachi Class 8xxs in the UK.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> BMUs would be borderline impractical for running all the way to Roanoke and Richmond. DEMUs would work, something like the Hitachi Class 8xxs in the UK.



If Amtrak orders the Hitachi class 800s, and EMUs for the Keystone corridor, what would happen to the Sprinter locomotives?


----------



## MARC Rider

Andrew said:


> If Amtrak orders the Hitachi class 800s, and EMUs for the Keystone corridor, what would happen to the Sprinter locomotives?


Long distance trains that run through the NEC.
Boston-Washington and New York-Washington Northeast Regionals that don't need the diesel capability. (Which are probably most of the Northeast Regionals.)


----------



## frequentflyer

Andrew said:


> If Amtrak orders the Hitachi class 800s, and EMUs for the Keystone corridor, what would happen to the Sprinter locomotives?



Sell them. Americanized Vectrons sold everywhere in Europ.


----------



## Andrew

If Amtrak does order DEMU, what would be a better choice: Hitachi Class 800s or Stadler?


----------



## jiml

Andrew said:


> If Amtrak does order DEMU, what would be a better choice: Hitachi Class 800s or Stadler?


The Stadler FLIRT series seem to be solid trains based on European reviews. At least one US transit authority has them and there's a YouTube video about them somewhere. They have an odd arrangement where the power car is in the middle of the train with a walk-through hallway. Some people don't like this. The 800's - especially the British Azuma series - suffered some teething pains when first delivered (as pointed out previously by @jis) and they've received considerable criticism for uncomfortable seating. That could probably be fixed to Amtrak's or specific state's specifications. The 802 series, primarily operated by Trans-Pennine Express, have been better received. All of the above are available as dual-modes.


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> The Stadler FLIRT series seem to be solid trains based on European reviews. At least one US transit authority has them and there's a YouTube video about them somewhere. They have an odd arrangement where the power car is in the middle of the train with a walk-through hallway. Some people don't like this. The 800's - especially the British Azuma series - suffered some teething pains when first delivered (as pointed out previously by @jis) and they've received considerable criticism for uncomfortable seating. That could probably be fixed to Amtrak's or specific state's specifications. The 802 series, primarily operated by Trans-Pennine Express, have been better received. All of the above are available as dual-modes.


Truth be told, no one in the US will order a British loading gauge compliant Azuma in the US. The carbody will have to be different, minimally UIC loading gauge. The stuff under the hood can be the same as Azuma, though they may be considered to be a bit under-powered in their current form by most US operators. Azumas actually are generally unable to maintain the schedules that HST125s had no problem maintaining, which initially surprised me. But it is well documented that timetables had to be stretched out a bit to accommodate the actual performance of Azumas. But Hitachis is a capable company who can build something to a specification and deliver it.

I would be quite surprised if Amtrak goes for FLIRTs for the NEC. But anything is possible.

My guess is Amtrak will go for a bunch of trailers bracketed by power heads to and tail if they go the unit train route for the NEC, similar to what the states and Brightline have gone for. This will also allow them to re-purpose their ACS64s effectively.


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> Truth be told, no one in the US will order a British loading gauge compliant Azuma in the US. The carbody will have to be different, minimally UIC loading gauge. The stuff under the hood can be the same as Azuma, though they may be considered to be a bit under-powered in their current form by most US operators. Azumas actually are generally unable to maintain the schedules that HST125s had no problem maintaining, which initially surprised me. But it is well documented that timetables had to be stretched out a bit to accommodate the actual performance of Azumas. But Hitachis is a capable company who can build something to a specification and deliver it.
> 
> I would be quite surprised if Amtrak goes for FLIRTs for the NEC. But anything is possible.
> 
> My guess is Amtrak will go for a bunch of trailers bracketed by power heads to and tail if they go the unit train route for the NEC, similar to what the states and Brightline have gone for. This will also allow them to re-purpose their ACS64s effectively.


You're probably right. I was simply answering the question


Andrew said:


> If Amtrak does order DEMU, what would be a better choice: Hitachi Class 800s or Stadler?


and attempting to explain the differences.


----------



## sttom

Hitachi also has to consider whether or not expanding beyond the metro/light rail market in the US is even worth their time. If the Sagas of CAF and Nippon Sharyo are anything to go by, expanding into the US or expanding beyond you existing niche might not be worth it. Just because you can do something in theory doesn't mean its worth your time to do so. Considering Hitachi hasn't made anything for the US market outside of metro equipment, it would be a gamble for them to try to go after a contract with Amtrak. A gamble that if it goes bad could damage their future prospects in getting contracts for metro equipment and LRVs. Also this is assuming Amtrak would want to start working with another company that they don't really have a relationship with. Amtrak has worked with Siemens and Alstom in the past which would be a leg up, barring lowest bidder rules or other shenanigans or the competence of Congressional and Amtrak leadership.


----------



## PVD

There is the possibility of major incentives to set up a new facility for the WMATA contract. it may be worth it to leverage the facility to keep using it for another project. They have considerable resources to call upon if it is something they desire. All of this is speculation, think Pope Julius and Michelangelo in "The Agony and the Ecstasy" When Will You Make an End?" "When I am Finished" We'll all know soon enough (hopefully}


----------



## Mailliw

I think it's clear Siemens and Alstom are the only two serious contenders, with Siemens in the lead.


----------



## sttom

I would say Siemens is at the top of the list. Alstom would be a maybe since individual rail cars aren't in their current line up. Maybe after they officially buy out Bombardier since they will have the Horizon/Comet car designs which could be modified to be compliant with the new regulations. Other than that, I would say Stadler is the only other maybe. Assuming CAF doesn't pull some cheap work out of its proverbial backside.


----------



## jiml

sttom said:


> Alstom... after they officially buy out Bombardier since they will have the Horizon/Comet car designs which could be modified to be compliant with the new regulations.


That was my thought and why I wouldn't rule them out. Off-the-shelf proven design. I remember when the Horizons came out and they've lasted way longer than most thought at the time. Are they speed-restricted?


----------



## sttom

jiml said:


> That was my thought and why I wouldn't rule them out. Off-the-shelf proven design. I remember when the Horizons came out and they've lasted way longer than most thought at the time. Are they speed-restricted?


125 mph as far as I know. Like most Amtrak equipment it was built to go fast and doesn't.


----------



## Anthony V

jiml said:


> That was my thought and why I wouldn't rule them out. Off-the-shelf proven design. I remember when the Horizons came out and they've lasted way longer than most thought at the time. Are they speed-restricted?


With continued adequate maintenance, the Horizons should have at least another ten years of life left in them. For this reason, they could potentially be used on proposed new corridors in the south, like New Orleans-Mobile, New Orleans-Baton Rouge, and Atlanta-Nashville. Their usage on these proposed corridors would be done to keep startup costs for the new services lower and allow service on them to start up sooner. Once ridership has had time to prove itself, then newer rolling stock could be ordered for the new corridors.


----------



## jis

Same could be done with a cherry-picked group of Amfleet Is that are on an average in better shape than the rest. That would of course be in addition to the Horizons. But somehow I suspect this won't happen. I guess I am just in a pessimistic mood today.


----------



## sttom

Are the 90 or so cars the Midwestern States are getting out of the former bilevel order enough to replace the need for the Horizons based out of Chicago?


----------



## jiml

sttom said:


> 125 mph as far as I know. Like most Amtrak equipment it was built to go fast and doesn't.


I've certainly been on them (in Michigan) at 100 mph, but have never seen them on routes where higher than 110 was permitted - hence the question.


----------



## west point

Horizons and the Afleet -1s that were rebuilt have much less mileage.


----------



## Anthony V

sttom said:


> Are the 90 or so cars the Midwestern States are getting out of the former bilevel order enough to replace the need for the Horizons based out of Chicago?


Yes, there are enough to replace the Horizons used on the Midwest routes.


----------



## PVD

If I recall, the Horizons have manual doors, which is not great on certain routes......


----------



## Mailliw

How big a deal breaker would that by and how hard is it to fix?


----------



## PVD

Tearing out the doors, replacing them with trainlined automatics might be costly, or even impractical, depending on the space in the walls at the doors, and the wiring involved. The fact that the cars are 30 years old is a factor. AM-2 and Superliners are manual I believe, it just makes them less suitable for use on routes with high platforms, lots of passengers getting on and off, and no coach attendants (think NER/Empire/Keystone) since a crew member has to go open and close the door. PITA on a train with just a Conductor and an AC


----------



## joelkfla

PVD said:


> Tearing out the doors, replacing them with trainlined automatics might be costly, or even impractical, depending on the space in the walls at the doors, and the wiring involved. The fact that the cars are 30 years old is a factor. AM-2 and Superliners are manual I believe, it just makes them less suitable for use on routes with high platforms, lots of passengers getting on and off, and no coach attendants (think NER/Empire/Keystone) since a crew member has to go open and close the door. PITA on a train with just a Conductor and an AC


What's an AC?


----------



## AmtrakBlue

joelkfla said:


> What's an AC?


Assistant Conductor


----------



## PVD

Assistant Conductor


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> Tearing out the doors, replacing them with trainlined automatics might be costly, or even impractical, depending on the space in the walls at the doors, and the wiring involved. The fact that the cars are 30 years old is a factor. AM-2 and Superliners are manual I believe, it just makes them less suitable for use on routes with high platforms, lots of passengers getting on and off, and no coach attendants (think NER/Empire/Keystone) since a crew member has to go open and close the door. PITA on a train with just a Conductor and an AC


Expensive? Possibly. Impossible? Probably not. Worth doing? Maybe not. If they are going to be used in new routes they probably do not need them that much either since it is unlikely that new routes cannot live with a couple of doors opening at each station for the trial period before they get new equipment. New routes in the boonies with a train or two a day are also unlikely to have full length high platforms, at least initially.

The trainlined doors cannot really be used on Amfleet Is at low level platforms stations anyway, even if they have them. For them to be usable at low level platforms they would need to be converted to the full length doors like newer NJT Comets have, or modify them to deploy the stairs automatically with the opening door in the low level platform mode, something akin to what Siemens is attempting to do IIRC.


----------



## NSC1109

jiml said:


> That was my thought and why I wouldn't rule them out. Off-the-shelf proven design. I remember when the Horizons came out and they've lasted way longer than most thought at the time. Are they speed-restricted?



Don’t think so. They run 110 on the AML regularly. They could probably do 125 without much of an issue and even if the current ones can’t, a revamped Horizon series probably could with some tweaks.


----------



## jis

Horizons are allowed to operate at 125mph.


----------



## me_little_me

joelkfla said:


> What's an AC?


Something that allows people to live in Florida?


----------



## Trogdor

jis said:


> Horizons are allowed to operate at 125mph.



Indeed. There was even a period about 10-ish years ago where a handful of Horizons actually operated on NEC trains. I don’t recall what the actual reason was. Maybe trying to increase capacity before the last round of Amfleet rebuilds/conversions (where a lot of old Cafe cars were converted to coaches) was completed.


----------



## jiml

Trogdor said:


> Indeed. There was even a period about 10-ish years ago where a handful of Horizons actually operated on NEC trains. I don’t recall what the actual reason was. Maybe trying to increase capacity before the last round of Amfleet rebuilds/conversions (where a lot of old Cafe cars were converted to coaches) was completed.


That was something I'd never seen, which is why the original question if they were limited. I've both seen and ridden on them going very fast in Michigan, but I believe the speed limit there is 110.


----------



## jiml

sttom said:


> Like most Amtrak equipment it was built to go fast and doesn't.


Best line ever.


----------



## jis

me_little_me said:


> Something that allows people to live in Florida?


Even more so Arizona and Nevada


----------



## sttom

jiml said:


> Best line ever.


Its also true of the new Acela....but its being built to go even faster and probably won't.


----------



## me_little_me

sttom said:


> Its also true of the new Acela....but its being built to go even faster and probably won't.


Not true. There is a 100 foot section of track where it can go .001mph faster than the old Acela before it has to slow down to the average speed of the Regionals. 
There are millions of people on this forum who exaggerate too much. Don't be one of them.


----------



## jis

me_little_me said:


> Not true. There is a 100 foot section of track where it can go .001mph faster than the old Acela before it has to slow down to the average speed of the Regionals.
> There are millions of people on this forum who exaggerate too much. Don't be one of them.


I assume that is a snark


----------



## me_little_me

jis said:


> I assume that is a snark


Well, since my last paragraph had as big an exaggeration as you're going to find, ...


----------



## Andrew

Suppose Amtrak's choices for new Amfleets come down to the Siemens Venture Coaches or versions of the Alstom Acela coaches, which bid would you choose?


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> Suppose Amtrak's choices for new Amfleets come down to the Siemens Venture Coaches or versions of the Alstom Acela coaches, which bid would you choose?


It is highly unlikely that Alstom Acela coaches would be under consideration at all, since they are non-standard length and they ride on articulated Jacobs Trucks.


----------



## Andrew

I wonder if Amtrak is going to order fewer coaches than they were originally planning to order due to Covid reducing ridership.


----------



## jiml

Andrew said:


> I wonder if Amtrak is going to order fewer coaches than they were originally planning to order due to Covid reducing ridership.


That is certainly the approach airlines are taking - fewer and smaller planes on the order books.


----------



## NSC1109

Andrew said:


> I wonder if Amtrak is going to order fewer coaches than they were originally planning to order due to Covid reducing ridership.



The order won’t change. The delivery schedule will.


----------



## rickycourtney

Andrew said:


> I wonder if Amtrak is going to order fewer coaches than they were originally planning to order due to Covid reducing ridership.


I agree with NSC1109 -- the order won’t change. I think we're already seeing the first impact of COVID-19 on this order... the contract should have been signed weeks, if not months ago. Amtrak is either slow-walking placing the order for financial reasons, or they're being slowed down by having staff working remotely, or both.


----------



## sttom

Andrew said:


> I wonder if Amtrak is going to order fewer coaches than they were originally planning to order due to Covid reducing ridership.



Considering how fast ridership levels recovered after 2008, I doubt ridership levels will be highly depressed 2 years after COVID, assuming everything outside of the NEC is back to it's normal schedule by then. If anything, they should be looking into getting more coaches, not less. If anything is slowing things down at this point, it's Congress posturing instead if working.


----------



## NSC1109

rickycourtney said:


> I agree with NSC1109 -- the order won’t change. I think we're already seeing the first impact of COVID-19 on this order... the contract should have been signed weeks, if not months ago. Amtrak is either slow-walking placing the order for financial reasons, or they're being slowed down by having staff working remotely, or both.



Chances are it’s primarily financial-related. 
Kinda hard to convince Congress to give you more money with one hand when you’re signing a deal to completely overhaul your single-level fleet with the other. All passenger-carrying entities are struggling right now, and Amtrak is no exception. Hopefully once they stabilize things will move more quickly.


----------



## Andrew

Siemens appears to be the front runner to build the new coaches but what would be the arguments for choosing Hitachi or Kawasaki?


----------



## NSC1109

Andrew said:


> Siemens appears to be the front runner to build the new coaches but what would be the arguments for choosing Hitachi or Kawasaki?



Hitachi (to my knowledge, and according to their website) has never made rolling stock for the US. The chances that they will do so are not great.

Kawasaki has made heavy rail rolling stock for a variety of commuter lines in the US, but nothing like what Amtrak is looking for.

Take it from someone who has supply chain experience: when you are cost-constrained (like Amtrak is), then you want a simplified, standard fleet with TSSSA with one or two companies. This helps keep the costs under control. The race is between Alstom (the Avelia Liberty) and Siemens (everything else), and chances are, Siemens is gonna get the win. It makes no sense to think that anyone other than those two companies are even being considered and it still doesn’t make sense to be running a mixed Siemens/Alstom operation anywhere outside of the NEC. Amtrak has a huge opportunity here to get their costs down and I’m sure their supply folks know that.


----------



## PVD

Hitachi is Breda, they certainly have built for the US. The WMATA order will likely give them a subsidized factory deal which they may wish to leverage with more work affecting how they bid. Kawasaki and Breda have certainly built heavy rail for US rapid transit and commuter, just not (in the US) the type of car Amtrak is likely looking for. It is very likely they have the ability to do it if they want to. quite a bit of the work is assembling equipment from other sources. The car shells are not radically different to fabricate. We still don't know if they will split types and vendors, what type of delivery schedule they are looking for, and the degree to which the political process (who builds/sources where) will figure in.


----------



## frequentflyer

AT300 - Intercity High Speed | Hitachi Rail EU







hitachirail-eu.com





Comes in Diesel and Electric. Pretty sure Hitachi has put in a bid and dropped off a few brochures, pens, coffee mugs and mouse pads. Premium Floor mats and paint protection are extra of course.

Just like the Siemens Viaggio, ASC-64 (Vectron) and the new Alstom Acela 2s have proven themselves in Europe, so has this. Nothing Amtrak is looking at is new, be it Siemens, Alstom, Stadler, or Hitachi. Whatever Amtrak is looking at has proven itself around the world.


----------



## Mailliw

I predict Amtrak will go with Siemens Venture coaches; semiperminant trainsets like the San Joaqins for Northeast Regional & a few other corridors, and a mix of single cars and twinsets like Amtrak Midwest for everything else.


----------



## rickycourtney

PVD said:


> Hitachi is Breda, they certainly have built for the US.



Hitachi is Breda... but Breda is not known for building amazing products. I'd put them in the same category as Bombardier or CAF.
Examples of Breda's problems...

San Francisco's Breda LRV 2 & LRV 3 break down, on average, every 617 miles -- SFMTA prohibited Breda from bidding on future orders.
Los Angeles Metro's Breda P2550 LRVs were delivered years late and overweight -- LACMTA prohibited Breda from bidding on future orders (although Breda tried to woo LA by offering to build a factory)
Denmark's Breda IC4 trainsets have been a disaster... they were delivered nearly a decade late, have had many problems, and will be retired soon.
Boston's Breda Type 8 LRVs have been very problematic with MBTA calling them "their worst purchase ever."
WMATA said in 2005 that their older Breda units were significantly more likely to break down than those of other manufacturers in the fleet.
...that's just five customers and there's plenty more where that came from.

Hitachi may be able to improve Breda's quality problems, but until that's proven, Amtrak should avoid.


PVD said:


> Kawasaki and Breda have certainly built heavy rail for US rapid transit and commuter, just not (in the US) the type of car Amtrak is likely looking for. It is very likely they have the ability to do it if they want to. quite a bit of the work is assembling equipment from other sources. The car shells are not radically different to fabricate.


Building an LRV is radically different from intercity rail cars, and the requirements are intense. Just ask Nippon Sharyo which botched the order for Caltrans and IDOT.


----------



## NSC1109

rickycourtney said:


> Hitachi is Breda... but Breda is not known for building amazing products. I'd put them in the same category as Bombardier or CAF.
> Examples of Breda's problems...
> 
> San Francisco's Breda LRV 2 & LRV 3 break down, on average, every 617 miles -- SFMTA prohibited Breda from bidding on future orders.
> Los Angeles Metro's Breda P2550 LRVs were delivered years late and overweight -- LACMTA prohibited Breda from bidding on future orders (although Breda tried to woo LA by offering to build a factory)
> Denmark's Breda IC4 trainsets have been a disaster... they were delivered nearly a decade late, have had many problems, and will be retired soon.
> Boston's Breda Type 8 LRVs have been very problematic with MBTA calling them "their worst purchase ever."
> WMATA said in 2005 that their older Breda units were significantly more likely to break down than those of other manufacturers in the fleet.
> ...that's just five customers and there's plenty more where that came from.
> 
> Hitachi may be able to improve Breda's quality problems, but until that's proven, Amtrak should avoid.
> 
> Building an LRV is radically different from intercity rail cars, and the requirements are intense. Just ask Nippon Sharyo which botched the order for Caltrans and IDOT.



I was just seeing the same stuff in my research. WMATA called the Breda cars the most unreliable units in their fleet. Hardly a glowing report.


----------



## PVD

And yet WMATA is buying them anyway....I agree about LRV being a different animal, but quite a bit of the commuter car market is heavy rail....not LRV


----------



## NSC1109

PVD said:


> And yet WMATA is buying them anyway....I agree about LRV being a different animal, but quite a bit of the commuter car market is heavy rail....not LRV



They’re buying the 8000 series cars from Hitachi Rail, not the Breda subsidiary from what I understand. At least that’s what it says on the Wiki page.


----------



## jis

NSC1109 said:


> They’re buying the 8000 series cars from Hitachi Rail, not the Breda subsidiary from what I understand. At least that’s what it says on the Wiki page.


I have not seen anything in any oif the documentation that suggests that Hitachi cannot use its Breda subsidiary to produce the cars. Have you? Specially considering that Hitachi Rails global HQ is now in Italy, I think it is a pretty bold prediction to state categorically that the Breda subsidiary, which is essentially the where th HQ is, will not be involved in delivering these cars.


Washington Post said:


> Hitachi Global is a more than 100-year-old Japan-based corporation with rail subsidiaries based across the world. Its main rail headquarters is in Italy. The Washington-based limited liability corporation is a new entity. Records show that the LLC was founded and based in Medley, Fla., in May 2019, according to business data provider Dun & Bradstreet. The lone employee listed in records is Giampaolo Nuonno, the chief executive of Hitachi Rail USA.


Of course I am always happy to be corrected should additional information become available.


----------



## NSC1109

jis said:


> I have not seen anything in any oif the documentation that suggests that Hitachi cannot use its Breda subsidiary to produce the cars. Have you? Specially considering that Hitachi Rails global HQ is now in Italy, I think it is a pretty bold prediction to state categorically that the Breda subsidiary, which is essentially the where th HQ is, will not be involved in delivering these cars.
> 
> Of course I am always happy to be corrected should additional information become available.



It’s absolutely possible that Hitachi will use the Breda subsidiary to help produce the cars. All I’m saying is that it doesn’t say Hitachi Rail Italy (the new name for Breda), just Hitachi Rail. From what I’ve read the two entities are separate but that could’ve easily been changed.


----------



## rickycourtney

The fact that the lone employee of Hitachi Rail USA is based in Medley, Fla. is not surprising. Miami's Metrorail purchased a bunch of rail cars from Breda. Mid-order Breda was purchased by Hitachi and the order has been branded as "Hitachi" and -- _stop me if you've heard this before_ -- the order is now at least three years behind schedule.

Now -- in defense of Hitachi (but not Breda) -- their A-train series of MU trainsets seems to be generally well-received in the UK. That product could meet the expectations of Amtrak if it's brought to the US... but they'll need to keep Breda away.


----------



## jis

rickycourtney said:


> Now -- in defense of Hitachi (but not Breda) -- their A-train series of MU trainsets seems to be generally well-received in the UK. That product could meet the expectations of Amtrak if it's brought to the US... but they'll need to keep Breda away.


Actually both the Javelins and the Class 8xxs were delayed considerably in their introductions due to various teething troubles for which responsibility is probably shared equally by the British rail establishment and Hitachi.

The Class 8xx's in spite of being distributed power trains are surprisingly, unable to maintain the same schedule that the 20th century vintage HST125s with power heads at each end have been able to for many decades. That has been a disappointment since schedules have had to be stretched to maintain OTP when a service is operated with the newer trains.

Modern Railways has been following this for many months now, and it is a fascinating reading about what happens when there are way too many cooks stirring the broth.

Any A train derivating for use in the US will need to be considerably different from the British versions of them, not just because the loading gauge is different, but also because the British units are seriously under powered for typical operation in the US.


----------



## NSC1109

jis said:


> Actually both the Javelins and the Class 8xxs were delayed considerably in their introductions due to various teething troubles for which responsibility is probably shared equally by the British rail establishment and Hitachi.
> 
> The Class 8xx's in spite of being distributed power trains are surprisingly, unable to maintain the same schedule that the 20th century vintage push-pull HST125s have been able to for many decades. That has been a disappointment since schedules have had to be stretched to maintain OTP when a service is operated with the newer trains.
> 
> Modern Railways has been following this for many months now, and it is a fascinating reading about what happens when there are way too many cooks stirring the broth.
> 
> Any A train derivating for use in the US will need to be considerably differnt from the British versions of them, not just because the loading gauge is different, but also because the British units are seriously under powered for typical operation in the US.



It doesn’t help that UK trains all have to be custom-built due to the restrictive loading gauge. The technical issues that need to be overcome to effectively shrink the units are likely complex.


----------



## jrud

jis said:


> ...
> 
> The Class 8xx's in spite of being distributed power trains are surprisingly, unable to maintain the same schedule that the 20th century vintage HST125s with power heads at each end have been able to for many decades. That has been a disappointment since schedules have had to be stretched to maintain OTP when a service is operated with the newer
> 
> ...
> 
> Any A train derivating for use in the US will need to be considerably different from the British versions of them, not just because the loading gauge is different, but also because the British units are seriously under powered for typical operation in the US.



At least from what I read, the inability to make schedule ties directly to the trains being underpowered when using diesels. And, the low diesel power is the result of an assumption that all the electrification projects that were planned would be completed resulting in a higher percentage of running under catenary at increased speeds. A portion of this electrification did not occur. Amusing, one of the excuses used for not electrifying was that the trains could run on diesel when needed, so it wasn’t as important.


----------



## jis

They certainly accelrate better under electric power, though not extremely noticeably so in my experience. I have ridden them extensively on the London to West service (GWR). If you know where the power change point is and are looking for difference you can notice it, but if you are not aware of the change point it is unlikely that you'd notice. They are surprisingly quiet under Diesel mode.

But they have timekeeping issue even between London Paddington and Reading which is all electric. I am not sure what the exact deal is. Maybe it is something that is fixable by tweaking the wheel slip control stuff or such. I don;t know.


----------



## jiml

The 800 Azuma series on the East Coast Main Line were able to to meet and fractionally exceed the HST's on the same route, but agreeing with both previous posters, that was all on electrified tracks. The problems have been most noticeable in primarily diesel sections such as the Trans-Pennine and southwestern routes. Some of the former's issues should be met with the Stadler locomotive-powered Nova 3 trains now arriving. I wouldn't be surprised if the Hitachi 802's went elsewhere.


----------



## jis

There is a somewhat amusing article in a recent Modern Railways about the goofiness of the decision making process in determining what to do next at National Railway.

A lot of things that are very ill advised for the long run are being done to cover for the incompetence of the infrastructure folks to deliver almost anything on schedule and on budget in England. This of course includes electrification in a big way. That is leading to poor suboptimal choices which is actually increasing the long term costs for the infrastructure folks who managed to get the system in this mess in the first place, alleging cost issues.

The prime example given is that of the extensive unplanned deployment of dual mode trains. These trains are much heavier than the pure electrics and cause significantly more damage tot racks causing the to require more maintenance causing their total cost of operation over their lifetime to be significantly higher than that of pure electrics. While reading it I was thinking how in the US, track maintenance cost does not seem to enter any discussion at equipment acquisition time. This maybe because of a more cavalier attitude about track maintenance or not based on if money is available to do so at the time it is needed. The que sera sera approach.

The author is also wondering why ostensibly the same outfit is able to deliver electrification on time and more or less on budget in Scotland but be completely flummoxed in England.

Incidentally, the MDBF (or the equivalent measure in the UK) is pretty abysmal for the Class 8xxs at present but is slowly improving.

Anyway, it is a well written and at places humorous article.

But we should probably get back to Amtrak. Trailer cars can be acquired that are as light as possible given the collision protection standards by choosing appropriate lightweight components for internal furnishing etc., notwithstanding how the train is powered. It becomes an issue when distributed power is considered, and my guess is that the US trains may not be as efficient in the D/EMU form as their European or other places in the world counterparts. Hopefully the new FRA standards will at least bring them within shouting distance.


----------



## rickycourtney

I knew I should have done more research on the Hitachi A-Train before making that comment. I knew jis would know the full story.

So my quick prediction is...
The pitch from Siemens will lean in on the “proven” Venture trainset and will highlight the cost savings of re-using the Sprinters and their experience with TSSSA maintenance contracts.

That makes the Siemens Venture trainsets, in my opinion, the clear favorite. 

The question is... how badly does Amtrak want to switch to DMU/EMU/DMMU trainsets? If the MU operation ends up being the most important part, it will be an open race.


----------



## jiml

rickycourtney said:


> The question is... how badly does Amtrak want to switch to DMU/EMU/DMMU trainsets? If the MU operation ends up being the most important part, it will be an open race.


For reasons of fleet commonality, I've never thought MU's of any flavor were viable outside the Northeast (Empire Service, NEC and extensions to the south, Keystone corridor). How often do NE Regional marked Amfleet make it outside those confines? (We occasionally see them in Toronto and Montreal, but still really Empire Services.) If MU's were wanted, then we're really talking about 3 varieties: EMU's to replace NE Regional corridor services, Dual-modes that work with third rail for Empire Service and dual-modes that switch seamlessly between catenary and diesel operation for Virginia and points south. No DMU's needed, unless I'm missing something.


----------



## sttom

rickycourtney said:


> The question is... how badly does Amtrak want to switch to DMU/EMU/DMMU trainsets? If the MU operation ends up being the most important part, it will be an open race.



I would still expect Siemens or Alstom to be the favorites given Alstom is building the new Acelas. But the question is would Congress go along with an order that would displace fairly new equipment given that the money they appropriate for anything good is worth more than gold as far as they're concerned.


----------



## rickycourtney

jiml said:


> No DMU's needed, unless I'm missing something.


Amtrak Cascades is part of the order. Also Amtrak wants a fleet that will be ready create new corridors in other parts of the country. 


sttom said:


> I would still expect Siemens or Alstom to be the favorites given Alstom is building the new Acelas. But the question is would Congress go along with an order that would displace fairly new equipment given that the money they appropriate for anything good is worth more than gold as far as they're concerned.


I just don’t see Alstom’s current product (Avelia Liberty) as being that — umm — translatable? to the requirements of this order. It’s a tilting, articulated (Jacob’s bogie) trainset designed for very high speeds. It’s total overkill for this, but I supposed it could be stripped down (although it would still be articulated). However I could see them proposing to import and localize their Coradia family of MU trains.


----------



## Mailliw

Wouldn't the Acela replacement have been the most logical time to implement multiple units? Acela only runs on electrified routes. Keystone service is another great candidate for EMUs.
If the goal is to reduce costs with a uniform fleet then wouldn't it make sense to stick with locomotive hauled coaches since the same trainsets could be hauled by diesel-electric, electric, or dual locomotives vs having to order a combination of EMUs, DMUs, and BMUs?


----------



## rickycourtney

Mailliw said:


> Wouldn't the Acela replacement have been the most logical time to implement multiple units? Acela only runs on electrified routes. Keystone service is another great candidate for EMUs.
> If the goal is to reduce costs with a uniform fleet then wouldn't it make sense to stick with locomotive hauled coaches since the same trainsets could be hauled by diesel-electric, electric, or dual locomotives vs having to order a combination of EMUs, DMUs, and BMUs?


Yes.

But the most logical choice isn’t always the one that’s made.


----------



## NSC1109

rickycourtney said:


> I knew I should have done more research on the Hitachi A-Train before making that comment. I knew jis would know the full story.
> 
> So my quick prediction is...
> The pitch from Siemens will lean in on the “proven” Venture trainset and will highlight the cost savings of re-using the Sprinters and their experience with TSSSA maintenance contracts.
> 
> That makes the Siemens Venture trainsets, in my opinion, the clear favorite.
> 
> The question is... how badly does Amtrak want to switch to DMU/EMU/DMMU trainsets? If the MU operation ends up being the most important part, it will be an open race.



I think a good idea of how badly Amtrak wants to switch to trainsets outside of the NEC is displayed by the history of the trainset with Amtrak. Wasn’t exactly a lasting solution. I’m sure technology has advanced since the Turboliners and I commend Amtrak for checking things out again but I’m still pretty confident that we’ll see typical coaches.



jiml said:


> For reasons of fleet commonality, I've never thought MU's of any flavor were viable outside the Northeast (Empire Service, NEC and extensions to the south, Keystone corridor). How often do NE Regional marked Amfleet make it outside those confines? (We occasionally see them in Toronto and Montreal, but still really Empire Services.) If MU's were wanted, then we're really talking about 3 varieties: EMU's to replace NE Regional corridor services, Dual-modes that work with third rail for Empire Service and dual-modes that switch seamlessly between catenary and diesel operation for Virginia and points south. No DMU's needed, unless I'm missing something.



NE Regional branded cars have a habit of showing up on the AML. I couldn’t tell you why, we don’t have a direct connection to the Corridor, but I guess if that’s what the yardmaster has, that’s what we get.


----------



## sttom

Mailliw said:


> Wouldn't the Acela replacement have been the most logical time to implement multiple units? Acela only runs on electrified routes. Keystone service is another great candidate for EMUs.
> If the goal is to reduce costs with a uniform fleet then wouldn't it make sense to stick with locomotive hauled coaches since the same trainsets could be hauled by diesel-electric, electric, or dual locomotives vs having to order a combination of EMUs, DMUs, and BMUs?



The Acela replacement isn't an EMU, its a trainset with 2 power cars at each end. If Amtrak were to use the "car" portion of the trains as an Amfleet replacement, it would be similar to the Talgo sets in the sense that they are cars that are married together, but don't have distributed motors like multiple units tend to have.


----------



## jiml

NSC1109 said:


> NE Regional branded cars have a habit of showing up on the AML. I couldn’t tell you why, we don’t have a direct connection to the Corridor, but I guess if that’s what the yardmaster has, that’s what we get.


True, which is why I prefaced fleet commonality as the first hurdle. If Amtrak wants to continue sending cars everywhere it's the only thing that matters. I will however be surprised if Midwest coaches paid for by those states start showing up in New York.


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> True, which is why I prefaced fleet commonality as the first hurdle. If Amtrak wants to continue sending cars everywhere it's the only thing that matters. I will however be surprised if Midwest coaches paid for by those states start showing up in New York.


They won't. Just like Piedmont Cars do not show up in the Northeast either.


----------



## NSC1109

jiml said:


> True, which is why I prefaced fleet commonality as the first hurdle. If Amtrak wants to continue sending cars everywhere it's the only thing that matters. I will however be surprised if Midwest coaches paid for by those states start showing up in New York.



As jis said, they won't be going anywhere outside of the Chicago Corridor Network. Wouldn't be too difficult to program a fleet management system (I'm sure Amtrak has one) that would classify certain cars as "qualified" or "not qualified" (to put it simply) for a certain service based on the equipment number. For example, _Horizon_-class 54507 would qualify for the _Blue Water, Wolverine, Hiawatha, Illini, Saluki, Carl Sandberg_, etc but would not qualify for the _Lake Shore Limited, _and the system would not let the orders be cut with an equipment mismatch without a supervisor override (to facilitate ferry movements on revenue service trains). You could probably adapt SAP to do it. 

Probably just made it more complicated than it needs to be really.


----------



## me_little_me

rickycourtney said:


> The question is... how badly does Amtrak want to switch to DMU/EMU/DMMU trainsets? If the MU operation ends up being the most important part, it will be an open race.


I heard that in Texas, Amtrak was planning to run SMUs instead to fit in better and get support from the state. Texas liked the idea so much, they offered $1B until they found out they were engines and not Mustangs.


----------



## PVD

Even companies with top shelf computer systems fleet & dispatch control somehow find a way to screw up. AA accidently dispatched a non etops plane to Hawaii a few years back. Return flight canceled, flown back empty, plane could not legally carry passengers on the route. Another plane had to be flown empty to Hawaii to take over the route.


----------



## railiner

Used to be during periods like Thanksgiving, cars belonging to certain equipment pools, even leased commuter cars, could end up far from their normal domain.
Sometimes by design, and other times in an "emergency replacement", if some regular car happened to be bad-ordered, and anything that could run would be snagged...


----------



## jis

I would note though that I have never seen a Talgo set by chance show up outside the Cascade Corridor. I have also never seen a Piedemont car show up anywhere other than on Piedmont service.

There are certain cars that are qualified to roam the system and others that are not, and for the latter mistakes are very very rare.


----------



## railiner

So...no "Railbox" ("next load, any road") pool for passenger cars?


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> So...no "Railbox" ("next load, any road") pool for passenger cars?


Conceivably, there could be such a pool, but all cars won't be in that pool. 

Currently in the Amtrak network I think only the Amfleets and Horizons come close to such a thing.


----------



## Andrew

How do you folks think that a Biden White House with a Republican senate would impact procurement of new Amfleet coaches (and Gateway funding)?


----------



## me_little_me

Andrew said:


> How do you folks think that a Biden White House with a Republican senate would impact procurement of new Amfleet coaches (and Gateway funding)?


It all depends on whether both sides will work with each other so each gains some of what they want.
One thing has changed - no more Trump and his "winner take all" and "if you cross me, you die" attitude which stopped Republicans from negotiating compromises.

One thing that has not changed is the far left which, if you remember, were so critical of Biden during the primary campaign for having compromised on some civil rights issues 40+ years ago to gain other civil rights. Those people now have some power and, unless Biden takes command, they will keep the animosity going.

Both sides have to remember that they are paid and are required to work for the whole country, not the president, not their personal feelings and not their rich PACs.


----------



## mainemanman

Andrew said:


> How do you folks think that a Biden White House with a Republican senate would impact procurement of new Amfleet coaches (and Gateway funding)?


Hard to say. I don't think they'll be as resistant as a lot of people think they will be, if the executive branch works with the house to push legislation through I think they can negotiate enough to make it suit Republican interests. Keep in mind, the end goal of all of these actions are for Amtrak to be a profitable service, so efforts like this may be appealing to both democrats and republicans.

While this isn't related to rolling stock procurement, I'm skeptical about this "second rail revolution" people are talking about at the moment. If the states aren't on board (Minnesota, Wisconsin come to mind) new procurements of rolling stock and new routes could be very difficult to introduce, if not impossible.


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> For reasons of fleet commonality, I've never thought MU's of any flavor were viable outside the Northeast (Empire Service, NEC and extensions to the south, Keystone corridor). How often do NE Regional marked Amfleet make it outside those confines? (We occasionally see them in Toronto and Montreal, but still really Empire Services.) If MU's were wanted, then we're really talking about 3 varieties: EMU's to replace NE Regional corridor services, Dual-modes that work with third rail for Empire Service and dual-modes that switch seamlessly between catenary and diesel operation for Virginia and points south. No DMU's needed, unless I'm missing something.


You don't need third rail dual mode for Empire Service. Catenary ones will do, since there is catenary a short distance out of the Empire Connection tunnel out of Penn Station. exactly for serving such an eventuality. They can run pure diesel the rest of the way and save on a bit of headache of maintaining a third variety of rolling stock.


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> You don't need third rail dual mode for Empire Service. Catenary ones will do, since there is catenary a short distance out of the Empire Connection tunnel out of Penn Station. exactly for serving such an eventuality. They can run pure diesel the rest of the way and save on a bit of headache of maintaining a third variety of rolling stock.


Very true - I wasn't sure if it ran far enough to meet the city requirements, not knowing exactly where the boundary is. It does make you wonder why we have P32's though.


----------



## Palmetto

If nothing else, P32s will allow service to GCT, in the event they need to run there. I believe that was the case a few years ago.


----------



## jiml

Palmetto said:


> If nothing else, P32s will allow service to GCT, in the event they need to run there. I believe that was the case a few years ago.


I didn't think the P32's arrived until long after the Empire Connection opened, shifting operations to Penn. I'm pretty sure Amtrak used FL9's for some time after they stopped serving Grand Central.


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> Very true - I wasn't sure if it ran far enough to meet the city requirements, not knowing exactly where the boundary is. It does make you wonder why we have P32's though.


It was much easier to build a third rail + diesel dual mode than a 12.5kV catenary AC + diesel dual mode. The locomotives for use on the Empire Corridor are single mission units hence third rail was fine. It was especially easier when the engine did not have to perform too well in the third rail mode and just barely work to transit the tunnel part. The OHE dual modes are much more capable units specially in the electric mode.

Notwithstanding all that, the choice of equipment would be different if you were going to spring for catenary dual mode anyway to handle south of Washington DC and Springgfield Line and the like off electrification extensions of runs from the electrified spine. If you were going to get those anyway, it would not make sense to also get third rail single mission units. That was my point.

The third rail and the catenary extends to about the same point outside the Empire Connection tunnels.

As an aside, remember that until the ALP45DPs came about most did not believe that a diesel + 25kV catenary dual mode was technically possible. I remember spending hours explaining to highly opinionated people who knew little of Physics or Electrical Engineering but were sure that it could not be done, as to what exact piece of technology had just then become available which made it feasible. When the P32s came in that technology was not quite there yet, at least not in a form and weight factor that made them usable in a locomotive. Anyhow, these geniuses thought I had grown two heads or something and never believed a word that I said, and were totally floored when the first ALP45DP arrived and actually worked. Then they spent the next few years arguing fervently about the impossibility of dual mode HV AC catenary EDMUs, until they were proved wrong again. It was at least entertaining to watch.


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> It was much easier to build a third rail + diesel dual mode than a 12.5kV catenary AC + diesel dual mode. The locomotives for use on the Empire Corridor are single mission units hence third rail was fine. It was especially easier when the engine did not have to perform too well in the third rail mode and just barely work to transit the tunnel part. The OHE dual modes are much more capable units specially in the electric mode.
> 
> Notwithstanding all that, the choice of equipment would be different if you were going to spring for catenary dual mode anyway to handle south of Washington DC and Springgfield Line and the like off electrification extensions of runs from the electrified spine. If you were going to get those anyway, it would not make sense to also get third rail single mission units. That was my point.
> 
> The third rail and the catenary extends to about the same point outside the Empire Connection tunnels.
> 
> As an aside, remember that until the ALP45DPs came about most did not believe that a diesel + 25kV catenary dual mode was technically possible. I remember spending hours explaining to highly opinionated people who knew little of Physics or Electrical Engineering but were sure that it could not be done, as to what exact piece of technology had just then become available which made it feasible. When the P32s came in that technology was not quite there yet, at least not in a form and weight factor that made them usable in a locomotive. Anyhow, these geniuses thought I had grown two heads or something and never believed a word that I said, and were totally floored when the first ALP45DP arrived and actually worked. Then they spent the next few years arguing fervently about the impossibility of dual mode HV AC catenary EDMUs, until they were proved wrong again. It was at least entertaining to watch.


Thanks for all the extra details. I knew how far the catenary went, but thought the third rail went to the junction with the GCT lines (at Croton-Harmon?). My question was how far outside downtown NYC trains were legally required to operate on electric? Would simply to end of the tunnel suffice?

I have been a "student" of the Penn Station reroute for many years through the studies, construction and eventual move of services to the west side connection and have traversed both routes many times. There was even a video shot from the cab of an FL9 when the new route opened, showing most of tunnel. One of my favorite subjects.

If cost were no object, installing catenary all the way to Albany would be ideal.


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> Thanks for all the extra details. I knew how far the catenary went, but thought the third rail went to the junction with the GCT lines (at Croton-Harmon?). My question was how far outside downtown NYC trains were legally required to operate on electric? Would simply to end of the tunnel suffice?


As far as NY Penn Station is concerned, there is no statutary "legal" requirement. There is a railroad regulation restriction regarding operating within Penn Station and in the river tunnels, which can be excepted by permission of the district supervisor. Trains powered by pure diesel engines have operated in and out of Penn Station on many occasions.

The third rail system used in Penn Station (over-running) is different from that used by MNRR (under-running). They are in general incompatible unless the engine is equipped with special equipment to operate on both, and most engines currently are not equipped thusly.

Empire Service trains basically go diesel mode as soon as they exit the Empire Connection Tunnel. They do not use electric mode on MNRR.


> I have been a "student" of the Penn Station reroute for many years through the studies, construction and eventual move of services to the west side connection and have traversed both routes many times. There was even a video shot from the cab of an FL9 when the new route opened, showing most of tunnel. One of my favorite subjects.


The various tunnels between Spuyten Duyvil and CP Empire (just outside the Empire Connection Tunnels) are all adequately vented for diesel operation through them as a standard operating mode without requiring any special dispensation from anyone.

The mode change takes place in normal operations between CP Empire and the Empire Connection Tunnel portal. Everything north fo CP Empire is diesel.


> If cost were no object, installing catenary all the way to Albany would be ideal.


Yes, specially considering that there already exists equipment capable of operating on MNRR third rail and catenary electrification. At that point there would be little justification in maintaining the third rail system north of Spuyten Duyvil once enough dual electric mode EMUs are acquired.


----------



## rickycourtney

jis said:


> As an aside, remember that until the ALP45DPs came about most did not believe that a diesel + 25kV catenary dual mode was technically possible. I remember spending hours explaining to highly opinionated people who knew little of Physics or Electrical Engineering but were sure that it could not be done, as to what exact piece of technology had just then become available which made it feasible. When the P32s came in that technology was not quite there yet, at least not in a form and weight factor that made them usable in a locomotive. Anyhow, these geniuses thought I had grown two heads or something and never believed a word that I said, and were totally floored when the first ALP45DP arrived and actually worked. Then they spent the next few years arguing fervently about the impossibility of dual mode HV AC catenary EDMUs, until they were proved wrong again. It was at least entertaining to watch.


What is the general impression of the ALP45DP units? I guess NJT gave them the biggest compliment you can... they bought a second order. 

If Amtrak goes with the Siemens Venture trainsets, dual-mode locomotives could be great on the short-haul corridors that use the NEC. I'm thinking of trains like the Carolinian, the Vermonter, and the Virginia services... basically anything that spends a good portion of its trip under wire. 

That would eliminate the (time-consuming?) locomotive changes at Washington, DC or New Haven.


----------



## jis

I suspect if Amtrak goes for a dual mode it will most likely be a Siemens Vectron derived one with huge parts commonality with ALC-42s, SC-44s and ACS-64s. I would be very surprised if they consider an ALP45DP, since you have the additional headache of maintaining two diesel motors instead of one, assuming of course that Siemens comes up with a single engine dual mode with adequate power.


----------



## rickycourtney

jis said:


> I suspect if Amtrak goes for a dual mode it will most likely be a Siemens Vectron derived one with huge parts commonality with ALC-42s, SC-44s and ACS-64s. I would be very surprised if they consider an ALP45DP, since you have the additional headache of maintaining two diesel motors instead of one, assuming of course that Siemens comes up with a single engine dual mode with adequate power.


Yeah, I should have been more clear about that... I was talking about the ALP45DP as a stand-in for a generic dual-power locomotive.

I also agree that a Siemens Vectron derived dual-power locomotive... with the same Cummins QSK95 prime mover from the Charger... and the electric systems from the ACS-64... would be a great option.


----------



## sttom

Just gonna leave the specs for the Vectron Dual Mode here... Ordering a variant for services outside the NEC would make sense if the engine swap is that big of a problem. 


https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:f0e6c4dd-c846-4808-9c37-6640621ff7b0/siemens-mobility-brochure-vectron-dual-mode-en.pdf


----------



## 9900

Ain’t gonna get very far with a 660 gallon tank of gas. (2,500 Liters)


----------



## PVD

Not close to what would be required for corridor service. I'm sure Siemens could produce what is needed, but that set of specs -max speed insufficient, fuel load not even close, no HEP sure won't cut it.


----------



## rickycourtney

Yeah, I would expect that it would be based on the Vectron, but would be closer in specs to the Charger.

Similar to how the ALP-45DP is based on the Bombardier TRAXX, but with different specs for the North American market.


----------



## jis

I would imagine that in order to make space to fit all the necessary pieces of equipment, the dual mode would have to be significantly longer than the Charger. At least lengthened by the amount needed to fit an under floors HV transformer in addition to the heftier fuel tank as in the ALC-42. That will then require additional work to figure out the new vibration modes and damp them etc. to get the thing certified for 125mph, and also figure out how to keep it within acceptable axle load. 

It becomes easier to do all that if one went Co-Co, but the US is allergic to 100mph or 125mph Co-Co locomotives, apparently because one Co-Co model with what turned out to be an off balance Steam Boiler kept derailing.


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> I would imagine that in order to make space to fit all the necessary pieces of equipment, the dual mode would have to be significantly longer than the Charger. At least lengthened by the amount needed to fit an under floors HV transformer in addition to the heftier fuel tank as in the ALC-42. That will then require additional work to figure out the new vibration modes and damp them etc. to get the thing certified for 125mph, and also figure out how to keep it within acceptable axle load.
> 
> It becomes easier to do all that if one went Co-Co, but the US is allergic to 100mph or 125mph Co-Co locomotives, apparently because one Co-Co model with what turned out to be an off balance Steam Boiler kept derailing.


If one looks at how the FL9 came to market, it's interesting to watch history repeat itself right down to the longer chassis and change of rear trucks. Not exactly the same situation, but similar requirements.


----------



## PVD

The FL-9 would be considered too slow and very underpowered for today's corridor, as well as being 3rd rail not cat.


----------



## jiml

PVD said:


> The FL-9 would be considered too slow and very underpowered for today's corridor, as well as being 3rd rail not cat.


I wasn't advocating for FL9's, rather stating the criteria that brought them about is similar to what @jis described. They had a locomotive, but it needed dual-mode capability and head-end power. That required a longer locomotive and a 6-wheel rear truck. I found it remarkable that he's suggested that modifying a current locomotive model to meet much the same requirements could require both of the above.


----------



## rickycourtney

I mean, the specs on the ALP-45DP are very impressive...

It's 72 feet long, weighs 288,000 pounds, tops out at 125 mph in electric mode with 6,700 horsepower, and makes 100 mph in diesel mode with 4,200 horsepower. It comes with a 1,600 or 1,800-gallon fuel tank. Oh, and it's a four-axle unit.

New Jersey Transit told Bombardier that they could make it up to 75 feet long, so they actually had three extra feet to work with.

For comparison, the Charger is 71.5 feet long, weighs 264,556 pounds, tops out at 125 mph with 4,000, 4,200, or 4,400 horsepower. It comes with a 1,800 or 2,200-gallon fuel tank.

So all that to say... it is possible to pack all the necessary equipment into a similar length locomotive.


----------



## frequentflyer

After reading the last couple of threads, the consensus is that Amtrak will order the same Siemens coaches the midwest and Califfornia ordered in the name of simplicity and go with a dual mode locomotive to handle near NEC duties. So it will be a battle of dual modes locomotives and not EMU/DMU sets. Problem is there is no RFP for such a locomotive. From an operations standpoint it would simplify things a lot if Amtrak could make this work.


----------



## jis

rickycourtney said:


> I mean, the specs on the ALP-45DP are very impressive...
> 
> It's 72 feet long, weighs 288,000 pounds, tops out at 125 mph in electric mode with 6,700 horsepower, and makes 100 mph in diesel mode with 4,200 horsepower. It comes with a 1,600 or 1,800-gallon fuel tank. Oh, and it's a four-axle unit.
> 
> New Jersey Transit told Bombardier that they could make it up to 75 feet long, so they actually had three extra feet to work with.
> 
> For comparison, the Charger is 71.5 feet long, weighs 264,556 pounds, tops out at 125 mph with 4,000, 4,200, or 4,400 horsepower. It comes with a 1,800 or 2,200-gallon fuel tank.
> 
> So all that to say... it is possible to pack all the necessary equipment into a similar length locomotive.


One major problem with the 45s is that they are a huge maintenance headache and they have never achieved any MTBF numbers that anyone considers to be world class. NJT has infinite capital money that they seem not to know what to do with, other than convert some to expense to cover operating shortfalls each year, so they can keep sinking more and more money into them.

Fortunately they are finally eating a little bit of crow and ordering the Multi-level Power Cars to combine with the MLV trailers to form EMU sets. This is a huge reversal from a company which foolishly had forsworn ever using EMUs again and crawled in with all four paws onto the push/pull band wagon, a railroad that on some of their lines have stations less than a mile apart. Part of the problem in this country may be that some transit agencies are their own worst enemies, guided by almost religious beliefs instead of any reasonable engineering analysis to arrive at decisions of what they do.

There is a reason that Montreal has pretty much decided to decommission their 45s after using them for a while as pure diesel units (in practice they are not very reliable diesel units either), and no one else has ever ordered one of those. The only additional order has been from NJT.



frequentflyer said:


> After reading the last couple of threads, the consensus is that Amtrak will order the same Siemens coaches the midwest and Califfornia ordered in the name of simplicity and go with a dual mode locomotive to handle near NEC duties. So it will be a battle of dual modes locomotives and not EMU/DMU sets. Problem is there is no RFP for such a locomotive. From an operations standpoint it would simplify things a lot if Amtrak could make this work.


There are potentially three customers of a dual mode of any sort.:

1. MNRR: They need a third rail dual mode. They are not particularly interested in catenary dual modes because Grand Central will never get catenary, and that is what they need to access mainly for their outer zone push/pulls. Those are not hard to build and they have been working diligently on such a thing.

2. LIRR: They would like a dual mode too for their outer zone push/pulls to access NY Penn Station. They can live with third rail dual modes, and will probably just do an add-on order with MNRR, whatever they get.

3. Amtrak: For NY State service, funded by NY State they can live with third rail dual mode, and there is an argument to be made in favor of such since it leaves open the possibility of doing emergency diversions to Grand Central, which becomes impossible with centenary dual mode, unless they happen to be triple mode with both catenary and third rail capabilities. Extra cost, extra complexity, extra weight.

As has been mentioned in this thread, Amtrak could use a catenary dual mode for its non-electrified service extensions from the electrified NEC spine, within reason. But I suspect Amtrak will have to bear the entire cost for the development of such a beast, since MTA will most likely not bother with it, and NY State may chose not to partake either. On the brighter side, in a rational world it could be a joint project funded by Amtrak, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut and Massachusetts.


----------



## joelkfla

jis said:


> 3. Amtrak: For NY State service, funded by NY State they can live with third rail dual mode, and there is an argument to be made in favor of such since it leaves open the possibility of doing emergency diversions to Grand Central, which becomes impossible with centenary dual mode, unless they happen to be triple mode with both catenary and third rail capabilities. Extra cost, extra complexity, extra weight.


I know nothing about this, but I think someone said earlier that the 3rd rail into Penn is not compatible with the 3rd rail into GC. Overrunning as opposed to underrunning, IIRC.


----------



## jis

joelkfla said:


> I know nothing about this, but I think someone said earlier that the 3rd rail into Penn is not compatible with the 3rd rail into GC. Overrunning as opposed to underrunning, IIRC.


I said that. But I am not sure what has that got to do with anything. Changing out third rail shoes or even installing a third rail shoe that works for both is quite possible and is not complicated. I don;t think that is a major issue. But you have to plan for it and equip the engines/cars accordingly.


----------



## rickycourtney

I found this nugget buried in the September 2020 minutes of the Next Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee...
_In April it was agreed that developing a TSSSA (Technical Support and Spares Supply Agreement) template/menu of potential options would be undertaken by the Technical subcommittee. _​_As expressed by Chairman Hessinger, the intent is to have an “a la carte” menu of options when considering a TSSSA as a part of the procurement process. _​_Once the DRAFT is prepared, it will be provided to Tammy Krause to get it ready to be included as an NGEC document for Technical subcommittee approval and, ultimately for Executive Board review and approval. _​_*As of 9-17-20 - progress had slowed due to the many changes that have taken place at Amtrak. On 9-17-20, new Technical subcommittee Chair, George Hull told the Technical subcommittee that there were no updates on the progress of this activity at this time as “things are just getting settled here at Amtrak” with all the changes that have occurred.*_​
So we know, by Amtrak's own statements that a TSSSA will be part of this equipment order, and now we know that the part of Amtrak concerned with TSSSA's has been subject to many changes. As background, George Hull is Amtrak's Deputy Chief Mechanical Officer. Provides a little bit of background on why this order seems very delayed. 

Later in the minutes, they go on to say that the Intercity Passenger Car procurement remains in the “cone of silence”. (The minutes have said this same thing for months.)


----------



## NSC1109

rickycourtney said:


> I found this nugget buried in the September 2020 minutes of the Next Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee...
> _In April it was agreed that developing a TSSSA (Technical Support and Spares Supply Agreement) template/menu of potential options would be undertaken by the Technical subcommittee. _​_As expressed by Chairman Hessinger, the intent is to have an “a la carte” menu of options when considering a TSSSA as a part of the procurement process. _​_Once the DRAFT is prepared, it will be provided to Tammy Krause to get it ready to be included as an NGEC document for Technical subcommittee approval and, ultimately for Executive Board review and approval. _​_*As of 9-17-20 - progress had slowed due to the many changes that have taken place at Amtrak. On 9-17-20, new Technical subcommittee Chair, George Hull told the Technical subcommittee that there were no updates on the progress of this activity at this time as “things are just getting settled here at Amtrak” with all the changes that have occurred.*_​
> So we know, by Amtrak's own statements that a TSSSA will be part of this equipment order, and now we know that the part of Amtrak concerned with TSSSA's has been subject to many changes. As background, George Hull is Amtrak's Deputy Chief Mechanical Officer. Provides a little bit of background on why this order seems very delayed.
> 
> Later in the minutes, they go on to say that the Intercity Passenger Car procurement remains in the “cone of silence”. (The minutes have said this same thing for months.)



Cone of Silence is a supply chain thing. The procurement folks are doing their thing, and they are sequestered from speaking to anyone outside their department about the procurement process and who the selectee is. It’s a normal thing.


----------



## jis

NSC1109 said:


> Cone of Silence is a supply chain thing. The procurement folks are doing their thing, and they are sequestered from speaking to anyone outside their department about the procurement process and who the selectee is. It’s a normal thing.


Indeed! The Cone of Silence will remain in place until an order is placed or the process is otherwise discontinued. Even after that the information released will be subject to agreed upon restrictions in case of an order or the agreement on the handling of residual information in case of discontinuance. Pretty standard stuff. One never gets all the information unless one is deeply involved in the process of negotiations.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> Pretty standard stuff. One never gets all the information unless one is deeply involved in the process of negotiations.


That can be a good or bad thing, depending on your view...


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> That can be a good or bad thing, depending on your view...


It is unavoidable in situations where trade secrets are involved, including details of cost negotiations and such, absent any plausible evidence of malafide.


----------



## rickycourtney

What was news to me is that “many changes that have taken place at Amtrak” so much so that no progress was made on looking at TSSSA’s and that by September “things are just getting settled at Amtrak.”


----------



## railiner

Let’s hope those changes are “positive”...


----------



## jiml

rickycourtney said:


> What was news to me is that “many changes that have taken place at Amtrak” so much so that no progress was made on looking at TSSSA’s and that by September “things are just getting settled at Amtrak.”


With more to come presumably?


----------



## Andrew

How likely is it for Stadler to receive the contract for new Amfleet coaches?


----------



## rickycourtney

Andrew said:


> How likely is it for Stadler to receive the contract for new Amfleet coaches?


They have a chance. I’m not willing to put any odds on one manufacturer over another.

Siemens is the favorite because they have a proven product and an established production line.

But I want to make this point super clear...

I expect nearly every passenger equipment manufacturer that has a US operation (and maybe some that don’t) has made a proposal. That includes Stadler.

This is a very lucrative contract that could keep a factory humming for years.

Another way to see this is that Siemens has the least to lose here. Between the CA/Midwest order, the VIA order, the future Brightline order... the Venture production line will be busy for years to come. Siemens also has very busy LRV and Charger production lines.

For another manufacturer... this contract could be the difference between being a player in the US marketplace for a few more years or closing up a factory.


----------



## Andrew

I understand that Siemens maybe the favorite but I was not too sure if they were too busy to manufacture new Amfleet coaches?


----------



## NSC1109

Andrew said:


> How likely is it for Stadler to receive the contract for new Amfleet coaches?



It (likely) will not happen.

When choosing a supplier, your best option is the one with the proven product. I don’t believe Stadler has mass-produced a US heavy-rail order as of yet (if this is incorrect someone tell me) and not everyone can do it (see Nippon Sharyo).

Siemens had a proven product, the ability to ramp manufacturing, and a good working relationship with the states and Amtrak reps. In the interests of fleet commonality, they are they way to go.


----------



## rickycourtney

NSC1109 said:


> I don’t believe Stadler has mass-produced a US heavy-rail order as of yet (if this is incorrect someone tell me) and not everyone can do it (see Nippon Sharyo).


Stadler has the FLIRT DMU heavy-rail trainset and the KISS EMU trainset.

The company has built eight 4-car FLIRT trainsets for the TEXRail line in Fort Worth, TX, is building four 2-car FLIRT trainsets for the Arrow line in Redlands, CA, and is also building 19 7-car KISS sets for Caltrain in San Jose, CA.

I'll let you decide if a total production of 173 cars is "mass-production."

I don't really understand where that equipment stands with meeting FRA standards. To be honest, I don't have my head fully wrapped around the new FRA rules and waivers.

However, I have heard that Caltrain needs to have PTC up and running to fulfill the requirements the FRA set in its waiver allowing the EMUs to share tracks with freight trains... so with all lines forced to have PTC soon there may be a way to use Stadler's equipment nationwide... but there may also be more hoops to jump through.

Stadler has also made locomotive-hauled railcars for the US market -- but -- it was a 10-car order of bespoke bi-level glass-domed coaches for Rocky Mountaineer. They took around three years to build the tiny order... so that's not exactly a pressure test.

Stadler would probably be a great choice if Amtrak decides to go the EMU/DMU route... but I don't think they will because it means disposing of the 5-year-old ACS-64 locomotives.



Andrew said:


> I understand that Siemens maybe the favorite but I was not too sure if they were too busy to manufacture new Amfleet coaches?


I'm not too sure if most companies are ever too busy to say no to a big order.


----------



## jiml

rickycourtney said:


> Stadler has the FLIRT DMU heavy-rail trainset and the KISS EMU trainset.
> 
> The company has built eight 4-car FLIRT trainsets for the TEXRail line in Fort Worth, TX


----------



## nullptr

I forgot the new passenger cars for the Cascades service was lumped into this as well. WSDOT gave a very brief update on Monday to the Washington House Transportation Committee. Only thing new information as far as I can tell is that they expected delivery in 2025. The fact that the Cascades have brand new Chargers also makes me skeptical they would go purely with a DMU option. 






House Transportation Committee - TVW


Virtual Work Session: Local and state ferry systems (update), Fish passage barrier correction (update), Passenger train equipment procurement (update).




www.tvw.org


----------



## nullptr

jis said:


> There are potentially three customers of a dual mode of any sort.:
> 
> 1. MNRR: They need a third rail dual mode. They are not particularly interested in catenary dual modes because Grand Central will never get catenary, and that is what they need to access mainly for their outer zone push/pulls. Those are not hard to build and they have been working diligently on such a thing.
> 
> 2. LIRR: They would like a dual mode too for their outer zone push/pulls to access NY Penn Station. They can live with third rail dual modes, and will probably just do an add-on order with MNRR, whatever they get.
> 
> 3. Amtrak: For NY State service, funded by NY State they can live with third rail dual mode, and there is an argument to be made in favor of such since it leaves open the possibility of doing emergency diversions to Grand Central, which becomes impossible with centenary dual mode, unless they happen to be triple mode with both catenary and third rail capabilities. Extra cost, extra complexity, extra weight.
> 
> As has been mentioned in this thread, Amtrak could use a catenary dual mode for its non-electrified service extensions from the electrified NEC spine, within reason. But I suspect Amtrak will have to bear the entire cost for the development of such a beast, since MTA will most likely not bother with it, and NY State may chose not to partake either. On the brighter side, in a rational world it could be a joint project funded by Amtrak, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut and Massachusetts.




This might be better posted in a different, or its own, thread, but it looks like the MTA is going with Siemens for its MNRR dual-mode locomotives, with options for an LIRR configuration (66 total) and options for the Empire Service (26) and CDOT (20).



https://new.mta.info/document/25251#page=132



The order of 27 locomotives for $334 million means that it comes out to over $12 million apiece, which seems pretty steep (Some of the cost of the order is for parts and service but still).

From the staff report, both Bombardier and MPI submitted proposals to phase 1 of the RFP, but pulled out from phase 2 because of the small size of the base order.


----------



## sttom

$12 million isn't really that bad of a cost. The Chargers going to the States and Amtrak cost around $11 million per engine. Considering the design would need to be modified for third rail operations and the document says they are buying more parts, what I'm guessing is an extended warranty and a simulator, an extra million per engine doesn't seem like a horrible deal compared to what Amtrak orders are coming in as.


----------



## nullptr

Yeah, fair point. Looks like I was misremembering what the Chargers went for. The long-distance order was $850 million for 75, which is $11 per, as you said.


----------



## rickycourtney

I wonder how useful the electric-powered side of the Charger will be. 

As discussed on this thread (or maybe another) the Genesis P32-DM's are basically designed as diesel locomotives that can "limp" using the third-rail. In other words, pure electric is limited to slow-speed operations and as soon as the train is out of the tunnels the diesel prime mover is fired up and takes over.

If the Charger could operate at full track speeds with the diesel prime mover shut down... that would be awesome.

I was reading in another article that the companies who bid on this contract were asked to be ready to build several dual-mode varients if asked:

A diesel and DC third rail dual mode with a top speed of 110 mi/hr or 125 mi/hr (instead of 90 mi/hr)
A diesel and AC overhead wire locomotive with a top speed of 110 mi/hr or 125 mi/hr (similar to NJTransit's ALP-45DP locomotives)
A DC third rail and AC overhead wire motor (no diesel) that can run on 25 c/s 12.5 kV, 60 c/s 12.5 kV, and 60 c/s 25kV overhead wire
Presumably, Siemens feels comfortable that they can build all three. That could be another reason for Amtrak to not consider Dual Mode MU trainsets.


----------



## jis

What does consideration of EMU trainset have to do with dual mode locomotive availability beats me. They seem to be orthogonal issues to me. One has to do with superior performance and the other with being able to operate outside wired territory. Generally locomotive hauled train have inferior performance compared to properly engineered E/DMUs. The rest of the world discovered this a few decades or more back. In US we used to know this, but somehow now we struggle with this simple concept. Fortunately knowledgeable regional operators with truly heavy traffic do understand this, and some are coming around to it again after having been lost in the push-pul wilderness for a while (e.g. NJTransit). The Brits are way ahead of us in the use of EDMUs though.


----------



## west point

For some reason that i am not familiar 3rd rail reasonable top speeds are somewhere around 90 -100 MPH. That has been posted in other thread s. Hope someone can clarify ? If that is true then we may know why MNRR has not increased the track MAS higher for the Amtrak trains on the Hudson line?


----------



## jis

west point said:


> For some reason that i am not familiar 3rd rail reasonable top speeds are somewhere around 90 -100 MPH. That has been posted in other thread s. Hope someone can clarify ? If that is true then we may know why MNRR has not increased the track MAS higher for the Amtrak trains on the Hudson line?


Generally 100mph has been about the highest commercial that has operated with third rail electrification. There are two issues that arise with third rail. One is that it is hard to design collecting shoes that operate without arcing at higher speeds. And the other is typically higher speed requires higher power, which means hugely larger current draw at low voltages that third rails are limited to.

Since neither Amtrak, nor Metro North uses third rail outside the tunnels on their dual mode engines, what is or is not possible with third rail regarding speed is a on-issue at present. MNRR has no incentive to increase maintenance costs for supporting higher speed limits just for Amtrak unless Amtrak pays to make it so. MNRR itself has little to gain running at 90 instead of 70-75. And Hudson Line is not exactly a straight race track in the MNRR territory anyway.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> What does consideration of EMU trainset have to do with dual mode locomotive availability beats me. They seem to be orthogonal issues to me. One has to do with superior performance and the other with being able to operate outside wired territory. Generally locomotive hauled train have inferior performance compared to properly engineered E/DMUs. The rest of the world discovered this a few decades or more back. In US we used to know this, but somehow now we struggle with this simple concept. Fortunately knowledgeable regional operators with truly heavy traffic do understand this, and some are coming around to it again after having been lost in the push-pul wilderness for a while (e.g. NJTransit). The Brits are way ahead of us in the use of EDMUs though.



Does Metro North ordering locomotives from Siemens make it more likely for Amtrak to order Venture coaches to replace their Amfleets?

Would it make sense for Amtrak to order EMU trains to replace the Amfleets, and then Amtrak could sell their Sprinter Locomotives to both NJ Transit and SEPTA?


----------



## NSC1109

Andrew said:


> Does Metro North ordering locomotives from Siemens make it more likely for Amtrak to order Venture coaches to replace their Amfleets?
> 
> Would it make sense for Amtrak to order EMU trains to replace the Amfleets, and then Amtrak could sell their Sprinter Locomotives to both NJ Transit and SEPTA?



M-N’s order will have little basis for Amtrak’s procurement choices.

Personally, and this just my opinion without any available hard costs to associate with it, buying EMUs and selling the Sprinters would be a mistake. You still have to replace most of the single-level fleet where EMUs don’t work. That’s adding in a whole new fleet type that you’re gonna need to stand up a maintenance operation for with a TSSSA and training. Buying the EMU and selling the ACS-64 would result in the net number of fleet types staying the same, but one would have increased short term costs with the standing up of the operation and one wouldnt. Just replace the coaches and be done with it.


----------



## jis

NSC1109 said:


> M-N’s order will have little basis for Amtrak’s procurement choices.


In general that is true. 

But since the DMs will be for exclusive use of NYSDOT funded Empire Corridor and might indeed be actually owned by NYSDOT though operated under contract by Amtrak, since Amtrak would have no use for them anywhere else, they might have a little more to do with MNRR's choice of DMs since potentially NYSDOT could reduce their overall cost by having them maintained at the Croton shops. I don't know that this will happen, but it is not completely out of the question.


----------



## NSC1109

jis said:


> In general that is true.
> 
> But since the DMs will be for exclusive use of NYSDOT funded Empire Corridor and might indeed be actually owned by NYSDOT though operated under contract by Amtrak, since Amtrak would have no use for them anywhere else, they might have a little more to do with MNRR's choice of DMs since potentially NYSDOT could reduce their overall cost by having them maintained at the Croton shops. I don't know that this will happen, but it is not completely out of the question.



I am not totally well-versed in NYS operations (as the Midwest is my home), but I agree that if NYSDOT were to purchase a set of DMs then I would expect a portion of those to be contracted to Amtrak, and I wouldn’t be surprised if a follow-up order of Venture coaches for NYS/Empire popped up somewhere down the line.


----------



## Andrew

Would it make sense for Amtrak to go with a combination of locomotive hauled Venture coaches for the Regionals and multiple unit trainsets for the Keystones?


----------



## railiner

For pure utility, having just one type (locomotive hauled) would probably make more sense. I don't know economically what the difference would be...it would be hard to figure. If Amtrak did decided to acquire new MU's, they would be smart to try to 'piggy-back' the order with one or more commuter railroads, and make minimal customization for Amtrak's requirements....


----------



## Andrew

railiner said:


> For pure utility, having just one type (locomotive hauled) would probably make more sense. I don't know economically what the difference would be...it would be hard to figure. If Amtrak did decided to acquire new MU's, they would be smart to try to 'piggy-back' the order with one or more commuter railroads, and make minimal customization for Amtrak's requirements....



OK and if it was up to you, would you have Amtrak choose Alstom, Siemens or Stadler for the new Amfleet coaches, and why?


----------



## Mailliw

I would choose Siemens since they already have an FRA approved passenger coach in production and are delivering the CA/Midwest cars on time without major issues.


----------



## railiner

Andrew said:


> OK and if it was up to you, would you have Amtrak choose Alstom, Siemens or Stadler for the new Amfleet coaches, and why?


I haven't studied them to have a meaningful opinion. My consideration's would be which one could deliver the best product in the shortest time, at the least cost. Not asking for much, eh?


----------



## tricia

railiner said:


> I haven't studied them to have a meaningful opinion. My consideration's would be which one could deliver the best product in the shortest time, at the least cost. Not asking for much, eh?



Basic rule of supply management:
You can get it fastest, cheapest, or highest quality, but almost never all three at once. Gotta set priorities.


----------



## Andrew

Mailliw said:


> I would choose Siemens since they already have an FRA approved passenger coach in production and are delivering the CA/Midwest cars on time without major issues.



Or what about Amtrak choosing a version of the new Avelia coaches?


----------



## mainemanman

Andrew said:


> Or what about Amtrak choosing a version of the new Avelia coaches?


Those cars are married together in a set. Due to this, there would be a limiting factor for what you could order. It would be a waste to order, say, a full 8-car set for the Pere Marquette just because they're in a joined set. You'd have to split the order in two, one for high-use routes, and one for medium-use routes. I feel like this would be harder for them to do than to just order single coaches that can couple together in a consist based on demand of the route.


----------



## MARC Rider

Andrew said:


> OK and if it was up to you, would you have Amtrak choose Alstom, Siemens or Stadler for the new Amfleet coaches, and why?


If I didn't have to do the formalized government style procurement process where the sore losers can sue in court and possibly win, and assuming the price difference between the vendors wasn't ridiculously great, I'd probably go with the Siemens as a sole-source, as they're already making them for the Midwest corridors (in fact, they've delivered some, I think). They have the assembly line up and running, the design is already FRA approved, it would allow consistency in the fleet, so in a pinch they could swap cars between the northeast and the midwest. (NOTE: I have absolutely NO financial interest in Siemens, or Alstom or Stadler, for that matter.)


----------



## Anthony V

MARC Rider said:


> If I didn't have to do the formalized government style procurement process where the sore losers can sue in court and possibly win, and assuming the price difference between the vendors wasn't ridiculously great, I'd probably go with the Siemens as a sole-source, as they're already making them for the Midwest corridors (in fact, they've delivered some, I think). They have the assembly line up and running, the design is already FRA approved, it would allow consistency in the fleet, so in a pinch they could swap cars between the northeast and the midwest. (NOTE: I have absolutely NO financial interest in Siemens, or Alstom or Stadler, for that matter.)


The Siemens Venture rolling stock currently in production will be owned by the states that operate the routes they will be used on, so you will never see them transferred to other parts of the country, like the Northeast. In fact, the rolling stock that the RFP mentioned in the title of this tread was issued for would be used to replace the rolling stock on northeastern trains and presumably single-level long distance trains, as well as the Cascades trains that have moved away from Talgo's due to their safety flaws.


----------



## jis

Anthony V said:


> The Siemens Venture rolling stock currently in production will be owned by the states that operate the routes they will be used on, so you will never see them transferred to other parts of the country, like the Northeast. In fact, the rolling stock that the RFP mentioned in the title of this tread was issued for would be used to replace the rolling stock on northeastern trains and presumably single-level long distance trains, as well as the Cascades trains that have moved away from Talgo's due to their safety flaws.


Actually, the equipment for Cascades will be purchased by some combination of Washington and Oregon and it will be an add on order to the base Amtrak order for Amfleet I replacement. I presume that Amfleet II replacement will also use the options on the base order sometime in the future. The 2019 Appropriation has $100 million to get the ball rolling on the Amfleet I replacement order.

It is not known at present whether there will be commonality in internal furnishing with the Midwest or the California cars or consist configurations in any way,


----------



## Palmetto

Just wondering: would there be any difference between the current Venture cars that are arriving in Chicago presently, versus a long distance version of same? One thought that comes to mind would be wider spacing between seats, and leg rests. And a more comfortable seat, if one exists.


----------



## Mailliw

Well, other than lower density seating the only differences I see are lack of a 2nd vestibule and hopefully a 2nd restroom. Maybe do something really different and have all LD coaches set up like business class with a 2:1 arrangement?


----------



## sttom

Palmetto said:


> Just wondering: would there be any difference between the current Venture cars that are arriving in Chicago presently, versus a long distance version of same? One thought that comes to mind would be wider spacing between seats, and leg rests. And a more comfortable seat, if one exists.


Siemens designs its equipment to be shells that the buyer can customize them in whatever way they want, within reason. The structure of the car doesn't change just because the interior arrangement does. What would be different would be if Amtrak wanted more single level sleepers or a Superliner replacement.


----------



## rickycourtney

sttom said:


> Siemens designs its equipment to be shells that the buyer can customize them in whatever way they want, within reason. The structure of the car doesn't change just because the interior arrangement does. What would be different would be if Amtrak wanted more single level sleepers or a Superliner replacement.


This.

Seats are usually purchased from a subcontractor, in other words, Siemens doesn't even make the seats. So for long-distance services... Amtrak could probably get anything they want. That said -- this contract is for an Amfleet I replacement -- which are used on the short-haul corridors like the NEC, so I would imagine they'd want seats pretty similar to what the states have purchased.


----------



## Mailliw

Yeah, Siemens wouldn't necessarily need to make any alterations for a long distance coach unless Amtrak wanted to change the window set-up or add additional plumbing like they would for a sleeper. BTW here's what the Russians are doing for their next generation of 3rd class/platzkart cars (also built by Siemens). I know it's too radical for the US, but I still thought it was cool. Not as nice as a sleeper, but sure looks better than a seated coach overnight.


----------



## Steve4031

Those bunks would be miserable to sit up in during the day. Plus the set up makes it difficult to look out the window.


----------



## Willbridge

Steve4031 said:


> Those bunks would be miserable to sit up in during the day. Plus the set up makes it difficult to look out the window.


Birch trees... then more birch trees. Really, there's more to see but for most of the passengers the show is inside the train.


----------



## Ziv

Leave it to the Russians to have a model in a miniskirt climb into the upper berth. That looks so Mad Men... LOL! Cool idea for travel, probably wouldn't work in the US but it is still interesting. I still prefer the 4 person couchette, but it would cost more too. This is more 3rd Class sleeper vs. couchette is 2nd Class, good have options. I hope that slide open hatch from one bunk compartment to the another compartment is lockable. ;-) Great for families, not so great for single women travelers.


Mailliw said:


> Yeah, Siemens wouldn't necessarily need to make any alterations for a long distance coach unless Amtrak wanted to change the window set-up or add additional plumbing like they would for a sleeper. BTW here's what the Russians are doing for their next generation of 3rd class/platzkart cars (also built by Siemens). I know it's too radical for the US, but I still thought it was cool. Not as nice as a sleeper, but sure looks better than a seated coach overnight.


----------



## jis

Mailliw said:


> BTW here's what the Russians are doing for their next generation of 3rd class/platzkart cars (also built by Siemens). I know it's too radical for the US, but I still thought it was cool. Not as nice as a sleeper, but sure looks better than a seated coach overnight.


That looks exactly like what is called "2 Tier Sleeper" in India. In addition to that, for those that want to spend even less, there is a 3 Tier Sleeper, which is the most popular form of sleeping accommodation in India. In the fully AC trains there is a ratio of something like 1 AC First Class (compartments) to 5 2 Tier Sleeper to 12 3 Tier Sleeper, or something like that.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Actually, the equipment for Cascades will be purchased by some combination of Washington and Oregon and it will be an add on order to the base Amtrak order for Amfleet I replacement. I presume that Amfleet II replacement will also use the options on the base order sometime in the future. The 2019 Appropriation has $100 million to get the ball rolling on the Amfleet I replacement order.
> 
> It is not known at present whether there will be commonality in internal furnishing with the Midwest or the California cars or consist configurations in any way,



I wonder if Amtrak would order Venture coaches for the Cascades, and possibly ask Alstom or Kawasaki to build the new Amfleets for the NEC, since both companies have factories on the East Coast.


----------



## Trogdor

Andrew said:


> I wonder if Amtrak would order Venture coaches for the Cascades, and possibly ask Alstom or Kawasaki to build the new Amfleets for the NEC, since both companies have factories on the East Coast.



Amtrak won't order anything for the Cascades. Washington State will, and they will just tag on to the order for whatever Amtrak gets. Therefore, there is essentially 0% chance such a scenario comes to pass.


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> I wonder if Amtrak would order Venture coaches for the Cascades, and possibly ask Alstom or Kawasaki to build the new Amfleets for the NEC, since both companies have factories on the East Coast.


None can stop anyone from wondering stranger and stranger scenarios, but based on what we know at present, this won't happen. Cascade order placed by state of Washington and/or Oregon will be a tag on order to Amtrak's Amfleet replacement order (they have pretty much said so already) and hence will be from the same vendor. Neither Washington nor Oregon DOT have any stomach for any further equipment misadventures on their own.

I suspect that now that North Carolina has decided to discontinue using heritage equipment going forward, they will also do a tag on order to Amtrak's for the Piedmont service.


----------



## west point

I have real heart burn over this replacement scheme. The Amfleet-2s have much more mileage and time on them than the -1s. Even though -2s are ~ 10 years younger. That Number is because -2s operate overnight unlike most -1s. That number is further broadened due to the ~ 65 -1s that were out of service until the repairs initiated during the early Obama Presidency. 
This appears to be more Amtrak maneuvering to sink the LD routes. East coast LD routes cannot expand consists due to lack of equipment.


----------



## MikefromCrete

west point said:


> I have real heart burn over this replacement scheme. The Amfleet-2s have much more mileage and time on them than the -1s. Even though -2s are ~ 10 years younger. That Number is because -2s operate overnight unlike most -1s. That number is further broadened due to the ~ 65 -1s that were out of service until the repairs initiated during the early Obama Presidency.
> This appears to be more Amtrak maneuvering to sink the LD routes. East coast LD routes cannot expand consists due to lack of equipment.



Calm down, you shouldn't get physically sick over some Amtrak equipment decision.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> None can stop anyone from wondering stranger and stranger scenarios, but based on what we know at present, this won't happen. Cascade order placed by state of Washington and/or Oregon will be a tag on order to Amtrak's Amfleet replacement order (they have pretty much said so already) and hence will be from the same vendor. Neither Washington nor Oregon DOT have any stomach for any further equipment misadventures on their own.
> 
> I suspect that now that North Carolina has decided to discontinue using heritage equipment going forward, they will also do a tag on order to Amtrak's for the Piedmont service.



In my opinion, the top 3 companies bidding on the Amfleet replacement contract are Siemens, Alstom and Stadler. Below, I'll mention potential political ramifications of picking Alstom or Stadler in alphabetical order.

Alstom has their factory in Upstate NY. (Cuomo is NY's governor, and Amtrak picking Alstom would encourage Cuomo to maintain support for the Gateway Project).

Stadler has their factory in Utah, which is a red state; Amtrak picking Stadler for the new Amfleets will help ensure federal funding for Amtrak from conservatives, when we know that Republicans want reduced federal spending.

Also, regarding Amtrak operating trains into non-electrified territory, would it make more sense for Amtrak to purchase dual-powered locomotives or dual-powered trainsets such as the Stadler Flirt?


----------



## Willbridge

Ziv said:


> Leave it to the Russians to have a model in a miniskirt climb into the upper berth. That looks so Mad Men... LOL! Cool idea for travel, probably wouldn't work in the US but it is still interesting. I still prefer the 4 person couchette, but it would cost more too. This is more 3rd Class sleeper vs. couchette is 2nd Class, good have options. I hope that slide open hatch from one bunk compartment to the another compartment is lockable. ;-) Great for families, not so great for single women travelers.


The standard Russian equivalent of a four-person couchette is a "coupe" and that worked fine for a three-night trip. On one night I was alone in the compartment and on one night there were three other passengers. I had talked with several experienced Russian train travelers and their suggestion was that a single traveler was best off in a coupe. In a 1st Class room you might not like the other passenger and be stuck with them. In the open section berth sleepers there might be a party going on all night on some runs -- great if you're under 30. Or just the usual disturbances of people coming and going. In the coupe compartment I was only listening to one person at a time, so it made conversation in Russian easier.

This may not apply on the privatized luxury trains or more recent travel.

Photo gives an idea of the space in a coupe for eating wayside-purchased smoked fish and beer. They don't have the equivalent of a leg-rest reclining seat coach so it is difficult to picture their style of spaces in the North American market.


----------



## Ziv

That photo brings back memories of the Trans-Sib. We ate smoked Omul whitefish, Rossisky cheese and #7 Baltika beer. It is a good thing the windows open for fresh air...



Willbridge said:


> The standard Russian equivalent of a four-person couchette is a "coupe" and that worked fine for a three-night trip. On one night I was alone in the compartment and on one night there were three other passengers. ...
> 
> Photo gives an idea of the space in a coupe for eating wayside-purchased smoked fish and beer. They don't have the equivalent of a leg-rest reclining seat coach so it is difficult to picture their style of spaces in the North American market.
> 
> View attachment 20231


----------



## Mailliw

Siemens is probably going to need to open a second production facility if they get the order, if I were them I'd pick a deep red state.


----------



## jis

Mailliw said:


> Siemens is probably going to need to open a second production facility if they get the order, if I were them I'd pick a deep red state.


Why? Other than a private company in Florida, and NC tagging on with Amtrak, none are expected to order anything from them.


----------



## Mailliw

Politics; they need to build a long term relationship with Amtrak, especially if they want to go after Superliner replacements too.


----------



## jis

Mailliw said:


> Politics; they need to build a long term relationship with Amtrak, especially if they want to go after Superliner replacements too.


They don't need to do anything in Red States to build relationship with Amtrak. Any one that knows anything about Amtrak management ought to know at least that


----------



## sttom

Even if Amtrak announces they have selected Siemens for the Amfleet replacement sometime in the next 6 months, there is still going to be a final design phase to determine where exactly the seats and everything else is going to be. Which would mean a final design for the Amfleet replacement probably won't be released until this time next year, the Via sets will still be being built then. So best case scenario is that first Amtrak sets being delivered by the end of 2022 or early 2023 for crew training. So there will be no need for another manufacturing facility anywhere in the country. Siemens already has the space to expand their existing facility in Sacramento and have another secondary facility in nearby Roseville if they need it. As for the Superliners, even if an RFP goes out this year for them, a final order is at least 2 years off. Siemens may not want to even bid on them depending on who tags on orders for the assumed Amfleet replacements. Washington and North Carolina are very likely to order Venture equipment whether or not Amtrak picks them, New York and Vermont have signaled in the recent past that they might want their own cars, of which the Venture cars would be a likely contender. Then there is Massachusetts, Maine and Pennsylvania which are also wild cards in all of this. Another wild card will be if California wants to replace our bilevels and will the JPAs want a modified Viaggio Twin to replace the older California Cars, a 4th Generation Bilevel or will they buy new Venture Cars. All of these are still ifs at this point. All of these can keep Siemens busy enough that taking on a 500 ish car order for new Superliners might not even happen.

A second point is whom would even want to take on a Superliner replacement RFP. Alstom, depending on how they absorb Bombardier would be a good contender considering Bombardier built the Superliner 2s and Alstom built the Second Generation of California Cars. Stadler has built a good product for the Rocky Mountaineer, CalTrain picked them for their EMUs and the diesel FLIRTs in Fort Worth are doing well. So Stadler despite its small US footprint is holding its own. And then there is CAF which could still conceivably bid on the Superliners, assuming Amtrak doesn't blacklist them the second the last Viewliners roll off the factory floor.


----------



## PVD

Something to ponder, unless Amtrak precluded it, a joint venture, or a subcontract to assemble part or all of a car is not unheard of or off the table. A company with spare capacity and a trained workforce could always take on a share of the work from a company that lacked space or capacity.


----------



## railiner

One thing I hope any new Amfleet replacement doesn't employ, would be 50/50 half facing forward fixed seating...I hate to ride a train facing backwards...or to be facing a stranger, or to have my backrest against another, restricting my recline ability, etc....


----------



## jiml

railiner said:


> One thing I hope any new Amfleet replacement doesn't employ, would be 50/50 half facing forward fixed seating...I hate to ride a train facing backwards...or to be facing a stranger, or to have my backrest against another, restricting my recline ability, etc....


You won't like VIA's latest corridor seating then.


----------



## Mailliw

They make seats that rotate; it does add a little time & labor (not nearlyas much as turning an entiretrain), but normally it only needs to be done at each terminus. Certainly premium seating will be turned to face the direction of travel outside seats facing around a table. Does VIA rotate Business Class seats; I've only traveled economy?


----------



## Andrew

Mailliw said:


> Politics; they need to build a long term relationship with Amtrak, especially if they want to go after Superliner replacements too.



What products does Stadler manufacture that could potentially be a good fit for future Amfleet coaches?


----------



## Mailliw

Andrew said:


> What products does Stadler manufacture that could potentially be a good fit for future Amfleet coaches?


I was talking about Siemens.


----------



## jiml

Mailliw said:


> They make seats that rotate; it does add a little time & labor (not nearlyas much as turning an entiretrain), but normally it only needs to be done at each terminus. Certainly premium seating will be turned to face the direction of travel outside seats facing around a table. Does VIA rotate Business Class seats; I've only traveled economy?


While all previous versions featured rotating seats, the latest VIA refurb follows the Euro model of permanently-fixed seats - half facing each way.


----------



## IndyLions

sttom said:


> A second point is whom would even want to take on a Superliner replacement RFP. Alstom, depending on how they absorb Bombardier would be a good contender considering Bombardier built the Superliner 2s and Alstom built the Second Generation of California Cars. Stadler has built a good product for the Rocky Mountaineer, CalTrain picked them for their EMUs and the diesel FLIRTs in Fort Worth are doing well. So Stadler despite its small US footprint is holding its own. And then there is CAF which could still conceivably bid on the Superliners, assuming Amtrak doesn't blacklist them the second the last Viewliners roll off the factory floor.


It’s nothing more than a feeling, but I have a feeling that there will be no Superliner replacement, not directly.

I see them replacing about half the Superliner routes with single level equipment to match what they order in the east. For the other half of the Superliner routes, I see them pooling the existing Superliner equipment and completely rehabbing them. With a bigger equipment pool, they’ll be able ultimately to run a more premium train than what they run on the single levels. It’ll be that “Experiential” thing that Anderson talked about.


----------



## Mailliw

That's certainly possible. If Amtrak goes that route though either it will mean either eliminating a few LDs, or including an option for sleepers in the Amleet replacement.


----------



## sttom

IndyLions said:


> It’s nothing more than a feeling, but I have a feeling that there will be no Superliner replacement, not directly.
> 
> I see them replacing about half the Superliner routes with single level equipment to match what they order in the east. For the other half of the Superliner routes, I see them pooling the existing Superliner equipment and completely rehabbing them. With a bigger equipment pool, they’ll be able ultimately to run a more premium train than what they run on the single levels. It’ll be that “Experiential” thing that Anderson talked about.



I doubt Congress would allow Amtrak do do that considering their stance towards Amtrak has been stasis + a gimmick. I would expect a 1 to 1 replacement plus some amount of cars for slack capacity. Amtrak’s leadership might have an unfriendly opinion towards the long distance trains, but Congress understands well enough that they are a vital service. And the Superliners can and do carry more people than the Viewliners do.

“Experiential” can mean any number of things. It could mean adding something similar to Prestige class, system wide Pacific Parlor cars or even retaining the Superliner 2s to offer connecting services to national parks or other such tourist destinations. But something like that will always come at a price and I’d bet Congress’s price would be leaving the established “national” services mostly as is with the tourist trap tacked on or run separately.

On top of this there is a budding consensus that more train services are needed. Even the laughable 2035 plan and proposed funding is more than we’ve gotten in a long time, if ever. I personally expect the Anderson Experience push to go the way of Express Freight soon since it’s not something Congress will seem to go for considering the old model was a few years from paying off.


----------



## Steve4031

There has been a lot of mileage put in the superliner cars. If they could replace the old hvac system with an entirely new set up and gutted the interior and replaced it with the seats and beds used in the viewliner 2 sleepers than you could get another 20 years or so out of the superliners. I don’t know if the car bodies could last that long. I assume they could build replacement trucks to keep those up to maintenance standards.


----------



## jiml

Steve4031 said:


> There has been a lot of mileage put in the superliner cars. If they could replace the old hvac system with an entirely new set up and gutted the interior and replaced it with the seats and beds used in the viewliner 2 sleepers than you could get another 20 years or so out of the superliners. I don’t know if the car bodies could last that long. I assume they could build replacement trucks to keep those up to maintenance standards.


They are essentially the next generation of Budd stainless steel railcars, and examples of those soldier on for VIA Rail, tourist railroads and in private service. Our last 2 trips on VIA have involved travel on refurbished Budd cars. Once on-board, their HEP-2's in corridor service can really only be separated from newer models by height and door design. New seats, new lighting and proper HVAC make a world of difference. Our last trip in a Budd sleeper featured a car one year out-of-the-shop with the new-look interior. (Room layout, of course, remained the same.) I just wonder if new funding would be available for Amtrak if they were doing rehabs on existing rolling stock.


----------



## Steve4031

They used tiger grants to rebuild some cars that were damaged in derailments. Imho if Beach Grove could do this work it’s a no brainer to spend the money rebuilding the superliner cars. This creates jobs. And probably is less expensive to do then build and design new cars. They are great to ride on too. 

They need enough sleepers to make the Capitol Limited single level. If they could do the same for the auto train all of those superliner cars could be added to the western fleet. 

It seems to me this could be cost effective and be the quickest way for Amtrak to resolve a looming equipment shortage. 

They do need a long distance version of a Siemens coach to supplement the amfleet 2 fleet. The amfleet 2 cars also could be overhauled like the superliners. 

I think the main gripe with Amfleet 1 is the smaller windows. The bathrooms malfunction on both the 1s and 2s in the winter which is why I thing a total refurb would be best. The hvac is problematic on these cars too. Iirc it can only be controlled from the outside. Newer technology would work better and could be controlled on the inside.


----------



## Mailliw

The Auto-Train isn't going to go single level; it already has deluxe Superliners (all bedroom upstairs) and it would certainly be first in line for any experiential upgrades.


----------



## daybeers

jis said:


> Why? Other than a private company in Florida, and NC tagging on with Amtrak, none are expected to order anything from them.


And most likely CTDOT


----------



## sttom

I doubt the Capitol Limited will go Viewliner anytime soon, the Capitol Limited sells its space well enough (pre COVID) that if anything, running a second section of the train would make sense rather than cutting capacity by converting to Viewliners. 

Not to mention, the Amfleet 1 replacements are pretty much only going to be used on the NEC and some connecting services. Any change to the Long Distance trains isn't up for consideration at this point. My guess is that Amtrak would nudge the states of New York, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, Virginia and North Carolina to buy their own cars post replacement. I remember Amtrak announcing that they want to have 4 tiers of service on the NEC in the not too distant future and 500 cars doesn't leave much room for the state supported services to use. Which could mean sticking them with the Amfleets after they are replaced and hoping that the states balk and just buy their own equipment. North Carolina already owns some of its own equipment, so it will likely buy its own an some point anyways. And as previously mentioned, New York and Vermont want their own fleet anyways. Getting stuck with leftover Amfleet cars would probably push Cuomo into a tizzy which would likely end with them getting their own fleet and Vermont tagging on for the ride (Pun intended).


----------



## Mailliw

4 service tiers? Economy, Business, First, and what else? Day compartments? Or Sub-economy with commuter seating?


----------



## jiml

Mailliw said:


> 4 service tiers? Economy, Business, First, and what else? Day compartments? Or Sub-economy with commuter seating?


I'm going out on a limb to guess he means 4 tiers of trains, possibly Super-Express non-stop on Acela, limited stops on Acela, Northeast Regional with some stops and milk runs. This would mirror some prior service models and ones that many European corridors use.


----------



## jiml

This is a semi-unrelated question, that may have been answered elsewhere, but what is happening to the current Acela fleet? They're still functional electric trains (or at least not relics) and were refurbished in recent memory. Could they not fill NER roles north of WAS or maybe Keystone Service? Is it an assumption that since locomotive-hauled trains fill those roles now it has to continue?


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> This is a semi-unrelated question, that may have been answered elsewhere, but what is happening to the current Acela fleet? They're still functional electric trains (or at least not relics) and were refurbished in recent memory. Could they not fill NER roles north of WAS or maybe Keystone Service? Is it an assumption that since locomotive-hauled trains fill those roles now it has to continue?


They are going to be scrapped. Most of them are leased and there is no plan to renew the lease. That is why this hurry in getting the Acela 21s deployed in time.


----------



## jiml

I had no idea they weren't owned. Makes total sense in that case.


----------



## IndyLions

Mailliw said:


> The Auto-Train isn't going to go single level; it already has deluxe Superliners (all bedroom upstairs) and it would certainly be first in line for any experiential upgrades.



You may be right, but that depends on what they order as sleeper replacements for Superliners.

I could absolutely see them launching the brand new Superliner “replacement” equipment on the Auto Train first.

That frees up a pretty big pool of equipment to Beech Grove, where they can supplement the western fleet until it’s either fully replaced with new, or partially replaced with new if their math was bad or their funding was only partial.

Then “voila” - a requirement for complete Superliner refurbishment on the 2 or 3 most scenic routes out west.

Who needs a dome car for VA to FL, anyway?


----------



## frequentflyer

Alsom just debuted a Multilevel car for Metra. Another piece of equipment for Amtrak to look at.


----------



## IndyLions

frequentflyer said:


> Alsom just debuted a Multilevel car for Metra. Another piece of equipment for Amtrak to look at.




That’s a nice commuter option, but I wouldn’t want to ride those seats for more than an hour or two.


----------



## jiml

IndyLions said:


> That’s a nice commuter option, but I wouldn’t want to ride those seats for more than an hour or two.


Probably more about the shell, with the interior being "customizable".


----------



## frequentflyer

jiml said:


> Probably more about the shell, with the interior being "customizable".



^^^This^^^

From a OEM Amtrak is also familiar with.


----------



## nullptr

In general these would be interesting for amtrak to take a look at, but this RFP was for trainsets, some of which would operate off the NEC, and since Alstom doesn't seem to make diesel or dual-mode locomotives, they would have had to partner with someone for this to be part of a bid. I guess that's not outside the realm of possibilities though.


----------



## PVD

Isn't Alstom acquiring the rail ops of Bombardier? They certainly offer DM locos. The question is the degree to which they would want to build them Buy American compliant


----------



## nullptr

It hasn't closed yet. I would be surprised if they planned the bid as a merged company, but a joint bid could predate the merger.

Edit to say Bombardier also makes passenger cars themselves, which is why a joint bid between them seems unlikely to me.









Key milestone in Alstom’s acquisition project of Bombardier Transportation: signed sale and purchase agreement under revised price terms


Net proceeds expected now up to €5.3 bn against a range of €5.8 - €6.2 bn previously agreed Closing now expected in Q1 2021




www.alstom.com


----------



## jis

Acela Is were a joint Alstom Bombardier product.


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> Acela Is were a joint Alstom Bombardier product.


Between the two there are a lot of patents and knowledge. Just because Bombardier couldn't manage their finances doesn't mean they couldn't build rolling stock and there's lots of it all across North America. Alstom aren't exactly unknowns either.


----------



## jis

This looks like a basic Surfliner shell with a differently arranged setup at the end of the car - mezzanine level with inter-car walkways, instead of straight through upper level.

Which leaves me wondering why the State Regional bi-level order chose to try to reinvent the wheel and fail instead of going with the tried and tested design.


----------



## nullptr

jis said:


> Acela Is were a joint Alstom Bombardier product.



My understanding is they were the opposite of what we are talking about here though, Alstom power and Bombardier passengers cars? But I might be wrong. The fact that they've done joint bids in the past does make it more likely though, I guess.


----------



## frequentflyer

jis said:


> This looks like a basic Surfliner shell with a differently arranged setup at the end of the car - mezzanine level with inter-car walkways, instead of straight through upper level.
> 
> Which leaves me wondering why the State Regional bi-level order chose to try to reinvent the wheel and fail instead of going with the tried and tested design.



According to another rail forum this is a new body, and really does not look like the Superliner Part 3 like the Surfliners do (windows and roofline is different). Brilliant move on Alstom part to get a product ready to replace the thousands of Bombardier Multi Levels out there. As stated before, its just a car body, so its another option for Alsom to market to Amtrak. Maybe being NEC tunnel capable depending on height.


----------



## Steve4031

There is a news article behind the Trains paywall that states the first cars will be delivered in 42 months, and the remainder to be delivered over 2 and a half years. IMHO Siemens could build an entire fleet of cars before the first of these cars would even be delivered.


----------



## jis

frequentflyer said:


> According to another rail forum this is a new body, and really does not look like the Superliner Part 3 like the Surfliners do (windows and roofline is different). Brilliant move on Alstom part to get a product ready to replace the thousands of Bombardier Multi Levels out there. As stated before, its just a car body, so its another option for Alsom to market to Amtrak. Maybe being NEC tunnel capable depending on height.


The differences appear to be pretty superficial though. Difference in windows quite often superficial. Look at the wide variety of windows that have been incorporate into the basic LHB shell from Alstom by the various Indian Railways manufacturing facilities.. The question is how structurally different is it? And admittedly that is hard to answer by just looking at photos.

The curcial thing about the multi-levl cars that makes them different from single leve ones and inherently more difficult to design to meet buff strength is that they are center sill-less cars, something that basically did Nippon-Sharyo in. The critical question is how different is the basic load bearing structure, and that is indeed hard to answer looking at windows and rooflines. So we just will have to wait until more information is available about the details of the design.


----------



## Mailliw

jis said:


> This looks like a basic Surfliner shell with a differently arranged setup at the end of the car - mezzanine level with inter-car walkways, instead of straight through upper level.
> 
> Which leaves me wondering why the State Regional bi-level order chose to try to reinvent the wheel and fail instead of going with the tried and tested design.


One advantage of putting the walkways on a mezzanine level instead of the upper level is that bilevels can be connected directly to single levels without need of a transition car.


----------



## sttom

My guess is the new Metra cars may have been designed after the regulation change which would mean alternates to the Buff Strength Test could have been used. Which wasn't an option 10 years ago. I am just speculating this, the other option is they have found a way to make the cars compliant with the Buff Strength Test. 

This means that Alstom does have a product with which to base a new generation of California Cars off of. Which will mean continued use of bilevels east of Chicago could be on the table. I doubt using them on the NEC would be looked at though


----------



## jis

sttom said:


> My guess is the new Metra cars may have been designed after the regulation change which would mean alternates to the Buff Strength Test could have been used. Which wasn't an option 10 years ago. I am just speculating this, the other option is they have found a way to make the cars compliant with the Buff Strength Test.
> 
> This means that Alstom does have a product with which to base a new generation of California Cars off of. Which will mean continued use of bilevels east of Chicago could be on the table. I doubt using them on the NEC would be looked at though


The basic buff strength requirement has not changed. The only change is that it now applies to the passenger compartment and areas not occupied by people are allowed to buckle. Alstom could simply construct exact replicas of Surfliners and they would still be compliant!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jiml said:


> Just because Bombardier couldn't manage their finances doesn't mean they couldn't build rolling stock and there's lots of it all across North America. Alstom aren't exactly unknowns either.


So far as I can tell Bombardier's rail division played no role in any of that. It was the premature and inadvisable challenge of a state protected aircraft conglomerate that did them in. Not sure why they didn't see that coming.



jis said:


> Which leaves me wondering why the State Regional bi-level order chose to try to reinvent the wheel and fail instead of going with the tried and tested design.


Sometimes there's a better solution to be had but much of the time forced/arbitrary reinvention favors waste and graft.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

keelhauled said:


> Amtrak news release. 75 trainsets or equivalent in individual cars to replace Amfleet I/Metroliner fleet. No ETA on delivery. Apparently the old fleet strategy plan of replacing the Amfleet IIs first is out the window.


Perhaps I am totally alone... but wondering about the tubular design of the Amfleet concept. Is it to make it seem more streamlined? to me it's claustrophobic and inhibits size of carry on luggage storage bins. Tall people at window seats bump their heads. And why cant the windows be larger? It would seem that the designs of the past were ahead of where we are now. 
Below is an interesting article from 'Trains' addressing new fleet prospects...









Amtrak seeks proposals for equipment to replace Amfleet I cars | Trains Magazine


Trains magazine offers railroad news, railroad industry insight, commentary on today's freight railroads, passenger service (Amtrak), locomotive technology, railroad preservation and history, railfan opportunities (tourist railroads, fan trips), and great railroad photography.




trn.trains.com


----------



## 20th Century Rider

This sure looks like a step up... why not use these in the East???









Check Out Amtrak's New Missouri River Runner Train Cars


Amtrak's first new train coaches for Amtrak Midwest, what Amtrak calls their Midwest routes, have recently been spotted in Chicago.




kxkx.com


----------



## jiml

Devil's Advocate said:


> So far as I can tell Bombardier's rail division played no role in any of that. It was the premature and inadvisable challenge of a state protected aircraft conglomerate that did them in. Not sure why they didn't see that coming.


You are correct, but there was a lot of financial mismanagement as well. Add in some dubious contracts, questionable European partnerships, then tilting at the Boeing windmill capped it all off.


----------



## Mailliw

IIRC the Amfleets were originally designed to feel like airliners and the small windows for some reason.


----------



## sttom

20th Century Rider said:


> Perhaps I am totally alone... but wondering about the tubular design of the Amfleet concept. Is it to make it seem more streamlined? to me it's claustrophobic and inhibits size of carry on luggage storage bins. Tall people at window seats bump their heads. And why cant the windows be larger? It would seem that the designs of the past were ahead of where we are now.
> Below is an interesting article from 'Trains' addressing new fleet prospects...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak seeks proposals for equipment to replace Amfleet I cars | Trains Magazine
> 
> 
> Trains magazine offers railroad news, railroad industry insight, commentary on today's freight railroads, passenger service (Amtrak), locomotive technology, railroad preservation and history, railfan opportunities (tourist railroads, fan trips), and great railroad photography.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> trn.trains.com


From what I understand, they were made in a tube shape to seem more like planes. Whatever is the new technology of any given decade usually influences what other transit modes look like. In the 1960s and 70s, that was planes. The narrow windows were down to people throwing rocks and them not have the technology to deal with rock impacts like we do today. 

And if Siemens gets the contract, they will likely get Venture equipment or an adaptation of their Desiro multiple unit family.


----------



## jiml

The Amfleet exteriors have aged well however. When clean they still make a sharp-looking consist and probably look more contemporary to non-railfans than conventional cars.


----------



## railiner

jiml said:


> The Amfleet exteriors have aged well however. When clean they still make a sharp-looking consist and probably look more contemporary to non-railfans than conventional cars.


You can credit some of that to the brilliant Budd Company industrial designer, Paul Cret, whose fluted and corrugated stainless steel car bodies have endured the ages, very well...

He was one of the best...








Paul Philippe Cret - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## MARC Rider

Mailliw said:


> IIRC the Amfleets were originally designed to feel like airliners and the small windows for some reason.


The Northeast trains go through some neighborhoods in the cities where "youths", as they call them, like to throw rocks at passing trains. It's a lot less of a problem now than it was in the 1970s, but it still happens. Reports of rock throwing were part of what happened with the NER 188 derailment back in 2015.

Anyway, if the windows are smaller, there's less of a chance that a rock will hit it.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

MARC Rider said:


> The Northeast trains go through some neighborhoods in the cities where "youths", as they call them, like to throw rocks at passing trains. It's a lot less of a problem now than it was in the 1970s, but it still happens. Reports of rock throwing were part of what happened with the NER 188 derailment back in 2015.
> 
> Anyway, if the windows are smaller, there's less of a chance that a rock will hit it.



no no no no!
No more rocks and no more of this.

Amtrak please let us breathe... keep the windows big and wide... let them open to allow in fresh air, and protect us from those want to cut off the oxygen... that we breathe. And for those disturbed youth... let us change the concept of our culture so that respect and caring thoughts pervade the space were trains with big window pass.

We must not block this attempt to open the windows to let us breathe in the fresh air because this is how we move forward for a better world... which we must hope... will prevail.

No no no... no agreement for giving in to societal failings. We can do better than this and we will!


----------



## Andrew

My prediction is that Amtrak will pick the Venture cosches for the new Amfleets. But, I have two questions:

Does Metra recently picking Alstom for new cars help Alstoms case in building the new Amfleets?

Is Siemens likely to be able to build a diesel-catenary Charger locomotive for trains that travel off of the NEC? (If not, than Amtrak should maybe pick a modified Stadler FLIRT train instead).


----------



## sttom

Andrew said:


> My prediction is that Amtrak will pick the Venture cosches for the new Amfleets. But, I have two questions:
> 
> Does Metra recently picking Alstom for new cars help Alstoms case in building the new Amfleets?
> 
> Is Siemens likely to be able to build a diesel-catenary Charger locomotive for trains that travel off of the NEC? (If not, than Amtrak should maybe pick a modified Stadler FLIRT train instead).



Yes Siemens has a dual mode engine that it could probably modify for work in the US. I am not sure how many they would need for service along the NEC and run off the NEC. 



https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:f0e6c4dd-c846-4808-9c37-6640621ff7b0/siemens-mobility-brochure-vectron-dual-mode-en.pdf


----------



## Andrew

ok but I wonder if the Siemens Charger could have as much horsepower in electric mode as the Sprinters do?


----------



## sttom

The Chargers are 4400 horse power and I believe the ACSs are 6000 horse power.


----------



## PVD

For the ACS-64

Power output6,400 kW (8,600 hp) Maximum (Short-Time)
5,000 kW (6,700 hp) Continuous


----------



## PVD

I won't say it isn't possible, but it wouldn't be easy given size and weight constraints. The closest I can think of off the top of my head in the US is the ALP 45DP and it isn't there, and it pushes weight and size limits. There is a fair amount of room required for HEP equipment for diesel ops.


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> I won't say it isn't possible, but it wouldn't be easy given size and weight constraints. The closest I can think of off the top of my head in the US is the ALP 45DP and it isn't there, and it pushes weight and size limits. There is a fair amount of room required for HEP equipment for diesel ops.


In a modern diesel electric engine, what space do you require other than for an addition Inverter and associated control circuitry, attached to the common power bus, to provide HEP?


----------



## PVD

That's about it, but a few feet is a few feet when you are tight for space. Assuming transformer/rectifier/inverter for the under the wire ops, again not separately a big thing, but it all adds up.


----------



## west point

A problem with a dual mode CAT / Diesel might be the needed weight reduction of the shell and frame might cause it to fatigue fairly fast. So if you buy them they might all wear out in 10 years especially operating on rough freight RR tracks. Look at the P-42s that shook the trucks apart when they were not repaired properly. 5 year truck replacements have cost Amtrak dearly.


----------



## Andrew

Stadler Flirt trains are currently 3 or 4 coaches with a Powerpack vehicle. But, does anyone know if Stadler Flirt trains could be 8 coaches long with a larger Powerpack car?


----------



## jiml

Andrew said:


> Stadler Flirt trains are currently 3 or 4 coaches with a Powerpack vehicle. But, does anyone know if Stadler Flirt trains could be 8 coaches long with a larger Powerpack car?


They exist in Europe and the UK has some much longer ones on Greater Anglia: 

Also, both the UK and other European countries seem to have no problem lashing two sets of any kind of MU together to lengthen the train.


----------



## Andrew

jiml said:


> They exist in Europe and the UK has some much longer ones on Greater Anglia:
> 
> Also, both the UK and other European countries seem to have no problem lashing two sets of any kind of MU together to lengthen the train.




But, I haven't seen any evidence of an 8 car diesel-catenary Stadler Flirt.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> A problem with a dual mode CAT / Diesel might be the needed weight reduction of the shell and frame might cause it to fatigue fairly fast. So if you buy them they might all wear out in 10 years especially operating on rough freight RR tracks. Look at the P-42s that shook the trucks apart when they were not repaired properly. 5 year truck replacements have cost Amtrak dearly.


Dual mode locomotives also generally have lower power ratings by quite a bit when compared to equivalent single mode locomotives. They appear to be wasteful when only a short segment of the total run at one end requires the e-mode, something that would be typical of LD trains into Penn Station and even the longer run Regional trains, e.g. the Palmetto or the Carolinians. Requires carrying around a lot of dead weight over a lot of distance merely to save 10-15 minute stop to change locomotives, in an overall running time of the order of 10 hours or more..


----------



## 41bridge

[QUOTE="sttom, post: 872002, member: The narrow windows were down to people throwing rocks and them not have the technology to deal with rock impacts like we do today.
[/QUOTE]

Huh? What technology is that? Did they make rocks lighter?


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> They exist in Europe and the UK has some much longer ones on Greater Anglia:
> 
> Also, both the UK and other European countries seem to have no problem lashing two sets of any kind of MU together to lengthen the train.



Didn't you know that the US is in an alternate universe where even the laws of Physics are different? LOL!


----------



## railiner

41bridge said:


> [QUOTE="sttom, post: 872002, member: The narrow windows were down to people throwing rocks and them not have the technology to deal with rock impacts like we do today.



Huh? What technology is that? Did they make rocks lighter?
[/QUOTE]
I think the fact that the windows were smaller, reduced their chances of being hit, somewhat. Being smaller, also makes it relatively stronger in its ability to resist penetration. They could have used bullet proof Lexan polycarbonate, however that material is not as resistant to scratching as glass, and gets 'cloudy' over time...not so critical in a commuter train, but not very nice for a long distance train where sightseeing is a feature...


----------



## jis

FRA Type II Glazing must be used on all side facing windows irrespective of size or shape. The details of the testing that the Type II glazing must pass are prescribe in Appendix A of 49 CFR Subtitle B Chapter II Part 223:






Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR)


Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) published by the Government Publishing Office



www.ecfr.gov





This has been the law since 1980, and requires retrofitting into cars built before 1980 that were overhauled since 1980.


----------



## Andrew

Regarding Amtrak operating trains south of DC and into Pittsburgh, what are the pros and cons of Amtrak picking dual-powered Charger vs. a modified Stadler trainset when it comes to propulsion?


----------



## jiml

Andrew said:


> But, I haven't seen any evidence of an 8 car diesel-catenary Stadler Flirt.


The Greater Anglia Class 755's are dual-mode and have been tested in a 7-car configuration with two of the walk-through "power pack" cars. This was only continued until the electric-only 745's were available in sufficient quantity to bump the DEMU's to the routes they were purchased for and back to their normal 3 and 4-car sets. (The 745's run with 10-12 cars.)


----------



## Steve4031

Changing engines in the USA takes longer than 10-15 minutes. Usually more like 30. So dual mode could save 30 minutes in Washington DC, Harrisburg and New Haven.


----------



## jis

Steve4031 said:


> Changing engines in the USA takes longer than 10-15 minutes. Usually more like 30. So dual mode could save 30 minutes in Washington DC, Harrisburg and New Haven.


It is much cheaper to train people to change engine in 15 minutes than to buy dual mode locomotives instead of adequate number of single mode locomotives. I do realize that anything that rationally reduces the cost of anything may not be a popular thing in the US culture though. 

Also it is probably cheaper to extract 30 minutes from a 10+ hour schedule than throw money after expensive toys. But again, this is after all the US of A!


----------



## jiml

Until catenary is extended south of Washington to at least some destinations in Virginia, there is no real application for a dual-mode locomotive beyond what is already available (P32's in Empire Service). Now if a decision is taken to replace NER trains with MU's to complement the new Acelas, dual-modes make perfect sense and there are off-the-shelf models from several manufacturers that can switch power sources seamlessly. If locomotive-hauled coaches remain the choice, dual-mode engines were aptly described as "expensive toys".


----------



## me_little_me

41bridge said:


> [QUOTE="sttom, post: 872002, member: The narrow windows were down to people throwing rocks and them not have the technology to deal with rock impacts like we do today.



Huh? What technology is that? Did they make rocks lighter?
[/QUOTE]
Yes! They use Styrofoam now because it is white, unlike the old brown rocks.


----------



## Andrew

jiml said:


> Until catenary is extended south of Washington to at least some destinations in Virginia, there is no real application for a dual-mode locomotive beyond what is already available (P32's in Empire Service). Now if a decision is taken to replace NER trains with MU's to complement the new Acelas, dual-modes make perfect sense and there are off-the-shelf models from several manufacturers that can switch power sources seamlessly. If locomotive-hauled coaches remain the choice, dual-mode engines were aptly described as "expensive toys".



Amtrak wants dual-powered equipment because they want to reduce station dwell times in busy terminals--such as Washington D.C--and so that passengers will always have access to lighting, etc.

Are you saying that Amtrak should consider EMUs that travel with diesel locomotives?


----------



## frequentflyer

Andrew said:


> Amtrak wants dual-powered equipment because they want to reduce station dwell times in busy terminals--such as Washington D.C--and so that passengers will always have access to lighting, etc.
> 
> *Are you saying that Amtrak should consider EMUs that travel with diesel locomotives?*



According to the past CEO and the terms of the RFP, they are considering it.


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> Amtrak wants dual-powered equipment because they want to reduce station dwell times in busy terminals--such as Washington D.C--and so that passengers will always have access to lighting, etc.


Even the Siemens cars are provided with enough battery power to keep lights on through a HEP disconnection for quite a while. Actually the Amfleets and Superliners are a special Amtrak innovation as far as losing basic lights goes at a time when such a feature was not found even in third world countries. It is quite a mystery why they did that. It does not require a dual model locomotive to fix that problem. The solution is well known and much much cheaper.

In a place like Washington DC with its pedestrian circulation issues, you want the dwell time to be of the order of 10-15 mins anyway. All that they have to do is staff the place properly to complete a loco change within that time. Even third world countries are able to achieve that even with HEP connectors and all to take care of. I find it hard to believe that Amtrak crafts people are less competent than those in the third world. Again a much cheaper solution than getting fancy toys.


> Are you saying that Amtrak should consider EMUs that travel with diesel locomotives?


More like dual mode EDMUs which is different from a diesel locomotive pulling an EMU. Actually EDMUs are easier to build than dual mode locomotives because each individual power unit is much smaller and their components can be spread out across two or three articulated cars


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Even the Siemens cars are provided with enough battery power to keep lights on through a HEP disconnection for quite a while. Actually the Amfleets and Superliners are a special Amtrak innovation as far as losing basic lights goes at a time when such a feature was not found even in third world countries. It is quite a mystery why they did that. It does not require a dual model locomotive to fix that problem. The solution is well known and much much cheaper.
> 
> In a place like Washington DC with its pedestrian circulation issues, you want the dwell time to be of the order of 10-15 mins anyway. All that they have to do is staff the place properly to complete a loco change within that time. Even third world countries are able to achieve that even with HEP connectors and all to take care of. I find it hard to believe that Amtrak crafts people are less competent than those in the third world. Again a much cheaper solution than getting fancy toys.
> 
> More like dual mode EDMUs which is different from a diesel locomotive pulling an EMU. Actually EDMUs are easier to build than dual mode locomotives because each individual power unit is much smaller and their components can be spread out across two or three articulated cars



Which specific EDMUs are you referring to? Also, in EDMUs, where would the diesel fuel be located?


----------



## Willbridge

sttom said:


> From what I understand, they were made in a tube shape to seem more like planes. Whatever is the new technology of any given decade usually influences what other transit modes look like. In the 1960s and 70s, that was planes. The narrow windows were down to people throwing rocks and them not have the technology to deal with rock impacts like we do today.
> 
> And if Siemens gets the contract, they will likely get Venture equipment or an adaptation of their Desiro multiple unit family.


I was there when they first turned up in the Northwest and people doing walk-throughs would invariably exclaim that "it's just like a plane!" In the Christmas season there was a different comment: a UP conductor on the _Pioneer _looked at the luggage stacked all over the high-capacity Amfleet I and muttered "it looks like a *** **** freight train!"


----------



## Willbridge

railiner said:


> I think the fact that the windows were smaller, reduced their chances of being hit, somewhat. Being smaller, also makes it relatively stronger in its ability to resist penetration. They could have used bullet proof Lexan polycarbonate, however that material is not as resistant to scratching as glass, and gets 'cloudy' over time...not so critical in a commuter train, but not very nice for a long distance train where sightseeing is a feature...


Transit users of Lexan ran into that cloudiness and customers thought that it meant that the windows were dirty. Actually, the drive through wash was part of the problem.

Even before the NEC rock throwing started there have been problems with gun shots and rocks. The same behavior on a highway results in news alerts and increased enforcement. On a railway or rail transit line, it's left up to the railway police to do something about it. And car designers have to consider the issue.

This mid-1960's scene in the Guilds Lake (Portland) yard shows a carman repairing a shot-damaged window. There was no news story and I never heard if anyone was hurt.


----------



## Gemuser

Andrew said:


> Stadler Flirt trains are currently 3 or 4 coaches with a Powerpack vehicle. But, does anyone know if Stadler Flirt trains could be 8 coaches long with a larger Powerpack car?


From the Stadler web site you can get FLIRTs of up to 12 cars but above 4 cars they dom't seem to have the seperate power module, but can still cove all electrical motive systems, not sure about desiel power. I supect that beyond 3/4 cars there is enough room to make the seperate power pack unnecessary.


----------



## Palmetto

Steve4031 said:


> Changing engines in the USA takes longer than 10-15 minutes. Usually more like 30. So dual mode could save 30 minutes in Washington DC, Harrisburg and New Haven.



Unfortunately, this is true for the most part, but the engine change in New Haven used to be done in 7 minutes. Yup: 7. Watched it done several times.


----------



## John Santos

Palmetto said:


> Unfortunately, this is true for the most part, but the engine change in New Haven used to be done in 7 minutes. Yup: 7. Watched it done several times.


The single time I experienced it (in 1977), it took the scheduled 30 minutes. (On the way back to Boston, I took the Turbotrain from NYP, which didn't change engines. The next time I took the train to NYC, about 30 years later, it was an Acela and I appreciated not having to wait in New Haven.)


----------



## railiner

Willbridge said:


> Even before the NEC rock throwing started there have been problems with gun shots and rocks. The same behavior on a highway results in news alerts and increased enforcement. On a railway or rail transit line, it's left up to the railway police to do something about it. And car designers have to consider the issue.


At least they don't have to install "ghetto grilles" over locomotive windshields, to protect the engineer's from refrigerator's(!), dropped from bridges...


----------



## joelkfla

Palmetto said:


> Unfortunately, this is true for the most part, but the engine change in New Haven used to be done in 7 minutes. Yup: 7. Watched it done several times.





John Santos said:


> The single time I experienced it (in 1977), it took the scheduled 30 minutes. (On the way back to Boston, I took the Turbotrain from NYP, which didn't change engines. The next time I took the train to NYC, about 30 years later, it was an Acela and I appreciated not having to wait in New Haven.)


Work expands to fill the available time.


----------



## Andrew

Gemuser said:


> From the Stadler web site you can get FLIRTs of up to 12 cars but above 4 cars they dom't seem to have the seperate power module, but can still cove all electrical motive systems, not sure about desiel power. I supect that beyond 3/4 cars there is enough room to make the seperate power pack unnecessary.



I'm sure that Amtrak is weighing the pros and cons of buying Venture coaches for some trains and FLIRT Trains for dual-powered service. If Amtrak does buy EMUS, would it make more sense for the trainsets to travel with diesel locomotives while in electric mode, or to just attach the diesel locomotive right before leaving the catenary zones?

(I bet that it would be faster for Amtrak to use EMUs and attach the diesel locomotive in terminals such as DC, instead of removing an electric SPRINTER Locomotive and then attaching a Charger).

Maybe Amtrak could split their coach order in half to 2 different companies-- one building for NEC, such as Siemens--and the other building the dual-powered trains, such as Alstom's Coradia?

Also, could Siemens likely make a dual-powered Charger locomotive that has as much HHP as a Sprinter locomotive?


----------



## Palmetto

John Santos said:


> The single time I experienced it (in 1977), it took the scheduled 30 minutes. (On the way back to Boston, I took the Turbotrain from NYP, which didn't change engines. The next time I took the train to NYC, about 30 years later, it was an Acela and I appreciated not having to wait in New Haven.)



Yes, Amtrak got sloppy with the change alright. I should've stated that 7 minutes was common in New Haven RR days.


----------



## Trogdor

Palmetto said:


> Yes, Amtrak got sloppy with the change alright. I should've stated that 7 minutes was common in New Haven RR days.



While an engine change shouldn’t have to take 30 minutes, a lot of safety regulations prevent things being done as quickly as the long-time-ago era.


----------



## jis

Trogdor said:


> While an engine change shouldn’t have to take 30 minutes, a lot of safety regulations prevent things being done as quickly as the long-time-ago era.


A combination of additional safety regulations and reduction in the number of people to carry them out together has had this deleterious effect.

But then Albany is a case unto itself where they simply do nothing for the first half hour to 45 minutes after arrival!


----------



## Willbridge

jis said:


> A combination of additional safety regulations and reduction in the number of people to carry them out together has had this deleterious effect.
> 
> But then Albany is a case unto itself where they simply do nothing for the first half hour to 45 minutes after arrival!


And on my one trip CHI>BOS a couple of years ago I thought I had just come through on a bad day. The SLC crew used to split up Trains 5/25/35 in the dark faster than Albany took to get us moving in the afternoon.


----------



## PVD

With more of the AC moving to the space between the ceiling and the roof, there will be added space available under the car for things like more batteries, as well as the fact that modern batteries have considerably higher energy density, that should allow them to provide the requisite power without a problem. Also, the lighting being LED means less power is needed.


----------



## Andrew

I think it would be cool for Amtrak to choose Siemens for half of the new Amfleet contract and Alstom for multiple unit trainsets, such as for Keystone service. What do you folks think? 

Also, I still believe that the most difficult decision for Amtrak will be to decide how to proceed with diesel catenary propulsion.


----------



## jiml

Andrew said:


> I think it would be cool for Amtrak to choose Siemens for half of the new Amfleet contract and Alstom for multiple unit trainsets, such as for Keystone service. What do you folks think?


I certainly agree that an MU makes sense on the Keystones, since those consists almost never change. (I had thought it would be an ideal home for the old Acelas, until I learned they were leased.) That said, they draw from the same pool of rolling stock as other trains, such as the Pennsylvanian and Virginia services. An argument could be made along similar lines for the Empire corridor - heck, it was the home of the turbos back in the day and they were about as close to an MU as Amtrak has had outside the NEC. Still, unless a state specifies an MU of some flavor, Amtrak is likely to cite fleet commonality in any decision.


----------



## Mailliw

I'm not sure PennDOT would be interested in owning and maintaining its own fleet or that Amtrak would want rolling stock that could only be used on Keystone Service. If NYSDOT was interested in owning their own fleet for the Empire Corridor then Alstom BMUs would be the obvious choice, but they're not so I'm still betting Siemens gets the whole order.


----------



## Andrew

Mailliw said:


> I'm not sure PennDOT would be interested in owning and maintaining its own fleet or that Amtrak would want rolling stock that could only be used on Keystone Service. If NYSDOT was interested in owning their own fleet for the Empire Corridor then Alstom BMUs would be the obvious choice, but they're not so I'm still betting Siemens gets the whole order.



If you think that Siemens gets the entire order, how do you predict Amtrak will decide what kind of bi-mode equipment to order?


----------



## STT757

Considering that at this moment Amtrak has their friends in all the right places they should move swiftly and just place add on orders to products already in production in the US like the Siemens cars. Just place a large add on order to replace the Amfleet I's, then look at the Amfleet II's.


----------



## Bob Dylan

STT757 said:


> Considering that at this moment Amtrak has their friends in all the right places they should move swiftly and just place add on orders to products already in production in the US like the Siemens cars. Just place a large add on order to replace the Amfleet I's, then look at the Amfleet II's.


Dont forget the Superliners!!!


----------



## Steve4031

To replace the superliners they need to add to the viewliner 2 sleepers and diner order, order a whole bunch of Siemens cars configured with long distance seating, and some sort of lounge car. 

I don’t think the European style sleepers will be well received compared to the superliners and viewliner we are used to. 

Imho it would be better to start a massive refurbishment program on the superliners where the HVAC and toilets are replaced and the interiors updated. This should apply to all cars. Could get another 30 years out of the f them I bet.


----------



## Mailliw

I'm sure Siemens can come with designs for North American sleeping cars. We can do better than just replicating the Viewliners again.


----------



## PaTrainFan

Steve4031 said:


> To replace the superliners they need to add to the viewliner 2 sleepers and diner order, order a whole bunch of Siemens cars configured with long distance seating, and some sort of lounge car.
> 
> I don’t think the European style sleepers will be well received compared to the superliners and viewliner we are used to.
> 
> Imho it would be better to start a massive refurbishment program on the superliners where the HVAC and toilets are replaced and the interiors updated. This should apply to all cars. Could get another 30 years out of the f them I bet.



I haven't a clue from a technical viewpoint whether it is feasible or cost effective, but I love the Superliners and wish it was possible to modernize them to get many more years out of service. I understand it would be a major overhaul with essentially only the shell remaining, And, they could use more cars because of attrition due to wrecks, not to mention potential growth, so refurishment doesn't solve that problem.


----------



## Andrew

How likely is it for Amtrak to split the new Amfleet order between locomotive hauled trains and mu trainsets?


----------



## cocojacoby

Mailliw said:


> I'm sure Siemens can come with designs for North American sleeping cars. We can do better than just replicating the Viewliners again.



I really like the Viewliners. Amtrak did a great job designing these cars. The rooms are well designed especially with all the windows which create an airy open bright space. The Viewliner roomette, with beds running longitudinal, are so much better than the narrow cross-bed rooms on European trains which are comparatively claustrophobic especially with the single small window at one end.

Putting the mechanicals under the floor and opening up the ceiling was a great idea. 

I don't agree that we can do much better than replicating the Viewliner. It's a great design.


----------



## jis

But if CAF is given additional orders for Viewliners it will be the 22nd Century before we’ll see any


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> But if CAF is given additional orders for Viewliners it will be the 22nd Century before we’ll see any


Doesn't Amtrak own the designs? Couldn't they give them to another builder?


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> Doesn't Amtrak own the designs? Couldn't they give them to another builder?


They could, but it will cost considerably more per car than if an established design shell was used to populate the facilities in it. No one really want to crank up yet another different shell for free.

I think money will be better spent if Amtrak says "here is the layout and facilities we want. Propose how you can provide it for the best price, quality and delivery time", and then pick one of the proposals that come back, after a due evaluation of course. Amtrak should stay away from trying to design or manufacture cars. That is not part of its remaining skill set at present. It is also not a skill set spelled out in its charter. It was one that was forced upon it when everyone else abandoned passenger equipment related development back then in the US. That is not the case anymore.

Now if Amtrak was going to order 5,000+ cars that would be a different matter. The car vendor will happily sell you entire factories and design books to do what you please. Look at the deal Indian Railways got from Alstom for the LHB cars with Fiat trucks. IR buys a steady stream of 8,000+ passenger rail cars per year, year in and year out, with order sizes growing from year to year.


----------



## Mailliw

cocojacoby said:


> I really like the Viewliners. Amtrak did a great job designing these cars. The rooms are well designed especially with all the windows which create an airy open bright space. The Viewliner roomette, with beds running longitudinal, are so much better than the narrow cross-bed rooms on European trains which are comparatively claustrophobic especially with the single small window at one end.
> 
> Putting the mechanicals under the floor and opening up the ceiling was a great idea.
> 
> I don't agree that we can do much better than replicating the Viewliner. It's a great design.


Don't get me wrong, the Viewliners have a good layout. I'm just thinking the design could be tweaked a little. I'm thinking along the lines of some all roomette (plus ADA bedroom) cars and all all bedroom cars. Maybe some married twin setups?


----------



## Andrew

Does anyone else agree that it is more likely for Amtrak to buy diesel-catenary Charger locomotives instead of EDMU? 

I do worry, though, that the dual-mode Chargers might be too slow and heavy when it comes to acceleration. 

Also, does the fact that Alstom is building the new Acela Trainsets potentially make them the strongest candidate for the new Amfleet coaches?


----------



## Fan Railer

Andrew said:


> Does anyone else agree that it is more likely for Amtrak to buy diesel-catenary Charger locomotives instead of EDMU?
> 
> I do worry, though, that the dual-mode Chargers might be too slow and heavy when it comes to acceleration.
> 
> Also, does the fact that Alstom is building the new Acela Trainsets potentially make them the strongest candidate for the new Amfleet coaches?


A dual mode charger is going to be no heavier than the ALP-45DP (which is only slightly heavier than the regular charger). It will likely have the same starting tractive effort as the regular charger, be capable of 4000 hp in diesel mode (higher in electric), and have similar higher speed tractive capabilities to the regular charger.

My money is still on Siemens getting the AMF1 replacement order... they literally already have a coach design that's being tested right now lined up to bid with.


----------



## NES28

I like the Superliners but, realistically, there is no way to make them ADA compliant. It would also be nice have a standard long distance car. But there should be some sort of lounge that's kind of "experiential", to coin a phrase. Maybe a dome of some sort. And rather than just replacing couplers with a drawbar, save some cost and weight by sharing trucks as on SP articulated coaches and triple unit diners.


----------



## nferr

Mailliw said:


> Don't get me wrong, the Viewliners have a good layout. I'm just thinking the design could be tweaked a little. I'm thinking along the lines of some all roomette (plus ADA bedroom) cars and all all bedroom cars. Maybe some married twin setups?


 Why? I don't see that accomplishing anything.


----------



## IndyLions

nferr said:


> Why? I don't see that accomplishing anything.



There would be some potential utility there - at the very least flexibility.

All-Bedroom cars are useful on the Auto Train, because it is a popular route and has a clientele that is looking for more bedrooms. In peak season out west, I could see where an All-Bedroom car would add significant revenue to a route. In off-season, not so much.

An All-Roomette car could be marketed to budget travelers, and provide extra capacity for the budget minded. If you are wanting to make LD trains more appealing to young people, who are already inclined to ride them for environmental reasons, that would probably be a good thing.


----------



## PerRock

If Amtrak wanted to market towards the budget traveler they should bring back the slumber coach or bring over the shared room idea from Europe. 

Peter


----------



## Ziv

Perhaps they could switch the Capital Limited to Viewliners when Amtrak has enough cars and send the CL Superliners to be rebuilt. When they have those cars rebuilt start switching out LD Superliners one route at a time and have the cars for each route rebuilt sequentially. When they have all the non-Cap Limited routes running with rebuilt Superliners they should have an additional car or two for each of the Western routes.
I like the idea of rebuilding the Superliners better than buying new two level cars because Amtrak would find a way to mess up a new design. The main problem is, would this be possible given the ADA laws? But since it is a rebuild of an existing car it may be workable. It sucks to kick ADA compliance down the road again, but the LD routes have so many stops where a single level train would overlap the platform that it may be necessary to stick with a double level car out west.


PaTrainFan said:


> I haven't a clue from a technical viewpoint whether it is feasible or cost effective, but I love the Superliners and wish it was possible to modernize them to get many more years out of service. I understand it would be a major overhaul with essentially only the shell remaining, And, they could use more cars because of attrition due to wrecks, not to mention potential growth, so refurishment doesn't solve that problem.


----------



## jiml

Ziv said:


> Perhaps they could switch the Capital Limited to Viewliners when Amtrak has enough cars and send the CL Superliners to be rebuilt. When they have those cars rebuilt start switching out LD Superliners one route at a time and have the cars for each route rebuilt sequentially. When they have all the non-Cap Limited routes running with rebuilt Superliners they should have an additional car or two for each of the Western routes.
> I like the idea of rebuilding the Superliners better than buying new two level cars because Amtrak would find a way to mess up a new design. The main problem is, would this be possible given the ADA laws? But since it is a rebuild of an existing car it may be workable. It sucks to kick ADA compliance down the road again, but the LD routes have so many stops where a single level train would overlap the platform that it may be necessary to stick with a double level car out west.


I've always thought rebuilding the Superliners was the smart plan. Sure, it's nice to dream about shiny new equipment, but the cars themselves are a solid design and other railroads (tourist, VIA, Australian) have been rebuilding similar cars for years for LD service. It has to be cheaper and faster too.


----------



## Steve4031

If they fix the issues with air conditioning, heating and toilets during the rebuilding process that would be great.


----------



## me_little_me

Steve4031 said:


> If they fix the issues with air conditioning, heating and toilets during the rebuilding process that would be great.


And the doors that won't stay closed when you are out of the room.

And the windows that badly need replacement so they are clearer (beyond cleaning).

And the public address system so you can hear it in rooms

And add more outlets

And, for once on Amtrak, put in electronic system so doors can be locked when not in the room

And add a digital messaging system for hard of hearing in the hallway in sleepers and above aisles in coach so station announcements and P.A. announcements can be read, if not heard.


----------



## sttom

I know people keep saying we can't have new Superliners because of ADA laws, but what with respects to ADA laws, what has significantly changed enough since the California Cars were built that would categorically mean non single level equipment would be illegal to operate? NJ Transit, MARC, Metra, SEPTA, CalTrain and probably more than I can remember have bought non single level equipment recently. I know the Feds are considering changing the laws which might make designing a third generation of Superliners harder to build, but as far as I have heard, nothing has come of it yet. And since this is a "yet", any changes are still up in the air as to if they will even be put in place.


----------



## Mailliw

PerRock said:


> If Amtrak wanted to market towards the budget traveler they should bring back the slumber coach or bring over the shared room idea from Europe.
> 
> Peter


I would love to see a modern Slumbercoach design. Personally I'd be fine with sections or couchettes, but I admit they may not be popular generally. It seems like a roomette is the best compromise.


----------



## IndyLions

sttom said:


> I know people keep saying we can't have new Superliners because of ADA laws, but what with respects to ADA laws, what has significantly changed enough since the California Cars were built that would categorically mean non single level equipment would be illegal to operate? NJ Transit, MARC, Metra, SEPTA, CalTrain and probably more than I can remember have bought non single level equipment recently. I know the Feds are considering changing the laws which might make designing a third generation of Superliners harder to build, but as far as I have heard, nothing has come of it yet. And since this is a "yet", any changes are still up in the air as to if they will even be put in place.


In my post, I was referring more towards the goal of cramming as many roomettes as possible in a sleeper for economy purposes. If every sleeper has to have an ADA compliant restroom and bedroom, that means less roomettes.

Again, I am all for ADA compliance, but common sense would say that most cars, with a few exceptions, should have ADA compliant rooms and restrooms. There should be ample H rooms available on *every train* at economy prices for those in need, but not necessarily on *every car*.


----------



## jis

IndyLions said:


> Again, I am all for ADA compliance, but common sense would say that most cars, with a few exceptions, should have ADA compliant rooms and restrooms. There should be ample H rooms available on *every train* at economy prices for those in need, but not necessarily on *every car*.


Unfortunately the FRA crafted regs for ADA compliance is not particularly high on common sense. It does require an ADA compliant room in every car. Of course I have at time pondered what they mean by a "car". If there are three carriages articulated together with full width vestibules using Jacobs Trucks to articulate them, are they one car or three cars?

If one wanted to create a Sleeper version of the Acela II say with a Charger at each end, would they insist that each 65' car have an ADA compartment? What if indivual car lengths were 40'?


----------



## Mailliw

I think it would be pretty easy to have Superliners with a high density all-roomette layout on the upper level with say two ADA bedrooms on the lower level plus standard toilets, showers, luggage rack, and even an attendant compartment.


----------



## cocojacoby

It maybe possible to have two larger full-width rooms at each end of the lower level that could be used for either ADA or family use if the rooms were designed with such flexibility. However while the ADA rooms in the Viewliner Is had a private enclosed toilet, the new design in the Viewliner II has the toilet exposed in the middle of the room totally negating its use as anything other than an ADA room.

Don't know the reason Amtrak changed the design, but if they do that in the Superliner then they will miss an opportunity to offer more variety in the types of accommodation available.


----------



## Mailliw

The new ADA design is supposed to make wheelchair transfers easier.


----------



## PVD

doesn't have a curtain?


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> Unfortunately the FRA crafted regs for ADA compliance is not particularly high on common sense. It does require an ADA compliant room in every car. Of course I have at time pondered what they mean by a "car". If there are three carriages articulated together with full width vestibules using Jacobs Trucks to articulate them, are they one car or three cars?
> 
> If one wanted to create a Sleeper version of the Acela II say with a Charger at each end, would they insist that each 65' car have an ADA compartment? What if indivual car lengths were 40'?


----------



## NES28

None of the ideas discussed for lower level handicapped rooms provide any access to the the diner or sightseer lounge. Which is why I suggest that they will, eventually have to be replaced by single level cars. What can be done to make make them attractive?


----------



## Mailliw

That's a valid concern, but even the Viewliners only give a wheelchair user access to the dining car if they're in the one directly connected to any; I they're in the 2nd or 3rd car they're out of luck.


----------



## NES28

Please explain why this is true. Siemens Brightline cars apparently are wheelchair accessible throughout.


----------



## Mailliw

The corridor in the Viewliners is too narrow for wheelchairs and there isn't enough space to turn the chair between the Bedrooms and Roomettes. It would be possible to design a new sleeping car without that problem, but might end up losing capacity.


----------



## PVD

Interior width of car with 2x2 seating leaves a wide enough aisle. That is not the case with roomettes on both sides of the car.


----------



## me_little_me

Mailliw said:


> The corridor in the Viewliners is too narrow for wheelchairs and there isn't enough space to turn the chair between the Bedrooms and Roomettes. It would be possible to design a new sleeping car without that problem, but you'd likely loose capacity.


Therein lies a problem. To make a single level with more sleeping capacity, it must be longer making trains that fit fewer and fewer stations. One possible solution is more trains per day but then Amtrak management doesn't want that.
To make a multi-level with more sleeping capacity, more trains is one solution as would alternate (but uncompliant by today's rules) ADA cars where say, one car with internal elevator and 3-4 ADA rooms upstairs nearest the Diner & Lounge which would also be ADA compliant. Stations ADA compliant at the center of the train where the ADA rooms are would allow the other cars to have non-ADA rooms and therefore allow the train, not the car, to be better compliant overall with higher capacity.


----------



## Mailliw

Everything would be much easier if ADA requirements were rewrite to apply at the trainst level instead of at the individual car.


----------



## NSC1109

Mailliw said:


> I would love to see a modern Slumbercoach design. Personally I'd be fine with sections or couchettes, but I admit they may not be popular generally. It seems like a roomette is the best compromise.



Ive been working on one based off the Viewliner design but it’s nowhere near ready to be shown. I’m not even sure I still have it on my laptop hard disk but I’ll look for it.


----------



## Andrew

Fan Railer said:


> A dual mode charger is going to be no heavier than the ALP-45DP (which is only slightly heavier than the regular charger). It will likely have the same starting tractive effort as the regular charger, be capable of 4000 hp in diesel mode (higher in electric), and have similar higher speed tractive capabilities to the regular charger.
> 
> My money is still on Siemens getting the AMF1 replacement order... they literally already have a coach design that's being tested right now lined up to bid with.



Wouldn't a dual-mode Charger locomotive be heavier than a Sprinter, and thus would increase wear and tear on the tracks?

Also, if Siemens for some reason is not bidding on the Amfleet replacement contract, would that make Alstom the front-runner?


----------



## Mailliw

Probably, there aren't exactly many options. Other than CAF or the Chinese I think Stadler would be the only other contender.


----------



## sttom

me_little_me said:


> Therein lies a problem. To make a single level with more sleeping capacity, it must be longer making trains that fit fewer and fewer stations. One possible solution is more trains per day but then Amtrak management doesn't want that.
> To make a multi-level with more sleeping capacity, more trains is one solution as would alternate (but uncompliant by today's rules) ADA cars where say, one car with internal elevator and 3-4 ADA rooms upstairs nearest the Diner & Lounge which would also be ADA compliant. Stations ADA compliant at the center of the train where the ADA rooms are would allow the other cars to have non-ADA rooms and therefore allow the train, not the car, to be better compliant overall with higher capacity.


One way to solve this would be to have the ADA requirements be based on a percentage of capacity rather than how it works now. About an eighth of the population has a mobility disability, setting the ADA rule to be a minimum of one eighth of capacity be "accessible" would make it so Amtrak or other operators would have some flexibility in what seats and beds they can offer and still make sure there is still capacity on their trains. It would require Amtrak's management to read and do math, which might be hard for some people at Amtrak but it could work.


----------



## Trogdor

sttom said:


> One way to solve this would be to have the ADA requirements be based on a percentage of capacity rather than how it works now. About an eighth of the population has a mobility disability, setting the ADA rule to be a minimum of one eighth of capacity be "accessible" would make it so Amtrak or other operators would have some flexibility in what seats and beds they can offer and still make sure there is still capacity on their trains. It would require Amtrak's management to read and do math, which might be hard for some people at Amtrak but it could work.



It takes some nerve to not only insult Amtrak management employees (which I’m guessing you’ve never met) but then also to completely dismiss the struggles faced by those with disabilities saying they should only have access to a small fraction of the facilities that an able bodied person should enjoy.


----------



## NES28

Yes, converting Superliner trains to single level would require building longer platforms, in some cases restoring ones that used to be there.


----------



## IndyLions

Trogdor said:


> It takes some nerve to not only insult Amtrak management employees (which I’m guessing you’ve never met) but then also to completely dismiss the struggles faced by those with disabilities saying they should only have access to a small fraction of the facilities that an able bodied person should enjoy.



OK – I’m not trying to be insensitive here. Disabled people deserve to have access to as many facilities as possible. In some cases extraordinary measures should be taken to achieve this, and in all cases reasonable accommodations should be made.

But what is a reasonable accommodation? Should any activity in which it is impossible for a disabled person to participate be banned?

To me, it is a reasonable accommodation to provide a spacious room in which the disabled person can navigate, restroom facilities which are effective and pleasant, large windows which provide a view out both sides if possible, and the ability to dine in one’s room with good quality service.

Requiring that every other facility on the train (diner, lounge, etc) be completely accessible to a disabled person is a step too far. It basically sets up barriers, in my opinion, that over time would just eliminate long-distance train travel in this country.


----------



## jiml

IndyLions said:


> OK – I’m not trying to be insensitive here. Disabled people deserve to have access to as many facilities as possible. In some cases extraordinary measures should be taken to achieve this, and in all cases reasonable accommodations should be made.
> 
> But what is a reasonable accommodation? Should any activity in which it is impossible for a disabled person to participate be banned?
> 
> To me, it is a reasonable accommodation to provide a spacious room in which the disabled person can navigate, restroom facilities which are effective and pleasant, large windows which provide a view out both sides if possible, and the ability to dine in one’s room with good quality service.
> 
> Requiring that every other facility on the train (diner, lounge, etc) be completely accessible to a disabled person is a step too far. It basically sets up barriers, in my opinion, that over time would just eliminate long-distance train travel in this country.


Like most sensitive subjects today, this is a tough one to navigate. You're not wrong, and has any other mode of transportation been forced to make as significant accommodation? It's not like airlines have been required to take out the first two rows of FC to accommodate persons with disabilities. There aren't even seats set aside in coach with extra manoeuvring room nor are there reasonable accessible bathrooms. Same goes for buses - sure they put a wheelchair symbol over the first couple of rows, but the space is no different than anywhere else on the bus and bathroom access is a joke.


----------



## MARC Rider

Why all the posts about sleeper cars in a thread that's supposed to be about Amfleet-1 replacement? The Amfleet-1s were designed for short-haul corridor service, and trains using them won't need sleeping car service.


----------



## joelkfla

jiml said:


> Same goes for buses - sure they put a wheelchair symbol over the first couple of rows, but the space is no different than anywhere else on the bus and bathroom access is a joke.


If you're talking about transit buses, the space is very different. Seats fold up, and there are tie-down devices under the seats. Buses are also required to have wheelchair ramps or lifts, and floor space for maneuvering chairs between the accessible entrance and the tie-downs. Historically, the lifts were very complex mechanically and caused a lot of maintenance; but not so much now with ramps on low-floor buses.

I don't have any figures, but my gut feel is that transit companies as a whole have spent more on accessibility over the years than has Amtrak.


----------



## sttom

Trogdor said:


> It takes some nerve to not only insult Amtrak management employees (which I’m guessing you’ve never met) but then also to completely dismiss the struggles faced by those with disabilities saying they should only have access to a small fraction of the facilities that an able bodied person should enjoy.


1) I did not say that people with a mobility disability should be excluded from the trains, if anything I would want the capacity rule with more of a solid definition of what "accessible" means with respects to transportation than just assuming someone somewhere will ask the question of when an accommodation of a disability becomes unreasonable. 
2) I understand very intimately what a person with declining mobility and cognition faces. My grandfather towards the end of his life couldn't climb the steps to the top level of a California Car when he rode the train. So I get it. My main concern with having someone like my grandfather go to the upper level of a bi level train would be if it was safe. If he could only navigate the stairs while the train is stopped, that was a concern for me. Also, what happens if a train crashes? Is it safe for someone with an impairment to be somewhere that can't be easily evacuated? It would be one thing for me to get out of the upper level of a car, but not someone who has trouble walking let along someone who can't walk at all. 

The question is, if no one is going to ask where the line for "reasonable accommodations" is and frankly it seems like it really is a "it depends on the equipment" question that we keep tap dancing around. It will be fairly easy to make whatever replaces the Amfleets mostly accessible since there aren't rooms to deal with and Siemens at least can build in chair lifts. I would much prefer hard rules over open ended questions that no one seems to ask and no one cares to answer. 

If a sleeping car has to be able to navigable by a wheelchair, then there is a very clear prospect that bedrooms on long distance trains might not exist when the current cars reach the ends of their lives. Or at best, we can hope that they will but be narrower and the trains overall having less capacity, neither of which are good for rail in this country. Which would mean having rules passed into legislation saying how this must be handled. It is clear that an accessible room can be made and Amtrak at least has offered them since before it was required but is it possible to offer full access without severely hampering Amtrak or any other operators ability to do its job?

As for Amtrak's management, middle management may be mostly competent, but that only gets you so far. I have worked for companies with reasonably good middle management, but upper management was too busy chasing gimmicks or running out the back door with as much money as they could. And Amtrak's politically appointed upper management seems to be the former and it is by design. And if Amtrak's last 20 years are anything to go by, the competence of the Board and the C Level Managers makes a huge difference in how Amtrak functions. When Amtrak has had good upper management, good things were able to happen in conjunction with the states and their own routes management staff, in times when leadership has been inconsistent at best and bordering on incompetence at worst, a lot of bad can happen. And if there is one thing I learned from working for sinking companies, running on inertia can only get you so far.


----------



## jis

MARC Rider said:


> Why all the posts about sleeper cars in a thread that's supposed to be about Amfleet-1 replacement? The Amfleet-1s were designed for short-haul corridor service, and trains using them won't need sleeping car service.


Yes. It is quite likely that the new Amfleet I replacement cars will have wider aisles like in the Brightline cars allowing the use of full width wheel chairs everywhere on the train, rather than being limited to small parts of the train.

Sleeping Cars and Superliners are a different kettle of fish altogether.


----------



## jiml

joelkfla said:


> If you're talking about transit buses, the space is very different. Seats fold up, and there are tie-down devices under the seats. Buses are also required to have wheelchair ramps or lifts, and floor space for maneuvering chairs between the accessible entrance and the tie-downs. Historically, the lifts were very complex mechanically and caused a lot of maintenance; but not so much now with ramps on low-floor buses.
> 
> I don't have any figures, but my gut feel is that transit companies as a whole have spent more on accessibility over the years than has Amtrak.


Of course that's the case in city transit buses. I was referring to those comparable with Amtrak, so long distance and regional - probably best identified by having onboard toilets. Even if those buses had more seating space for the disabled, I struggle to see how they'd access the restroom.

Also, to qualify the comments I am certainly not against any or all benefits afforded to those in need, having disabled persons in my family. I just agree with those who were suggesting a more level playing field.


----------



## Mailliw

Getting back to Amfleet replacements; if Amtrak goes with Siemens as expected I think they should include a 2nd, non ADA, restroom in the cars. Venture coaches are about 20 feet longer than the Avelia Liberty cars so it shouldn't be that hard to pull off.


----------



## jis

Mailliw said:


> Getting back to Amfleet replacements; if Amtrak goes with Siemens as expected I think they should include a 2nd, non ADA, restroom in the cars. Venture coaches are about 20 feet longer than the Avelia Liberty cars so it shouldn't be that hard to pull off.


It all depends on how many seats with what seat pitch they want to stuff in each car.  The issues are similar to those that we moan about with regards to airline travel Geomtery issues are the same.


----------



## nferr

IndyLions said:


> There would be some potential utility there - at the very least flexibility.
> 
> All-Bedroom cars are useful on the Auto Train, because it is a popular route and has a clientele that is looking for more bedrooms. In peak season out west, I could see where an All-Bedroom car would add significant revenue to a route. In off-season, not so much.
> 
> An All-Roomette car could be marketed to budget travelers, and provide extra capacity for the budget minded. If you are wanting to make LD trains more appealing to young people, who are already inclined to ride them for environmental reasons, that would probably be a good thing.


 Yeah well pricing them at fifty bucks a night would be a good thing too. But not for Amtrak.


----------



## me_little_me

IndyLions said:


> All-Bedroom cars are useful on the Auto Train, because it is a popular route and has a clientele that is looking for more bedrooms. In peak season out west, I could see where an All-Bedroom car would add significant revenue to a route. In off-season, not so much.


Then again, cruise ships move the whole ship between Florida and Europe when it is off-season in one place and in-season in another so cars could be added to the auto-train when the snowbirds are heading south or north and returned to the Empire Builder e.g. during the summer.


----------



## me_little_me

Trogdor said:


> It takes some nerve to not only insult Amtrak management employees (which I’m guessing you’ve never met) but then also to completely dismiss the struggles faced by those with disabilities saying they should only have access to a small fraction of the facilities that an able bodied person should enjoy.


That was no insult to those with disabilities. It's not an "advantage" to be able to go down the aisles of the further cars. That's like being able to walk through the interior hallways of the other decks of cruise ships which only have doors to rooms. The idea is that if the accessible rooms are close to the things that are needed (their rooms, the diner, the lounge), instead of spreading out one ADA room per car so those in the far cars have a long way to go to get to the diner and lounge while hoping the aisles are not blocked; close to the middle of the train so they are (hopefully) close to the station building and hopefully where there are ramps and other facilities so they don't have to wait forever to be helped on or off the train by employees also handling other passengers. For some, the freedom to not have to wait (or beg) for help would likely be liberating. For those unable to move themselves and lacking an assistant, the minimization of movement between station and train or between room and diner & lounge means they can be there faster with more dignity.

Do I use a wheelchair? No. Have I ever used one? Yes, for a period when I could not walk but had to take a plane trip. It was not a good experience - not that the others deliberately did anything, but having to ask for help to move anywhere whether the bathroom, the gate, the baggage claim, etc. was something that would have been considerably less humiliating, less stressful and less difficult if it were done better.

This is not like having wheelchair access in every classroom so any disabled person could attend any class and mix with all the students instead of being confined to a class full of others in a similar situation. The idea to make accessible rooms and coach seats in a convenient place and so that those who wanted to go to the amenity cars or board and deboard quickly and safely and with minimal personal travel could do so.

But then one needs to ask those who are confined to wheelchairs whether the right to be in any car during their trip is a need even if it means they might have to go longer distances both on the train and when going to/from the station or if they would prefer to be assured that they would be placed in a car easiest for them to have a more enjoyable trip instead of being confined to one car becaus no matter how wide the aisles, there is always something/someone in the way.


----------



## Mailliw

I actually like the idea of having multiple ADA rooms in the sleeper thats adjacent to the diner/lounge car. For Superliners that car is going to need an elevator though.


----------



## sitzplatz17

In a dream world a Superliner III order might include something like a 4 piece set of permanently coupled cars in a: 
ADA Sleeper (with elevator) - Diner - Lounge - ADA coach (with elevator). The width between the cars would be fully wheelchair accessible allowing full movement between those four cars and elevator redundancy. 

Since almost every LD superliner route has this order of cars in the consist (EB being the outlier) that set could be used pretty interchangeably. 

This kind of set would allow significantly more movement through the train than currently can be done and allow flexibility by still added individual coaches and sleeper on each respective end.

ok, I’m done dreaming... back to Amfleet replacements!


----------



## me_little_me

sitzplatz17 said:


> In a dream world a Superliner III order might include something like a 4 piece set of permanently coupled cars in a:
> ADA Sleeper (with elevator) - Diner - Lounge - ADA coach (with elevator). The width between the cars would be fully wheelchair accessible allowing full movement between those four cars and elevator redundancy.
> 
> Since almost every LD superliner route has this order of cars in the consist (EB being the outlier) that set could be used pretty interchangeably.
> 
> This kind of set would allow significantly more movement through the train than currently can be done and allow flexibility by still added individual coaches and sleeper on each respective end.
> 
> ok, I’m done dreaming... back to Amfleet replacements!


They don't have to be permanently coupled (if one car goes bad, you lose all of them) but they could have semi-permanent connections or just no doors or associated hardware to provide a wider passage.


----------



## Andrew

Does the fact that Amtrak used diesel locomotives for South of DC service make it more likely for Amtrak to order dual mode Charger locomotives?


----------



## nullptr

The NGEC 2021 annual meeting slides we made available at AASHTO - High Speed Rail - Section 305 Committee

Two of the slide shows are particularly relevant to the Amfleet replacement rfp. The amtrak slide show has some info on the order but no manufacturer information. They're still touting it as at a configurable order with dual-mode, electric, and diesel options. It also says "LAFO received" which I'm interpreting as "last and final offer(?)". Since it's not plural I'm guessing they're down to one manufacturer, but I may be reading too much into their wording. (Also has some photos of a half-painted ALC-42)


http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/Annual%20Meetings/2021/8.%20Amtrak%20Fleet%20procurements%20-NGEC%202021%20Annual%20Meeting-%20George%20Hull.pdf



Also, the Metro north slides have more info on their dual mode order.


http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/Annual%20Meetings/2021/9.%20Metro-North%20Railroad%20Siemens%20NGEC%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%202021%20-%20Final.pdf


----------



## Andrew

nullptr said:


> The NGEC 2021 annual meeting slides we made available at AASHTO - High Speed Rail - Section 305 Committee
> 
> Two of the slide shows are particularly relevant to the Amfleet replacement rfp. The amtrak slide show has some info on the order but no manufacturer information. They're still touting it as at a configurable order with dual-mode, electric, and diesel options. It also says "LAFO received" which I'm interpreting as "last and final offer(?)". Since it's not plural I'm guessing they're down to one manufacturer, but I may be reading too much into their wording. (Also has some photos of a half-painted ALC-42)
> 
> 
> http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/Annual%20Meetings/2021/8.%20Amtrak%20Fleet%20procurements%20-NGEC%202021%20Annual%20Meeting-%20George%20Hull.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Also, the Metro north slides have more info on their dual mode order.
> 
> 
> http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/Annual%20Meetings/2021/9.%20Metro-North%20Railroad%20Siemens%20NGEC%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%202021%20-%20Final.pdf



Based on reading that document, I infer that Amtrak is going with one common trainset family, such as the Venture Coach made by Siemens, instead of a mixed fleet from several different companies. (If not the Venture Coach, than I predict that Amtrak will go with a family of trains made by Stadler).


----------



## jiml

Recent Stadler FLIRT review from Dylan Bowes. If (big if) Amtrak were to go with an MU for NEC non-Acela services, I'm not sure these would be a bad choice. It's important to note that many countries are using these trainsets, so not limited to restrictive British loading gauge.


----------



## frequentflyer

nullptr said:


> The NGEC 2021 annual meeting slides we made available at AASHTO - High Speed Rail - Section 305 Committee
> 
> Two of the slide shows are particularly relevant to the Amfleet replacement rfp. The amtrak slide show has some info on the order but no manufacturer information. They're still touting it as at a configurable order with dual-mode, electric, and diesel options. It also says "LAFO received" which I'm interpreting as "last and final offer(?)". Since it's not plural I'm guessing they're down to one manufacturer, but I may be reading too much into their wording. (Also has some photos of a half-painted ALC-42)
> 
> 
> http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/Annual%20Meetings/2021/8.%20Amtrak%20Fleet%20procurements%20-NGEC%202021%20Annual%20Meeting-%20George%20Hull.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Also, the Metro north slides have more info on their dual mode order.
> 
> 
> http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/Annual%20Meetings/2021/9.%20Metro-North%20Railroad%20Siemens%20NGEC%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%202021%20-%20Final.pdf



So what is a "trainset"? Just coaches or including locomotives?


----------



## nullptr

frequentflyer said:


> So what is a "trainset"? Just coaches or including locomotives?



I think the RFP was fairly flexible about what could be proposed, but yes electric/diesel/dual mode locomotives or multiple units were mentioned.


----------



## Andrew

I wonder if Amtrak will order Venture Coaches in EMU form, and when the order will be placed.


----------



## jis

When they talk about number of trainsets, my educated guess is they are counting a trainset as anything that has capacity equivalent to 8 85 footers like the current typical NEC Regional consists with a similar mix of Coach, Upper Class and Food Service. It is somewhat wishy washy, but in the ballpark I think. I have not seen a precise definition. The vendors have a lot of leeway in proposing solutions that meet the end to end run time and capacity requirements specified in the document shared with vendors, but not with the likes of me - a non-vendor curious person.

Given that it is a relatively hide bound bureaucracy we are dealing with, at the end of the day I think all that will be acceptable will be 8 Venture-like cars bracketed between top and tail power heads. I would be positively surprised if it turns out to be anything else.


----------



## Mailliw

I just don't see Amtrak going with EMUs; the time to do that would've the Acela replacement. This new equipment needs to run on and off electricfied routes and I just don't see Amtrak going with BMUs on such a large scale. I'll be shocked if Amtrak goes with something other than Siemens Venture coaches.


----------



## Andrew

Mailliw said:


> I just don't see Amtrak going with EMUs; the time to do that would've the Acela replacement. This new equipment needs to run on and off electricfied routes and I just don't see Amtrak going with BMUs on such a large scale. I'll be shocked if Amtrak goes with something other than Siemens Venture coaches.



Are you then implying that Amtrak will go with diesel-catenary Charger Locomotives for dual-mode service?


----------



## Mailliw

Probably.


----------



## jiml

Andrew said:


> Are you then implying that Amtrak will go with diesel-catenary Charger Locomotives for dual-mode service?





Mailliw said:


> Probably.


You guys are really looking forward to this. It's great to dream and I'm not saying it won't ever happen, but let's do a reality check. The only place in the current Amtrak system where dual-mode is a thing is the Empire Corridor and the locomotives that fill that need probably have the lowest mileage of any of the G.E.'s, so will likely be the last replaced. They seldom wander any further than Buffalo/Toronto or Montreal (when those routes are operating). Buying an expensive sub-set of locomotives to simply eliminate the swap at WAS is unlikely and buying anything with a view to the future is neither Amtrak's "style" nor is it practical when your budget is reassessed every year, making future planning difficult. They're not going to run a dual-mode on any NEC long-distance trains such as the Silvers, Crescent or Cardinal where a conventional diesel will do just as well. Why risk your valuable dual-mode being stranded far from its maintenance base? Maybe you can make a case for the Virginia extensions of NEC trains and the Pennsylvanian, but don't you think it would be better to wait until there are wires over the tracks in a good part of Virginia and maybe up the Hudson as far as Albany before adding an "orange" to the "apple cart"? I'm all for dreaming, but this isn't Europe.


----------



## PVD

At this point, the Empire Corridor ones may well be bought by NYS as options on the MNRR procurement.


----------



## jis

I agree that electric and diesel dual mode is unlikely to be used on LD trains traveling beyond Virginia. What would be used on Virginia trains may be partly determined by what Virginia wants to see happen.

Personally I think money would be better spent in fixing the process for loco change in Washington Union Station so such can be done in 15 mins, instead of creating yet another subfleet of engines.

Corridor trains with relatively frequent stops are more efficiently operated with distributed power sets, and that is the trend everywhere in the world. In many places this is achieved using a mix of trailer and power cars, with cab cars at each end, all cars carrying passengers. Quite often the cab cars may not be the power cars, but that is not a critical issue.

NJTransit has opted for this route to convert a substantial subset of its multi-level fleet into what in effect will be distributed power sets, by adding a bunch of Multilevel Power Cars to their fleet. Last time I looked they plan to have a power car in groups of three cars, thus a 12 car train will have 4 power cars. The contract is for a joint procurement between NJT and SEPTA.









For NJ Transit, another rolling stock innovation - Railway Age


By 2026, provided the procurement is fully funded and all options are exercised, New Jersey Transit—empowered by an infusion of much-needed funding by Governor Phil Murphy following a starvation diet imposed by his predecessor, Chris Christie—will have replaced its entire fleet of aging...




www.railwayage.com





From this article:



There is nothing in this that is proprietary to Bombardier (Alstom). Siemens is perfectly capable of crafting such a configuration together using the Viaggio platform. It does not require trains to be fixed length. The lengths can be varied as one desires. The cab at each end is something that Amtrak has expressed a desire for, in order to eliminate the need to for turning trains in a loop or a Wye, allowing them to be "turned" in platform.

But given that Amtrak has a large stash of very capable electric engines, and a need for part of the fleet to run off electrified territory, they may go for the push pull configuration with cab car at one end instead (the RailJet configuration or configuration 2 in the Railway Age article referenced above). But again, it is not hard to mix and match as needed. So we'll see.


----------



## nullptr

jiml said:


> The only place in the current Amtrak system where dual-mode is a thing is the Empire Corridor and the locomotives that fill that need probably have the lowest mileage of any of the G.E.'s, so will likely be the last replaced. They seldom wander any further than Buffalo/Toronto or Montreal (when those routes are operating).




Maybe to your point that the amfleet order won't include dual-mode locomotives, NYDOT has an option to buy empire corridor configured dual modes in the MTA order. It would be odd for them to get options in one order, only for another dual-mode order (maybe larger) to be placed for other corridors. But I don't know how much coordination there has been between amtrak and the states for all of this.

Edit: Ah oops, PVD beet me to it.


----------



## jiml

nullptr said:


> Maybe to your point that the amfleet order won't include dual-mode locomotives, NYDOT has an option to buy empire corridor configured dual modes in the MTA order. It would be odd for them to get options in one order, only for another dual-mode order (maybe larger) to be placed for other corridors. But I don't know how much coordination there has been between amtrak and the states for all of this.
> 
> Edit: Ah oops, PVD beet me to it.


Right, but unless something changes dramatically in the next few years won't those be third-rail/diesel as opposed to catenary? I was commenting on posts about dual-mode catenary models.


----------



## PVD

Over the last few years the 700's on the Empire Service have gotten fresh paint, and actually (to me) look pretty good. They've gotten the job done when called upon. When the platform and track work was going on in Albany, a single P-32 pulled the whole LSL up from NYP, and when trains went to GCT, I believe some got a "nose job" and a bunch had there 3rd rail shoes modified. And they soldier on. I'm sure someone else will let us know if they are ok on maintenance, I would guess a DM is a bit more troublesome than regular.


----------



## jis

Then again, a single FL-9 routinely used to pull the then longer LSL from NYG to ALB or CRH too.


----------



## nullptr

jiml said:


> Right, but unless something changes dramatically in the next few years won't those be third-rail/diesel as opposed to catenary? I was commenting on posts about dual-mode catenary models.



Ah, that is true, and is pretty important context. It might potentially justify two different orders, but would still seem odd.


----------



## jiml

PVD said:


> Over the last few years the 700's on the Empire Service have gotten fresh paint, and actually (to me) look pretty good. They've gotten the job done when called upon. When the platform and track work was going on in Albany, a single P-32 pulled the whole LSL up from NYP, and when trains went to GCT, I believe some got a "nose job" and a bunch had there 3rd rail shoes modified. And they soldier on. I'm sure someone else will let us know if they are ok on maintenance, I would guess a DM is a bit more troublesome than regular.


You rarely see one being towed by a freight engine.


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> You rarely see one being towed by a freight engine.


No. Them would not fit through the tunnels into Penn Station. But there have been P32ACDMs substituted by straight P42s into Penn Station from time to time pinch hitting for a P32ACDM that did not make it..


----------



## sitzplatz17

It seems to be that the easiest and most "off the shelf" solution for the WAS issue would be to procure new Viaggo cars from Siemens with a cab car on one end.
In this situation you could simply do the following:
1. A southbound NER to VA could operate from BOS/NYP with the cab car leading and being pushed by an ACS64.
2. Arriving at WAS have the diesel loco sitting on the requisite platform ready to go and drive the train right up to and then couple up with the new loco.
4. Allow passengers to (dis)embark.
5. Uncouple the ACS64 on your way south.

On the way back, just do the same in reverse.
Thoughts? I'm sure I'm missing something here.


----------



## jiml

sitzplatz17 said:


> It seems to be that the easiest and most "off the shelf" solution for the WAS issue would be to procure new Viaggo cars from Siemens with a cab car on one end.
> In this situation you could simply do the following:
> 1. A southbound NER to VA could operate from BOS/NYP with the cab car leading and being pushed by an ACS64.
> 2. Arriving at WAS have the diesel loco sitting on the requisite platform ready to go and drive the train right up to and then couple up with the new loco.
> 4. Allow passengers to (dis)embark.
> 5. Uncouple the ACS64 on your way south.
> 
> On the way back, just do the same in reverse.
> Thoughts? I'm sure I'm missing something here.


That's way too simple and practical.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> When they talk about number of trainsets, my educated guess is they are counting a trainset as anything that has capacity equivalent to 8 85 footers like the current typical NEC Regional consists with a similar mix of Coach, Upper Class and Food Service. It is somewhat wishy washy, but in the ballpark I think. I have not seen a precise definition. The vendors have a lot of leeway in proposing solutions that meet the end to end run time and capacity requirements specified in the document shared with vendors, but not with the likes of me - a non-vendor curious person.
> 
> Given that it is a relatively hide bound bureaucracy we are dealing with, at the end of the day I think all that will be acceptable will be 8 Venture-like cars bracketed between top and tail power heads. I would be positively surprised if it turns out to be anything else.





jis said:


> I agree that electric and diesel dual mode is unlikely to be used on LD trains traveling beyond Virginia. What would be used on Virginia trains may be partly determined by what Virginia wants to see happen.
> 
> Personally I think money would be better spent in fixing the process for loco change in Washington Union Station so such can be done in 15 mins, instead of creating yet another subfleet of engines.
> 
> Corridor trains with relatively frequent stops are more efficiently operated with distributed power sets, and that is the trend everywhere in the world. In many places this is achieved using a mix of trailer and power cars, with cab cars at each end, all cars carrying passengers. Quite often the cab cars may not be the power cars, but that is not a critical issue.
> 
> NJTransit has opted for this route to convert a substantial subset of its multi-level fleet into what in effect will be distributed power sets, by adding a bunch of Multilevel Power Cars to their fleet. Last time I looked they plan to have a power car in groups of three cars, thus a 12 car train will have 4 power cars. The contract is for a joint procurement between NJT and SEPTA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For NJ Transit, another rolling stock innovation - Railway Age
> 
> 
> By 2026, provided the procurement is fully funded and all options are exercised, New Jersey Transit—empowered by an infusion of much-needed funding by Governor Phil Murphy following a starvation diet imposed by his predecessor, Chris Christie—will have replaced its entire fleet of aging...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.railwayage.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From this article:
> View attachment 20993
> 
> 
> There is nothing in this that is proprietary to Bombardier (Alstom). Siemens is perfectly capable of crafting such a configuration together using the Viaggio platform. It does not require trains to be fixed length. The lengths can be varied as one desires. The cab at each end is something that Amtrak has expressed a desire for, in order to eliminate the need to for turning trains in a loop or a Wye, allowing them to be "turned" in platform.
> 
> But given that Amtrak has a large stash of very capable electric engines, and a need for part of the fleet to run off electrified territory, they may go for the push pull configuration with cab car at one end instead (the RailJet configuration or configuration 2 in the Railway Age article referenced above). But again, it is not hard to mix and match as needed. So we'll see.



And suppose Virginia asks for EDMU trains instead of dual-mode Chargers?


----------



## jiml

Andrew said:


> And suppose Virginia asks for EDMU trains instead of dual-mode Chargers?


What would be their objective?


----------



## Andrew

Maybe they think the acceleration would better...

Also, if Amtrak does order EDMU trains from Siemens, where do you folks think the diesel engines would be located?


----------



## SubwayNut

jis said:


> No. Them would not fit through the tunnels into Penn Station. But there have been P32ACDMs substituted by straight P42s into Penn Station from time to time pinch hitting for a P32ACDM that did not make it..





https://subwaynut.com/mnr/crotonharmon/crotonharmon22.jpg



I have a photo of a P42 leading the Lake Shore into Croton-Harmon back in 2004 I believe what happened is that an AEM7 or HHP8 waited at the end of electrification on the Empire Connection (which has both third rail and catenary) in the electrified portion of the connection and pulled the P42 and Lake Shore into the station and its deadhead to Sunnyside Yard.


----------



## Seaboard92

sitzplatz17 said:


> It seems to be that the easiest and most "off the shelf" solution for the WAS issue would be to procure new Viaggo cars from Siemens with a cab car on one end.
> In this situation you could simply do the following:
> 1. A southbound NER to VA could operate from BOS/NYP with the cab car leading and being pushed by an ACS64.
> 2. Arriving at WAS have the diesel loco sitting on the requisite platform ready to go and drive the train right up to and then couple up with the new loco.
> 4. Allow passengers to (dis)embark.
> 5. Uncouple the ACS64 on your way south.
> 
> On the way back, just do the same in reverse.
> Thoughts? I'm sure I'm missing something here.



Yeah thats not practical you see the Washington Terminal is not good at change. They can barely get the trains they are supposed to get out and over the road on time. Whats to say they are going to be any better with the new system.


----------



## jis

SubwayNut said:


> https://subwaynut.com/mnr/crotonharmon/crotonharmon22.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> I have a photo of a P42 leading the Lake Shore into Croton-Harmon back in 2004 I believe what happened is that an AEM7 or HHP8 waited at the end of electrification on the Empire Connection (which has both third rail and catenary) in the electrified portion of the connection and pulled the P42 and Lake Shore into the station and its deadhead to Sunnyside Yard.


I have arrived in Penn Station on LSL pulled by a P42. No electric assist. All that they need apparently is a special permission from someone at Amtrak to get the exception approved to operate a P42 through Penn Station. Has happened many many times, contrary to the strongly held belief among railfans of how it is illegal to do so.


----------



## MARC Rider

jis said:


> I have arrived in Penn Station on LSL pulled by a P42. No electric assist. All that they need apparently is a special permission from someone at Amtrak to get the exception approved to operate a P42 through Penn Station. Has happened many many times, contrary to the strongly held belief among railfans of how it is illegal to do so.


I wonder whether it would be safe to just just give blanket exemptions for Tier 4 diesels, and allow them to operate in the tunnels? (I know the P42's aren't tier 4, but they are on the verge of being replaced, so this idea is looking forward to the future. Not that I want to encourage dieselization of electrical operations, I'm just thinking about special circumstances.)


----------



## jis

MARC Rider said:


> I wonder whether it would be safe to just just give blanket exemptions for Tier 4 diesels, and allow them to operate in the tunnels? (I know the P42's aren't tier 4, but they are on the verge of being replaced, so this idea is looking forward to the future. Not that I want to encourage dieselization of electrical operations, I'm just thinking about special circumstances.)


I suspect the notification is to make sure that the exhaust fans are running full tilt when fumes are expected to be exuded in the station, or some such. I understand that there is something slightly different that is done when diesels are expected in the station. They do not use diesels routinely. That is what the ACDMs and their eventual dual mode Chargers are for.


----------



## railiner

Recall that in the waning Penn Central era, the FL-9's which were supposed to bring their trains into GCT under third rail power, were in such poor shape, they never shut down the diesel's. You could smell and see the exhaust almost as soon as you entered the station concourse from the waiting room...


----------



## Andrew

Would a dual-mode Charger locomotive likely have as much horsepower in electric mode as a Sprinter locomotive?


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> Would a dual-mode Charger locomotive likely have as much horsepower in electric mode as a Sprinter locomotive?


It will be a third rail electric, and the electric mode mostly for use in station, yard, Park Avenue Tunnel and East River Tunnel. So most likely not.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> It will be a third rail electric, and the electric mode mostly for use in station, yard, Park Avenue Tunnel and East River Tunnel. So most likely not.



I thought Amtrak was also looking at buying a diesel-catenary locomotive.


----------



## PVD

The Amtrak iteration would be a horse of a different color


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> The Amtrak iteration would be a horse of a different color


Who says there will be any Amtrak iteration of dual mode other than the ones funded by NYSDOT for the Empire Corridor?


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Who says there will be any Amtrak iteration of dual mode other than the ones funded by NYSDOT for the Empire Corridor?



Amtrak has stated in the past that they are looking at diesel-catenary trains for Regional service that operates south of DC and to Springfield, etc.

Amtrak has specifically mentioned the Bombardier DP Locomotive and the Hitachi Class 802.

I would think Amtrak ordering diesel-catenary Charger locomotives or Stadler Flirt trains for dual-mode Regional trains would be more likely.


----------



## PVD

No, i wasn't trying to say there would be, I was just saying if it did come to pass, it would be something very different in its requirements.


----------



## nullptr

This can be interpreted in several ways, as already noted in this thread. but in response to the AmeriStarRail proposal, an amtrak spokesperson said


> a procurement for new trains is underway to eliminate the need for engine changes in Washington for trains operating from NEC points to Virginia and the South



Its unclear to me how up to date a spokesperson would be on the details of a procurement negotiation, or if they are just describing the original intent of the RFP. 









Rail News - Amtrak comments on NEC privatization proposal. For Railroad Career Professionals







www.progressiverailroading.com


----------



## jis

nullptr said:


> This can be interpreted in several ways, as already noted in this thread. but in response to the AmeriStarRail proposal, an amtrak spokesperson said
> 
> 
> Its unclear to me how up to date a spokesperson would be on the details of a procurement negotiation, or if they are just describing the original intent of the RFP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rail News - Amtrak comments on NEC privatization proposal. For Railroad Career Professionals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.progressiverailroading.com


That at least is interesting additional information. Although I am getting a bit impatient. Come on Amtrak! Get this done already and let the rest of us know what is it that you intend to do!


----------



## nullptr

A somewhat rescent NGEC meeting minutes had the following line in it


> Bids are in and are being reviewed in the two evaluation committees with the goal of completing the review in time for the January or March Amtrak Board Meetings.



The thing is, that was the DEC 2019 Meeting, and was referring to January or March of 2020. Covid obviously didn't help, but yeah, I'm getting pretty tired of waiting. I wonder if the open-endedness of the RFP caused the evaluation of the proposals to take more time as well.


----------



## Pipp

I know many people aren't a fan of the amfleets and often refer to them as amcans. But I like their tubular design, it makes the stand out. I wish we could get some amfleet III's, but I know that isn't going happen. I also like the look of these cars trucks too, how it exposes almost all of the wheel.


----------



## west point

Our complaint about Amfleets are they do not have the room inside that Viewliners have.


----------



## Steve4031

The windows are too small for most people on Amfleet 1s. The windows are bigger on Amfleet II coaches. I think once we get to ride in the new Siemens coaches we will be hoping for those to be chosen for the single level long distance cars.

I looked at this video about the Stadler train sets. 


These are designed to couple and uncouple with ease without all the connections that have to be currently made on Amtrak. These are feasible IMHO on the NEC. It would be possible to to run two connected trains from New York to Washington, unhitch one set, and send the other set further south. Or you could run the two trains to Richmond, and have the split there with one going to New Port News and the other going to Norfolk.


----------



## jiml

Steve4031 said:


> The windows are too small for most people on Amfleet 1s. The windows are bigger on Amfleet II coaches. I think once we get to ride in the new Siemens coaches we will be hoping for those to be chosen for the single level long distance cars.


I miss the Rohr turbos for this exact reason. Best windows on Amtrak ever.



Steve4031 said:


> These are designed to couple and uncouple with ease without all the connections that have to be currently made on Amtrak. These are feasible IMHO on the NEC. It would be possible to to run two connected trains from New York to Washington, unhitch one set, and send the other set further south. Or you could run the two trains to Richmond, and have the split there with one going to New Port News and the other going to Norfolk.


That's pretty much the British pattern with MU trainsets.


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> That's pretty much the British pattern with MU trainsets.


Indeed! Even up in the remote West Highland Line at Crianlarich the train splits into two one going to Oban and the other to Fort William/Mallaig. No one has to jump off the train to do the splitting/joining, thanks to the Scharfenberg or similar coupler. It is all done with a simple push of a button.


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> Indeed! Even up in the remote West Highland Line at Crianlarich the train splits into two one going to Oban and the other to Fort William/Mallaig. No one has to jump off the train to do the splitting/joining, thanks to the Scharfenberg or similar coupler. It is all done with a simple push of a button.


Exactly! All over - the trains leave London (or Manchester occasionally) paired and split enroute. It doesn't seem to be limited to a particular make or model either. They do it with Hitachis, Stadlers and Bombardiers of all types - diesel, electric, both. Where I can see this being a problem for Amtrak is that each section will have a cafe (when food service is offered) and that's double the staff.


----------



## Steve4031

jiml said:


> Exactly! All over - the trains leave London (or Manchester occasionally) paired and split enroute. It doesn't seem to be limited to a particular make or model either. They do it with Hitachis, Stadlers and Bombardiers of all types - diesel, electric, both. Where I can see this being a problem for Amtrak is that each section will have a cafe (when food service is offered) and that's double the staff.



This would be the case in France with two TGV trains operating together. There is no way to pass between the two trains. Not sure how it would work with these trains. But if ridership is higher because there is more options, than it would not be a problem to have two snack cars.


----------



## railiner

Rode VIA Rail to Jonquiere...At Hervey, the Senneterre train, locomotive and all, was split off from us.


----------



## west point

Rode a French TGV that was 2 train sets. Had to switch train set at split location due to over sales. Food service car fully staffed on both train sets.


----------



## Seaboard92

I'm not a fan of any sort of DMU/EMU or non conventional train. I still think the RailJet is the far superior high speed train for Amtrak to buy. It's semi permanently coupled meaning you can add cars for higher demand. As well as still change the locomotive. What would make more sense for those Virginia trains would be to get a few duel mode locomotives.


----------



## jis

Seaboard92 said:


> What would make more sense for those Virginia trains would be to get a few duel mode locomotives.


What kind of Pistols will the "duel" modes carry? 

Speaking of fast attach/detach, when I traveled to Akita by Shinkansen, the train started from Tokyo Central with two sets coupled together. At Morioka, the rear unit got dropped off, and the front unit continued on to Akita. The separation took less than a minute.

On the way back, the Akita section crawled up to the Morioka section and tapped onto it, again less than a minute, and then after the brief station stop, o0ff they went at full speed to Tokyo.


----------



## rickycourtney

jis said:


> Speaking of fast attach/detach, when I traveled to Akita by Shinkansen, the train started from Tokyo Central with two sets coupled together. At Morioka, the rear unit got dropped off, and the front unit continued on to Akita. The separation took less than a minute.
> 
> On the way back, the Akita section crawled up to the Morioka section and tapped onto it, again less than a minute, and then after the brief station stop, o0ff they went at full speed to Tokyo.


I witnessed a similar situation on the TGV.

The high-speed lines are congested... so two trains heading in similar directions are coupled together to use one track "slot."

Two westbound trains from Strasbourg pulled into Champagne-Ardenne station coupled together. Right after the doors closed... the train to Paris pulled away from the other immediately. About 60 seconds later (enough time to properly space the trains out) the train to Lyon/Disneyland Paris departed.

Now, in fairness, the process is made much easier because the European passenger railroads use scharfenberg couplers that connect brake and electric lines automatically. Switching to something similar could drastically improve locomotive change times... but Amtrak would lose the ability to call a freight locomotive to the rescue... which they seem to do once a day.


----------



## Mailliw

Regardless of the advantages MUs have I predict Amtrak will stick with locomotive hauled coaches.


----------



## jiml

VIA runs (pre-Covid) trains that are nicknamed "J-trains", consisting of a train to Ottawa and a train to Montreal coupled out of Toronto to Brockville, ON, where they are separated to continue to their destinations. Very practical. Food service on both throughout the trip.


----------



## Gemuser

rickycourtney said:


> Now, in fairness, the process is made much easier because the European passenger railroads use scharfenberg couplers that connect brake and electric lines automatically. Switching to something similar could drastically improve locomotive change times... but Amtrak would lose the ability to call a freight locomotive to the rescue... which they seem to do once a day.


This is not really a problem. Just equip every unit with a transation coupler that allows the unit to couple to a standard coupler.

Gemuser


----------



## Mailliw

OBB Railjet uses Siemens Viaggio coaches and they can still couple 2 trainsets together for part of the route.


----------



## Andrew

If Amtrak does, in fact, choose Stadler FLIRT trains for the new Amfleets, would one power-packed vehicle carry enough diesel fuel to be able to travel off the NEC?


----------



## jiml

Andrew said:


> If Amtrak does, in fact, choose Stadler FLIRT trains for the new Amfleets, would one power-packed vehicle carry enough diesel fuel to be able to travel off the NEC?


The short answer is yes. They would be suitable for the short runs into Virginia, etc., off the NEC. They've also recently introduced a hybrid model, which runs somewhat like a hybrid car, with diesel engines charging batteries for use in areas where diesel might be restricted. There is also now a hydrogen model, recently sold to a commuter agency in California.









Stadler Wins FLIRT H2 Hydrogen Train Contract in the US


Stadler has won its first contract for a hydrogen train, the FLIRT H2. The SBCTA will operate the train on the Redlands Passenger Rail line.




railway-news.com





Whether Amtrak would actually consider any of them has been debated here several times.


----------



## Andrew

Gemuser said:


> While Stadler's current offerings run heavely to EMU/DMU trains they have a section on their web site that says they will build any "cumstomised' train carrage you want. Obversiously the kicker here is the price, custom anything tends to be more expensive.
> 
> Of Stadler's normal product line the very multi capable FLIRT series would seem to suit at least some of Amtrak's requirement. With a seperate "power" carrage within the train they can offer O/H electric AC 25KV/50/60 Hz, 15k/11kV 16.66 Hz, DC 3,000/1,500V, third rail DC electric from 500 to 1200V [minimum] desiel and multi mode electric/desial. I don't know the maximum power of the desiel engines they can take.
> 
> I could see FLIRTS handling the Empire corridor with ease [& even through running with LIRR, if that actually happens as both under & over running third rail shoes could be fitted to the power module] as well as most of the NEC to unelectrified duties.
> 
> Slightly off topic: I recently saw a video on the "River Line" in NJ. That certainly look like a straight desiel FLIR, was it?





jiml said:


> The short answer is yes. They would be suitable for the short runs into Virginia, etc., off the NEC. They've also recently introduced a hybrid model, which runs somewhat like a hybrid car, with diesel engines charging batteries for use in areas where diesel might be restricted. There is also now a hydrogen model, recently sold to a commuter agency in California.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stadler Wins FLIRT H2 Hydrogen Train Contract in the US
> 
> 
> Stadler has won its first contract for a hydrogen train, the FLIRT H2. The SBCTA will operate the train on the Redlands Passenger Rail line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railway-news.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether Amtrak would actually consider any of them has been debated here several times.



Virginia's governor today gave a press conference about expanding Amtrak service into his state. I wonder if operating more trains would encourage Amtrak to operate lighter trainsets instead of heavy, locomotive-hauled trains.


----------



## jiml

Andrew said:


> Virginia's governor today gave a press conference about expanding Amtrak service into his state. I wonder if operating more trains would encourage Amtrak to operate lighter trainsets instead of heavy, locomotive-hauled trains.


The question that remains is whether Amtrak wants two NE fleets in addition to the next-gen Acelas. The FLIRT sets would be fine replacements for Amfleet NE Regional trains operating in the NEC, Keystone corridor and possibly into Virginia. However, I don't see them running in the Empire corridor west of Albany, sharing tracks with freight trains, nor on the Pennsylvanian for that matter. If they're going to pick one style it's going to be "heavy, locomotive-hauled trains". (As has been mentioned before as well, New York will buy what New York wants for the Empire Corridor.)


----------



## jis

Yeah, I think they will possibly take the Brightline approach with locomotives top and tail, which has so far served Brightline well in numerous grade crossing altercations. And also they operate mixed with fast freights, mostly intermodals.


----------



## Andrew

jiml said:


> The question that remains is whether Amtrak wants two NE fleets in addition to the next-gen Acelas. The FLIRT sets would be fine replacements for Amfleet NE Regional trains operating in the NEC, Keystone corridor and possibly into Virginia. However, I don't see them running in the Empire corridor west of Albany, sharing tracks with freight trains, nor on the Pennsylvanian for that matter. If they're going to pick one style it's going to be "heavy, locomotive-hauled trains". (As has been mentioned before as well, New York will buy what New York wants for the Empire Corridor.)





jis said:


> I think Amtrak should consider ordering Venture Coaches for all trains--but order Stadler FLIRTs for the Northeast Regional and New Haven shuttle trains. I just think that Amtrak might be better off operating 3 fleets: the new Acelas, locomotive-hauled trains with venture coaches, and FLIRT trains that come in bi-mode and DMU form.
> 
> Yeah, I think they will possibly take the Brightline approach with locomotives top and tail, which has so far served Brightline well in numerous grade crossing altercations. And also they operate mixed with fast freights, mostly intermodals.



Are you implying Amtrak operating Regional trains with both a Sprinter and Charger locomotive? I think that this would increase wear and tear on the tracks.


----------



## jiml

Can't we just wait and see what happens?


----------



## railiner

jiml said:


> Can't we just wait and see what happens?


That's not the "AU way"...


----------



## Andrew

Seaboard92 said:


> I'm not a fan of any sort of DMU/EMU or non conventional train. I still think the RailJet is the far superior high speed train for Amtrak to buy. It's semi permanently coupled meaning you can add cars for higher demand. As well as still change the locomotive. What would make more sense for those Virginia trains would be to get a few duel mode locomotives.





jiml said:


> The question that remains is whether Amtrak wants two NE fleets in addition to the next-gen Acelas. The FLIRT sets would be fine replacements for Amfleet NE Regional trains operating in the NEC, Keystone corridor and possibly into Virginia. However, I don't see them running in the Empire corridor west of Albany, sharing tracks with freight trains, nor on the Pennsylvanian for that matter. If they're going to pick one style it's going to be "heavy, locomotive-hauled trains". (As has been mentioned before as well, New York will buy what New York wants for the Empire Corridor.)



I wonder if Amtrak orders Venture Coach or Stadler trainsets if these new trains would or would not have Cafe Cars? For example, most Regional trains currently have eight coaches which include one Cafe Car. But, perhaps future trainsets would only have seven coaches--without a Cafe Car?


----------



## frequentflyer

Wasn't Amtrak experimenting with a sort of a self serve food option?

PreCovid the Regionals were 8 cars, yet I remember back in the late 90s and early 2000s there were 10 car consists? Is this Amtrak's way of bumping up yields?


----------



## jis

frequentflyer said:


> Wasn't Amtrak experimenting with a sort of a self serve food option?
> 
> PreCovid the Regionals were 8 cars, yet I remember back in the late 90s and early 2000s there were 10 car consists? Is this Amtrak's way of bumping up yields?


During the Gunn years Regionals were four and five cars, while the rest of the fleet was parked in Wilmington and Bear awaiting funds for POH to put them back in service.

Regionals have seldom in the last thirty or so years, had a consistent ten car consist. There have been exceptional situation like Thanksgiving and such when select ones have had ten cars. The standard Regional consist has been eight cars for quite a while now.

Regionals have always had self serve food service as in the Cafe car. It is not an experiment. It is the standard that has been in place on the NEC for a long time. Acelas have the same except in First Class.


----------



## Mailliw

Siemens has an example layout of a half cafe car/half economy coach on their website; I could see Amtrak going with that setup, at least for the NE Regionals. The Avelia Liberty trainsets have take-out only cafe cars w/o seating.


----------



## sttom

What is it with people here wanting to actively make Amtrak worse? Leave that to management.


----------



## me_little_me

I never knew Regionals had cafes. We rarely take them but when we have, we never think to look for the cafe because we always assumed they didn't have them. So much for Amtrak promoting its products.


----------



## jis

NE Regionals have them. Keystones don't. On early morning rides, I usually used to board in the Cafe which is in the middle of the train in standard consists for at least the last 15-20 years, so as to get a wakeup coffee and muffin or something like that, before going off hunting for a seat.


----------



## Palmetto

me_little_me said:


> I never knew Regionals had cafes. We rarely take them but when we have, we never think to look for the cafe because we always assumed they didn't have them. So much for Amtrak promoting its products.



The only "advertising" is the mention of it in the timetable.


----------



## MARC Rider

Palmetto said:


> The only "advertising" is the mention of it in the timetable.


Not true, there's a lighted sign at the end of each coach pointing the direction of the cafe. Frequently the cafe attendant gets on the PA to announce that he or she is open and serving. If that doesn't happen, the conductor is not shy about getting on the PA to announce when the cafe is closing temporarily (like when they change engines in Washington and the power is down.) The cafe car gets plenty of business. I believe it's one of the few Amtrak food services that has positive net revenue, even with Amtrak accounting.


----------



## PVD

I also see them on the Empire trains that go past Albany, as well as the EA, ML, and ADK. NYS chooses not to have the cars staffed on the trains that run NYP/ALB only, but the car is in the consist since one end of it is the BC seating on those trains.


----------



## MARC Rider

305 activities report - monthly 2-28-21.pdf (highspeed-rail.org) 

According to this report, the Amfleet replacement is "progressing" and is in the "cone of silence" stage. It seems like proposals were received over (or almost) a year ago. Is it typical for reviews like this to take so long?


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> I also see them on the Empire trains that go past Albany, as well as the EA, ML, and ADK. NYS chooses not to have the cars staffed on the trains that run NYP/ALB only, but the car is in the consist since one end of it is the BC seating on those trains.


I see you are really into cooking up random abbreviations to impress everyone eh? ADK for Adirondack? Really? 

Anyway Other than the Maple Leaf and the Adirondack which have at times used Amfleet IIs in their consist, Empire Service generally uses a standard consist which includes the old 2-1 sitting half BC Cafe cars. They are part of the standard consist, and as mentioned the Cafe part is not staffed on the Albany terminator services.


----------



## Andrew

MARC Rider said:


> 305 activities report - monthly 2-28-21.pdf (highspeed-rail.org)
> 
> According to this report, the Amfleet replacement is "progressing" and is in the "cone of silence" stage. It seems like proposals were received over (or almost) a year ago. Is it typical for reviews like this to take so long?



Would Alstom likely be the best chose for new Amfleet coaches if Amtrak does not choose Siemens?


----------



## PVD

ADK is a pretty common abbreviation in NY for the Adirondack region, it may have bled over into my AU posting unconsciously from other things I deal with., I probably should have used AD. But in sports, AD is generally athletic director, so ADK is often used for the region. Not made up or random, but in this case certainly misplaced.


----------



## frequentflyer

Andrew said:


> Would Alstom likely be the best chose for new Amfleet coaches if Amtrak does not choose Siemens?



Many are guessing this will be the case.


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> ADK is a pretty common abbreviation in NY for the Adirondack region, it may have bled over into my AU posting unconsciously from other things I deal with., I probably should have used AD. But in sports, AD is generally athletic director, so ADK is often used for the region. Not made up or random, but in this case certainly misplaced.


Or you could simply type out Adirondack!


----------



## jiml

Andrew said:


> Would Alstom likely be the best chose for new Amfleet coaches if Amtrak does not choose Siemens?


Alstom, by acquisition, now own several of the patents for existing Amtrak stock, including the Horizon and Superliner 2 fleets. Whether that gives them any advantage, who knows?


----------



## Andrew

frequentflyer said:


> Many are guessing this will be the case.





jiml said:


> Alstom, by acquisition, now own several of the patents for existing Amtrak stock, including the Horizon and Superliner 2 fleets. Whether that gives them any advantage, who knows?



I can see Amtrak choosing a mixed fleet of Venture Coaches and Alstom Coradia trains. Where does Stadler fit in?


----------



## frequentflyer

Andrew said:


> I can see Amtrak choosing a mixed fleet of Venture Coaches and Alstom Coradia trains. Where does Stadler fit in?



Earlier in this thread, much discussion has stated on this. In short, EMU/DMUs would be NEC and surrounding states, andregular coaches everywhere else. You pick which company fills what. Now keep in mind that was Mr. Anderson's plan, with a new CEO and Administration that can and probably has changed.


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> Alstom, by acquisition, now own several of the patents for existing Amtrak stock, including the Horizon and Superliner 2 fleets. Whether that gives them any advantage, who knows?


All those patents have expired a long time back. I think you mean more of the "Design" rather than the patents.

I believe the Budd designs in general landed in Bombardier's laps though various paths too. But most of them are mostly irrelevant today. Even the Superliner designs won't work with the latest FRA standards and will likely need a redo. But Alstom is the one that did the latest incarnation of that genre in the Surfliner cars.

For single level cars Alstom has a couple of more modern designs than all of the historically acquired ones. They have tended to use the Fiat derived trucks under almost everything passenger that they have sold recently, other than the TGVs of course, which are a completely different kettle of fish.


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> All those patents have expired a long time back. I think you mean more of the "Design" rather than the patents.
> 
> I believe the Budd designs in general landed in Bombardier's laps though various paths too. But most of them are mostly irrelevant today. Even the Superliner designs won't work with the latest FRA standards and will likely need a redo. But Alstom is the one that did the latest incarnation of that genre in the Surfliner cars.
> 
> For single level cars Alstom has a couple of more modern designs than all of the historically acquired ones. They have tended to use the Fiat derived trucks under almost everything passenger that they have sold recently, other than the TGVs of course, which are a completely different kettle of fish.


I meant to type plans and it came out patents.


----------



## rickycourtney

The presentation that an Amtrak VP gave to the annual meeting of the Next Generation Equipment Committee does seem to suggest that they have decided that the Amfleet replacements will be multiple unit trainsets with diesel, electric, or dual-mode propulsion.

The LAFO (Last And Final Offer) has been made, and the FRA is reviewing the plans, presumably to weigh in on any safety concerns.

So, it sounds like we’re inching closer to an announcement.


----------



## nullptr

rickycourtney said:


> The presentation that an Amtrak VP gave to the annual meeting of the Next Generation Equipment Committee does seem to suggest that they have decided that the Amfleet replacements will be multiple unit trainsets with diesel, electric, or dual-mode propulsion.



I might be missing something but where are you getting "multiple unit" from the slide?


----------



## adamj023

Seems likely replacements for Amfleet I will be announced sometime this year. I would assume they will start arriving around 2024 or so if I had to guess. Amfleet II need replacements as well and if the Amfleet I replacement order is successful they could possibly order more of the same ones depending on various factors.


----------



## Bob Dylan

adamj023 said:


> Seems likely replacements for Amfleet I will be announced sometime this year. I would assume they will start arriving around 2024 or so if I had to guess. Amfleet II need replacements as well and if the Amfleet I replacement order is successful they could possibly order more of the same ones depending on various factors.


3 years? The last order for the VIIs only took 10 years to get the cars into service, and they're still not being fully used, with some serving as a axle Count Cars and others being "Yard Queens!"

I'd say give it at least 5 years!


----------



## jis

Bob Dylan said:


> 3 years? The last order for the VIIs only took 10 years to get the cars into service, and they're still not being fully used, with some serving as a axle Count Cars and others being "Yard Queens!"
> 
> I'd say give it at least 5 years!


The slideset says delivery from 2025 to 2035, presumably for the entire 80+ trainsets. Assuming average 8 cars per trainset that would be 640+ cars plus possibly 160+ power heads, if the train sets consist of trailers with power heads top and tail. If they have power at one end and cab at the other, halve the power heads number and add in the same number of cab cars.

At least for the dual modes and diesels I would expect top and tail power, since doing a single unit over 4,500hp becomes more difficult and expensive. That would make it possible to repurpose the existing ACS64s as power heads in the new setup.

I would be really surprised, not unpleasantly, if they actually go for distributed power. So waiting with bated breath to see what comes out.


----------



## adamj023

I guess we will find out. As passengers, we can only choose from what is available. Sometimes you get lucky and get the Viewliner II. As of today, a lot of stock is still old and needs replacements.

Amfleet I are used on Northeast Corridor so it should get upgraded quicker.


----------



## frequentflyer

So it would seem this is not a Siemens Viagaro coaches with Siemen locomotive units. This will be a true EMU/DMU set.


----------



## jis

frequentflyer said:


> So it would seem this is not a Siemens Viagaro coaches with Siemen locomotive units. This will be a true EMU/DMU set.


There is nothing in the slideset that specifically indicates that though.


----------



## frequentflyer

Ahh, the "Trainset Concept with configuration flexibility ". I guess that is just as I described. A bunch of Siemen coaches with Siemens locomotives of various abilities.


----------



## jis

frequentflyer said:


> Ahh, the "Trainset Concept with configuration flexibility ". I guess that is just as I described. A bunch of Siemen coaches with Siemens locomotives of various abilities.


That certainly is one very plausible and cost effective solution to what has been requested.


----------



## Mailliw

frequentflyer said:


> Ahh, the "Trainset Concept with configuration flexibility ". I guess that is just as I described. A bunch of Siemen coaches with Siemens locomotives of various abilities.


This would enable Amtrak to swap coaches or whole trainsets between the NEC and the National Network as needed.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> The slideset says delivery from 2025 to 2035, presumably for the entire 80+ trainsets. Assuming average 8 cars per trainset that would be 640+ cars plus possibly 160+ power heads, if the train sets consist of trailers with power heads top and tail. If they have power at one end and cab at the other, halve the power heads number and add in the same number of cab cars.
> 
> At least for the dual modes and diesels I would expect top and tail power, since doing a single unit over 4,500hp becomes more difficult and expensive. That would make it possible to repurpose the existing ACS64s as power heads in the new setup.
> 
> I would be really surprised, not unpleasantly, if they actually go for distributed power. So waiting with bated breath to see what comes out.



Does top and tail power mean that the Sprinter locomotives would stay on the trains that operate into diesel territory? 

Also, I got the impression that Amtrak was looking into operating dual-mode Charger locomotives--instead of diesel locomotives operating together with electric Sprinters.


----------



## frequentflyer

This seems like Siemens to loose. Sadler is only there to extract a better deal from Siemens. Kind of like Southwest (largest Boeing 737 operator in the world) using Airbus to extract better pricing from Boeing.


----------



## rickycourtney

nullptr said:


> I might be missing something but where are you getting "multiple unit" from the slide?





frequentflyer said:


> So it would seem this is not a Siemens Viagaro coaches with Siemen locomotive units. This will be a true EMU/DMU set.


The exact quote from the slide is:

Trainset Concept with configuration flexibility
Dual Mode (3rd Rail or Catenary with Diesel)
Diesel only
Electric only

When I wrote this morning, I assumed that meant "multiple units," but as I think more, I suppose that could also mean a trainset with power cars (like the Siemens trainsets for VIA or the Acela). Also, Siemens makes DMU/EMU trains for the European market, so while the US plant hasn't made them yet, they could.


Bob Dylan said:


> 3 years? The last order for the VIIs only took 10 years to get the cars into service, and they're still not being fully used, with some serving as a axle Count Cars and others being "Yard Queens!"
> 
> I'd say give it at least 5 years!


Not all manufacturers are as incompetent as CAF. To my knowledge, Siemens, Alstom, and Stadler are all delivering equipment on time and on budget at the moment.


----------



## rickycourtney

jis said:


> The slideset says delivery from 2025 to 2035, presumably for the entire 80+ trainsets. Assuming average 8 cars per trainset that would be 640+ cars plus possibly 160+ power heads, if the train sets consist of trailers with power heads top and tail. If they have power at one end and cab at the other, halve the power heads number and add in the same number of cab cars.
> 
> At least for the dual modes and diesels I would expect top and tail power, since doing a single unit over 4,500hp becomes more difficult and expensive. That would make it possible to repurpose the existing ACS64s as power heads in the new setup.
> 
> I would be really surprised, not unpleasantly, if they actually go for distributed power. So waiting with bated breath to see what comes out.


Spitballing here -- if they are going the power car+trainset route -- couldn't they attach an ACS-64 to one end and a Charger to the other? The benefit is you lose the power changeover delay. The downside is you're hauling a very heavy dead locomotive to use it as a cab car.


----------



## jis

rickycourtney said:


> Spitballing here -- if they are going the power car+trainset route -- couldn't they attach an ACS-64 to one end and a Charger to the other? The benefit is you lose the power changeover delay. The downside is you're hauling a very heavy dead locomotive to use it as a cab car.


It does open up many possibilities. Though for dual mode operation it is best to have dual mode locos. More power spread over more axles in all modes. Better operating characteristics.


----------



## Acela150

I do have to say that if they go with the EMU trainset option that's a waste of millions of dollars that they spent on the sprinters. But that's my two cents.


----------



## MARC Rider

Acela150 said:


> I do have to say that if they go with the EMU trainset option that's a waste of millions of dollars that they spent on the sprinters. But that's my two cents.


They'd still be using the Sprinters for the Washington-New York portion of the Silver Service, the Crescent, and the Palmetto. Plus, if it's EMU's, all the Virginia trains and Vermonter and Pennsylvanian would still need Sprinters for the part of the trip run under catenary.


----------



## Andrew

MARC Rider said:


> They'd still be using the Sprinters for the Washington-New York portion of the Silver Service, the Crescent, and the Palmetto. Plus, if it's EMU's, all the Virginia trains and Vermonter and Pennsylvanian would still need Sprinters for the part of the trip run under catenary.



The Virginia trains are supposed to be powered by dual-mode equipment.

Also, perhaps Amtrak could sell unused Sprinters to both MBTA and NJ Transit?


----------



## frequentflyer

Amtrak could do what their airline counter parts do, negotiate a trade in on a newer product. Amtrak did that with the EMD SDP40s back in the 70s when they were traded in on brand new F40s that were made using some of the trade in SDP40s. The Sprinter is a Vectron in a different body, pretty sure Siemen could place the 50 or so Sprinters in customer hands somewhere in the world or use the motors in a newer product.


----------



## Andrew

rickycourtney said:


> The exact quote from the slide is:
> 
> Trainset Concept with configuration flexibility
> Dual Mode (3rd Rail or Catenary with Diesel)
> Diesel only
> Electric only
> 
> When I wrote this morning, I assumed that meant "multiple units," but as I think more, I suppose that could also mean a trainset with power cars (like the Siemens trainsets for VIA or the Acela). Also, Siemens makes DMU/EMU trains for the European market, so while the US plant hasn't made them yet, they could.
> 
> Not all manufacturers are as incompetent as CAF. To my knowledge, Siemens, Alstom, and Stadler are all delivering equipment on time and on budget at the moment.



If Amtrak picks Alstom, which "family" of trains would be best?


----------



## rickycourtney

Andrew said:


> If Amtrak picks Alstom, which "family" of trains would be best?


The Avelia family would be the most obvious choice since it’s already been adapted to the US market.

If they’re really dedicated to a MU trainset, I could see them presenting a variant of the Coradia or even the X’Trapolis... although that would be a very different train design for the US market.


----------



## Andrew

rickycourtney said:


> The Avelia family would be the most obvious choice since it’s already been adapted to the US market.
> 
> If they’re really dedicated to a MU trainset, I could see them presenting a variant of the Coradia or even the X’Trapolis... although that would be a very different train design for the US market.



OK, that makes sense.

I still believe that there is a possibility that Amtrak will decide on a split order of a trainset. (For example, what works for the Downeaster may not work for dual-mode Regional trains).


----------



## adamj023

Can the original acela trainsets still be used once all the Avelia are in? You would think at some point they could use them again as they are still very modern by Amtrak standards and could see usage on other routes or used as the base cars on the northeast regional trains. They used the metroliner cars for a long time even after Metroliner service was phased out.


----------



## jiml

adamj023 said:


> Can the original acela trainsets still be used once all the Avelia are in? You would think at some point they could use them again as they are still very modern by Amtrak standards and could see usage on other routes or used as the base cars on the northeast regional trains. They used the metroliner cars for a long time even after Metroliner service was phased out.


There were prior posts in this thread referring to expiring leases and maintenance issues.


----------



## Trogdor

jiml said:


> There were prior posts in this thread referring to expiring leases and maintenance issues.



In addition, the Acela trainsets cannot serve any station that does not have a high-level platform, as they do not have traps/internal stairs on them.

The Metroliner cars were, essentially, Amfleet cars (give or take a few minor differences) and thus could be intermixed with other trains (and towards the end of its life, didn’t the Metroliner service mostly use regular Amfleet cars anyway?).


----------



## Andrew

Are there any benefits to operating Charger diesel locomotives with Sprinter locomotives for true "dual-mode" service?


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> The slideset says delivery from 2025 to 2035, presumably for the entire 80+ trainsets. Assuming average 8 cars per trainset that would be 640+ cars plus possibly 160+ power heads, if the train sets consist of trailers with power heads top and tail. If they have power at one end and cab at the other, halve the power heads number and add in the same number of cab cars.
> 
> At least for the dual modes and diesels I would expect top and tail power, since doing a single unit over 4,500hp becomes more difficult and expensive. That would make it possible to repurpose the existing ACS64s as power heads in the new setup.
> 
> I would be really surprised, not unpleasantly, if they actually go for distributed power. So waiting with bated breath to see what comes out.





MARC Rider said:


> They'd still be using the Sprinters for the Washington-New York portion of the Silver Service, the Crescent, and the Palmetto. Plus, if it's EMU's, all the Virginia trains and Vermonter and Pennsylvanian would still need Sprinters for the part of the trip run under catenary.



Jis, are you implying Amtrak order bi-mode equipment with two dual-mode locomotives instead of just one? (This is what LIRR service does on the Port Washington Branch sometimes to Penn Station).


----------



## adamj023

Amtrak has stated that it wanted dual mode equipment so it didn’t have to swap out locomotives. Any train route that uses diesel and electric will certainly have the right equipment for the task. With that being said, hopefully more electrification will take place as well.


----------



## railiner

Andrew said:


> Jis, are you implying Amtrak order bi-mode equipment with two dual-mode locomotives instead of just one? (This is what LIRR service does on the Port Washington Branch sometimes to Penn Station).


I think you mean the Port _Jefferson_ branch...the Port Washington is all electrified....


----------



## adamj023

Port Washington line is indeed all electrified and uses M7 and M9 electric trainsets. Not sure if M3 are still used. It is getting new concrete ties. Port Jefferson line uses the diesel locomotives and LIRR has replacement orders for those. They have diesel-electric and dual-mode locomotives.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> The slideset says delivery from 2025 to 2035, presumably for the entire 80+ trainsets. Assuming average 8 cars per trainset that would be 640+ cars plus possibly 160+ power heads, if the train sets consist of trailers with power heads top and tail. If they have power at one end and cab at the other, halve the power heads number and add in the same number of cab cars.
> 
> At least for the dual modes and diesels I would expect top and tail power, since doing a single unit over 4,500hp becomes more difficult and expensive. That would make it possible to repurpose the existing ACS64s as power heads in the new setup.
> 
> I would be really surprised, not unpleasantly, if they actually go for distributed power. So waiting with bated breath to see what comes out.





Andrew said:


> Are there any benefits to operating Charger diesel locomotives with Sprinter locomotives for true "dual-mode" service?



Are you saying that top and tail power would be used for a train's entire journey, such as Boston to Newport News, with both locomotives operating in electric mode on the NEC?


----------



## Mailliw

And the winner is Siemens !


----------



## rickycourtney

Full announcement: 








Amtrak Announces Siemens as Preferred Bidder for New Equipment - Amtrak Media


After a competitive procurement launched in January of 2019, Amtrak has identified California-based Siemens Mobility Inc. (Siemens) as the preferred bidder to manufacture a new fleet of 83 Intercity Trainsets (ICTs), which will provide dual power in many instances and modern rail amenities to...




media.amtrak.com






> After a competitive procurement launched in January of 2019, Amtrak has identified California-based Siemens Mobility Inc. (Siemens) as the preferred bidder to manufacture a new fleet of 83 Intercity Trainsets (ICTs), which will provide dual power in many instances and modern rail amenities to better serve all Amtrak customers. The ICTs will operate on the Northeast Corridor, _Palmetto_ and various state-supported routes and will replace the current Amfleet I, Metroliner cab and _Cascades_ service fleets. Accompanying the contract to manufacture the trainsets will be a long-term service agreement for technical support, spares and material supply.
> 
> “This new state-of-the-art equipment will not only provide Amtrak customers with an enjoyable and efficient travel experience, it will also enable us to improve safety, increase passenger capacity and reduce carbon emissions,” said Amtrak CEO Bill Flynn.
> 
> Amtrak has targeted summer 2021 for contract execution and notice to proceed and will spend the time between now and then continuing negotiations with Siemens for this generational procurement.


----------



## NSC1109

Not a huge surprise but glad it’s finally confirmed. Hoping they turn out well!


----------



## Andrew

Mailliw said:


> And the winner is Siemens !



Within its press release, Amtrak states that it will operate dual-power equipment. I still see this being a dual-mode Charger with a Sprinter; two locomotives operating in electric mode will provide a lot of horsepower!


----------



## Anthony V

With all these orders, Siemens might have to build or buy another plant to fulfill the demand. The should buy the former Nippon Sharyo plant in Rochelle, IL and expand production to that location. The plant is less than a decade old, and was designed for the purpose of building new passenger railcars, making it the ideal choice for an expansion of their footprint.


----------



## rickycourtney

Anthony V said:


> With all these orders, Siemens might have to build or buy another plant to fulfill the demand. The should buy the former Nippon Sharyo plant in Rochelle, IL and expand production to that location. The plant is less than a decade old, and was designed for the purpose of building new passenger railcars, making it the ideal choice for an expansion of their footprint.


IMHO, the bigger problem is finding and hiring experienced labor. Considering the giant failure of Nippon Sharyo's plant on the original bi-level state cars... I don't think it's there. It's also at the heart of the CAF delays: they had a hard time hiring and training people to do the job. 

If Siemens needs more room for assembly, they'd be better off looking for more land in the Sacramento area. It's not exactly jam-packed like the Bay Area or Los Angeles.


----------



## rickycourtney

rickycourtney said:


> If Siemens needs more room for assembly, they'd be better off looking for more land in the Sacramento area. It's not exactly jam-packed like the Bay Area or Los Angeles.


Turns out that’s the plan... Siemens is wrapping up a big expansion of their facility in Sacramento. A big new building was constructed at the north end of the property.


----------



## adamj023

Didn’t seem like a confirmed order as people are making it out to be. They just announced Siemens as a preferred bidder. Other companies can still win the contract. Reason for the preferred status is because they have had good results with them in the past I presume and have had a good relationship with them. They say contract will be awarded in the Summer so we will see if that occurs and who the winning bidder is. If someone comes out with a better deal that has a good reputation, contract could go to another vender of which there are many. Alstom, Bombardier, Hyundai, Siemens, Kawasaki, just to name those off the top of my head. There are numerous train suppliers and Amtrak definitely will hear what other bidders offer before choosing one. Aveila Liberty is being built by Alstom. Amtrak has a relationship with Siemens on the Sprinter locomotives. CAF is likely out of the running due to their past experience.

My own gut feeling is someone else will come out with a better deal than Siemens but I could be wrong. I don’t know the status of the built in america requirement is and which vendors could fulfill their requirements. I do know Alstom and Siemens have been able to fulfill their requirements and CAF seems unlikely due to car delays and other issues in the past.


----------



## Trogdor

adamj023 said:


> Didn’t seem like a confirmed order as people are making it out to be. They just announced Siemens as a preferred bidder. Other companies can still win the contract. Reason for the preferred status is because they have had good results with them in the past I presume and have had a good relationship with them. They say contract will be awarded in the Summer so we will see if that occurs and who the winning bidder is. If someone comes out with a better deal that has a good reputation, contract could go to another vender of which there are many. Alstom, Bombardier, Hyundai, Siemens, Kawasaki, just to name those off the top of my head. There are numerous train suppliers and Amtrak definitely will hear what other bidders offer before choosing one. Aveila Liberty is being built by Alstom. Amtrak has a relationship with Siemens on the Sprinter locomotives. CAF is likely out of the running due to their past experience.
> 
> My own gut feeling is someone else will come out with a better deal than Siemens but I could be wrong. I don’t know the status of the built in america requirement is and which vendors could fulfill their requirements. I do know Alstom and Siemens have been able to fulfill their requirements and CAF seems unlikely due to car delays and other issues in the past.



That’s not what that means. Amtrak has, for all intents and purposes, stated that Siemens will get the award. They just haven’t negotiated the final details of the contract. Without some major unforeseen event causing negotiations to break down (or a perhaps lawsuit by another bidder alleging some kind of fraud to invalidate the process), there is virtually no chance that any other company will get the contract. They had their chance to put in their bids and offer their best deal, and their best offers were not as good as Siemens.

The competition is over.


----------



## jis

Trogdor said:


> That’s not what that means. Amtrak has, for all intents and purposes, stated that Siemens will get the award. They just haven’t negotiated the final details of the contract. Without some major unforeseen event causing negotiations to break down (or a perhaps lawsuit by another bidder alleging some kind of fraud to invalidate the process), there is virtually no chance that any other company will get the contract. They had their chance to put in their bids and offer their best deal, and their best offers were not as good as Siemens.
> 
> The competition is over.


Indeed, that is what the last best offer deadline last month was all about. The vendor selection is done and closed at this point.


----------



## Mailliw

Just a random idea; if the Virginia routes were treated like other state corridors instead of Norteast Regional extensions Amtrak could just merge the Northeast Regional and Acela into a single product using EMUs to run express and Regional services. Then they could run locomotive hauled trainsets on the National Network. Only the Empire Service & Pennsylvanian would need dual modes and only the long distance trains & Carolinian would need engine changes.


----------



## rickycourtney

Right. What will happen between now and this Summer is that Amtrak and Siemens should be hammering out things like design features, various requirements, and negotiate terms and conditions that are fair and assign risks to the party in the best position to control them.

This was one of the big learnings from the original Acela order... unless both parties have a very clearly defined vision of how the final train will look and operate... you end up with a bunch of change orders that add time and cost to the project.

The Amtrak inspector general has a good nerdy read comparing the problematic Acela order with the much smoother Surfliner car order.



https://amtrakoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/E-09-04%20Acela%20And%20Surfliner%20Programs.pdf


----------



## Palmetto

Maybe I'm being over simplistic, but what--besides more space between seat rows--could Siemens do to improve over their new midwest coaches? Time will tell, obviously, how these perform in service, and to answer my own question: there may need to be mods in design. Time will tell.


----------



## adamj023

Siemens may be furthest ahead now with Amtrak but lets see if Amtrak can get a final order out the door by Summer. Siemens Venture seems to have lots of contracts now with Amtrak state run lines and Brightline. It also had been tested on the NEC. I am not against Siemens which should have good maintenance support and a decent product but I still await results by other bidders who could surely offer more to sell their product to Amtrak.


----------



## Trogdor

adamj023 said:


> Siemens may be furthest ahead now with Amtrak but lets see if Amtrak can get a final order out the door by Summer. Siemens Venture seems to have lots of contracts now with Amtrak state run lines and Brightline. It also had been tested on the NEC. I am not against Siemens which should have good maintenance support and a decent product but I still await results by other bidders who could surely offer more to sell their product to Amtrak.



Again, the timeline for those other bidders to offer more expired a while back. It’s over. All that is left is for Amtrak and Siemens to hammer out the final details.

It’s like saying Siemens might be ahead at the end of the 9th inning, but I’m still holding out hope that the other team can pull it off in the 10th.


----------



## adamj023

I disagree. Amtrak did not sign a contract and has not invested much if anything into the project. If they are a “bidder”, Amtrak can walk away at any time and accept a bid from a competing firm. Only once bids are accepted does a contract exist. I understand that Siemens is the ”preferred” bidder at the moment and it makes sense considering the progress Siemens has shown. Another company can work with Amtrak, show a quality project and have a lower bid and win the bidding. Transit companies have dealt with a lot of different suppliers over the years and the established players are pretty much well known by now. I will see later on who gets the contract but I will say that Amtrak does need new trains to replace the Amfleet trains.


----------



## nferr

adamj023 said:


> Siemens may be furthest ahead now with Amtrak but lets see if Amtrak can get a final order out the door by Summer. Siemens Venture seems to have lots of contracts now with Amtrak state run lines and Brightline. It also had been tested on the NEC. I am not against Siemens which should have good maintenance support and a decent product but I still await results by other bidders who could surely offer more to sell their product to Amtrak.



I don't think you get it. The bidding is over. What good is giving a deadline for bids if you keep accepting more bids? They've received all the bids by the deadline and made their choice. It's Siemens.


----------



## adamj023

nferr said:


> I don't think you get it. The bidding is over. What good is giving a deadline for bids if you keep accepting more bids? They've received all the bids by the deadline and made their choice. It's Siemens.


No I don’t think you get it. If bidding was over then Siemens would not still be a bidder. They would have been declared the winning bidder. Instead they are using the “preferred” designation. That was Amtrak’s own wording, not mine. A preferred bidder still means the bidding process is ongoing and no bids were accepted yet.

I was not following the bidding process nor the requirements but I do know no bid was accepted as of today.


----------



## nferr

adamj023 said:


> No I don’t think you get it. If bidding was over then Siemens would not still be a bidder. They would have been declared the winning bidder. Instead they are using the “preferred” designation. That was Amtrak’s own wording, not mine. A preferred bidder still means the bidding process is ongoing and no bids were accepted yet.
> 
> I was not following the bidding process nor the requirements but I do know no bid was accepted as of today.




Wrong. But it's impossible to argue with you because you don't listen to anybody else. You're all hung up on the word "preferred". The bidding is over. You've never of an RFP (request for proposals) with deadlines? Yes things can break down with the winner, but the bidding is over.


----------



## PVD

RFI, discussions, RFP, Q&A/discussions Responses, , Best and Final Offers.... someone is chosen for negotiation of contract Can something go wrong, yes, is it likely, no. I worked on a major one, and we had it in the bag, but the client would not accept our refusal to agree to a liquidated damages clause. They screwed themselves because no one else would either, and when they rebid, everyone's prices were higher due to new prevailing labor rates and an increase in the core equipment from the manufacturer whose equipment we were all proposing. (they had guaranteed no increase until a certain date)


----------



## Ryan

adamj023 said:


> I was not following the bidding process


That part is obvious. You should pay attention to the small army of people that *have* been paying attention to the bidding process since it began two years ago and internalize the fact that Amtrak has evaluated bids from everyone interested, selected Siemens, and will now negotiate a finalized contract with them and them alone.


----------



## Trogdor

adamj023 said:


> No I don’t think you get it. If bidding was over then Siemens would not still be a bidder. They would have been declared the winning bidder. Instead they are using the “preferred” designation. That was Amtrak’s own wording, not mine. A preferred bidder still means the bidding process is ongoing and no bids were accepted yet.
> 
> I was not following the bidding process nor the requirements but I do know no bid was accepted as of today.



The issue is you’re getting hung up on your interpretation of plain English usage of certain words. That is not relevant when it comes to a contractual negotiation that is the result of an RFP/bid process, in which these terms have specific business/legal meanings that may not be obvious to the average person that isn’t familiar with these processes. “Preferred bidder” isn’t some subjective wish that Amtrak has. It’s not the same as you saying you “prefer“ Coca Cola, but if Pepsi is on sale, you’ll buy that instead.

Government contracts have very specific legal standards they must adhere to in order to ensure a fair process by which vendors can submit proposals. These RFPs have very specific timelines that must be adhered to. There is a bidding process, and a bid deadline. That deadline is advertised publicly and all interested vendors *must* submit their proposals, including product/service and financial package by that date.

If a deadline is extended, it is announced publicly and all bidders are subject to the revised deadline. These extensions can happen for a number of reasons, including bidder request (if the timeline to put the proposals together is too tight; it is up to the customer, i.e. Amtrak, to decide to honor that request), changes to the RFP specifics requiring bidders to adjust their bids, or even issues internal to Amtrak. In any of these cases, the extension would have to be announced in advance. The only major exception is if they receive no qualified bids by the deadline (which obviously was not the case here). Once the deadline is reached, that’s it. Door’s closed, and the proverbial train has left the station. Legally, Amtrak cannot accept any bids after that deadline without reopening the entire RFP process. At this point, it would be equivalent to cancelling the entire RFP and starting over from scratch.

RFPs are scored on a number of different attributes, of which price is one (but not the only, or necessarily even the largest) factor. After the RFP deadline, Amtrak then opens all of the bids (generally, nobody at Amtrak could even look at the bids until the deadline has passed in order to avoid a potential leak of information from one bidder to the other). All of these rules are in place to ensure the bidding process is fair to all potential vendors.

At the end of this process, Siemens came out on top, all things considered, and has now attained preferred bidder status. This means they are the company that Amtrak will negotiate with to turn their bid into a contract.

Notwithstanding your lack of understanding of the technical definition of these terms and your complete ignoring of the very real and important processes that govern this whole project, there will be no more bids on this project. The next few months are going to be dedicated to turning Siemens’s bid into an actual contract. That is how this works. I’ve been involved in this process from both sides in the past, and in the last year have probably personally worked on at least a dozen bids my company has submitted for various RFPs. This is the process that is followed by basically every one of them. If a company came in with a bid after the RFP deadline and won the contract, there would be lawsuits all around.


----------



## rickycourtney

Right and I’ll add that many times with government contracts they will ask bidders to separate the proposal from the bid. The evaluators look at the proposals simply on their merits... and assign them a score. After that’s all over, they open the bids. That way the evaluators aren’t influenced by overly large or small bids.


----------



## PVD

Some government agencies will analyze and score, and for various reasons finish with a split award and negotiated acquisition. NY MTA has done some bus contracts that way, where 2 bidders (NOVA and NFI) are very close, and splitting the award allows for acquiring the units much sooner, if the award went to one or the other, it would take much longer due to the fact that they can only be built so fast. Getting them sooner from a single vendor would mean higher unit costs due to OT, staffing, and possible facility expansion. But they still had deadlines for response, and cutoff dates that are enforced.


----------



## Ryan

Trogdor said:


> The issue is you’re getting hung up on your interpretation of plain English usage of certain words. That is not relevant when it comes to a contractual negotiation that is the result of an RFP/bid process, in which these terms have specific business/legal meanings that may not be obvious to the average person that isn’t familiar with these processes. “Preferred bidder” isn’t some subjective wish that Amtrak has. It’s not the same as you saying you “prefer“ Coca Cola, but if Pepsi is on sale, you’ll buy that instead.
> 
> Government contracts have very specific legal standards they must adhere to in order to ensure a fair process by which vendors can submit proposals. These RFPs have very specific timelines that must be adhered to. There is a bidding process, and a bid deadline. That deadline is advertised publicly and all interested vendors *must* submit their proposals, including product/service and financial package by that date.
> 
> If a deadline is extended, it is announced publicly and all bidders are subject to the revised deadline. These extensions can happen for a number of reasons, including bidder request (if the timeline to put the proposals together is too tight; it is up to the customer, i.e. Amtrak, to decide to honor that request), changes to the RFP specifics requiring bidders to adjust their bids, or even issues internal to Amtrak. In any of these cases, the extension would have to be announced in advance. The only major exception is if they receive no qualified bids by the deadline (which obviously was not the case here). Once the deadline is reached, that’s it. Door’s closed, and the proverbial train has left the station. Legally, Amtrak cannot accept any bids after that deadline without reopening the entire RFP process. At this point, it would be equivalent to cancelling the entire RFP and starting over from scratch.
> 
> RFPs are scored on a number of different attributes, of which price is one (but not the only, or necessarily even the largest) factor. After the RFP deadline, Amtrak then opens all of the bids (generally, nobody at Amtrak could even look at the bids until the deadline has passed in order to avoid a potential leak of information from one bidder to the other). All of these rules are in place to ensure the bidding process is fair to all potential vendors.
> 
> At the end of this process, Siemens came out on top, all things considered, and has not attained preferred bidder status. This means they are the company that Amtrak will negotiate with to turn their bid into a contract.
> 
> Notwithstanding your lack of understanding of the technical definition of these terms and your complete ignoring of the very real and important processes that govern this whole project, there will be no more bids on this project. The next few months are going to be dedicated to turning Siemens’s bid into an actual contract. That is how this works. I’ve been involved in this process from both sides in the past, and in the last year have probably personally worked on at least a dozen bids my company has submitted for various RFPs. This is the process that is followed by basically every one of them. If a company came in with a bid after the RFP deadline and won the contract, there would be lawsuits all around.


That's just like, your opinion, man.

It says "bidder". That means the bidding is still open.


----------



## joelkfla

Trogdor said:


> At the end of this process, Siemens came out on top, all things considered, and has *not *attained preferred bidder status. This means they are the company that Amtrak will negotiate with to turn their bid into a contract.


I think they meant "*now *achieved preferred bidder status," not "*not *achieved."

Funny how a single letter completely reverses the meaning of a sentence.


----------



## railiner

PVD said:


> Some government agencies will analyze and score, and for various reasons finish with a split award and negotiated acquisition. NY MTA has done some bus contracts that way, where 2 bidders (NOVA and NFI) are very close, and splitting the award allows for acquiring the units much sooner, if the award went to one or the other, it would take much longer due to the fact that they can only be built so fast. Getting them sooner from a single vendor would mean higher unit costs due to OT, staffing, and possible facility expansion. But they still had deadlines for response, and cutoff dates that are enforced.


I wonder if they also might 'split' the award, so as to ensure a future pool of bidders? If one company seems to always 'win', they just might put all the other companies out of the market. While that may be 'only fair', it might limit future choice...


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> I wonder if they also might 'split' the award, so as to ensure a future pool of bidders? If one company seems to always 'win', they just might put all the other companies out of the market. While that may be 'only fair', it might limit future choice...


I suspect they would need to announce that as a possibility to be their intent before the bidding begins. Typically trying to change the rules midway is invitation for law suits and infinite delays. As long as the original bidder is able to meet all the pre-stated bid conditions, I don't think they can just go and change the rules of the game midway. If the original winner of the preferred bidder part of the process turns out to be unable to meet the deadlines set in the original RFP then it becomes a different ball game. Notice what ultimately happened to Nippon-Sharyo.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> I suspect they would need to announce that as a possibility to be their intent before the bidding begins. Typically trying to change the rules midway is invitation for law suits and infinite delays. As long as the original bidder is able to meet all the pre-stated bid conditions, I don't think they can just go and change the rules of the game midway. If the original winner of the preferred bidder part of the process turns out to be unable to meet the deadlines set in the original RFP then it becomes a different ball game. Notice what ultimately happened to Nippon-Sharyo.


I wasn't referring to this Amtrak bid, but more about understanding the NY MTA bids that PVD referenced. Besides the buses mentioned, NY has also split awards for things like the R-160 and other subway car orders among more than one manufacturer. Whether they announced that possibility in advance, I don't know. 

I am also unclear of how buyer's can get away with not accepting the lowest bid for what is specified. I know that one 'workaround' for the buyer (transit authority) is to write the specification in a detailed way, that only the favored bidder has the ability to provide, for one reason or another...


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> I am also unclear of how buyer's can get away with not accepting the lowest bid for what is specified. I know that one 'workaround' for the buyer (transit authority) is to write the specification in a detailed way, that only the favored bidder has the ability to provide, for one reason or another...


There is absolutely no problem rejecting the lowest bid if the vendor is unable to provide sufficient details on how they propose to meet the requirements within the bid. That is why you have the bid conferences with each vendor. Lowest bids are rejected more often than we know because the bids themselves usually are trade secrets, and unless the decision is challenged in court, which happens sometimes, but not necessarily that often, there is no way for outsiders to know.

Then again there are buyers who sometimes have completely incompetent bid evaluators. So it can go both ways.


----------



## Bob Dylan

jis said:


> Then again there are buyers who sometimes have completely incompetent bid evaluators. So it can go both ways.


Sounds like what happened with Amtrak's Fiasco with CAF and the the Viewliner II Order.


----------



## Willbridge

jis said:


> There is absolutely no problem rejecting the lowest bid if the vendor is unable to provide sufficient details on how they propose to meet the requirements within the bid. That is why you have the bid conferences with each vendor. Lowest bids are rejected more often than we know because the bids themselves usually are trade secrets, and unless the decision is challenged in court, which happens sometimes, but not necessarily that often, there is no way for outsiders to know.
> 
> Then again there are buyers who sometimes have completely incompetent bid evaluators. So it can go both ways.



In 1978 the first Edmonton LRT line opened with Duncan turnstiles. They were an established American company that had labour troubles, and so we had machine troubles. Our maintainers showed me the dents in their interiors where hammers had been used to make parts fit. Passengers paid their fare and nothing happened. When the slug detector feature was turned on the machines rejected Canadian coins.

In 1994 the first Denver LRT line opened with Schlumberger TVM's, a company that had never built a TVM before and thought it would be nice to get into that business. RTD tried to take the next higher bidder but a court ordered otherwise. Federal judges have reserved underground parking places so they don't have to gamble with a TVM slot. As soon as possible the fault-prone machines were yanked. I still remember not feeling sorry when I saw them huddled together waiting for a ride to the scrapyard.

In both places the next order of TVM's came from competent suppliers.


----------



## rickycourtney

railiner said:


> I am also unclear of how buyer's can get away with not accepting the lowest bid for what is specified. I know that one 'workaround' for the buyer (transit authority) is to write the specification in a detailed way, that only the favored bidder has the ability to provide, for one reason or another...


Basing an award solely on the lowest bidder is one of the mistakes new agencies make. The best practice is to come up with evaluation criteria and "weights" then award the contract to the lowest, responsible bidder.

LA Metro had two pretty bad purchase processes... they bought 50 LRV's from Siemens that were delivered three years late, then they bought 50 LRV's from Breda which were also three years late, and massively overweight.

As they prepared to make a big order for 235 LRV's they had learned their session and issued an RFP with the following evaluation criteria and weights:

Experience and Past Performance - 40 percent
Price - 30 percent
Technical Compliance - 20 percent
Project Management Experience - 10 percent
CAF, Kinkisharyo, and Siemens all bid on the contract. CAF was the lowest bidder ($786 million), but Metro was worried about "CAF's past performance in the U.S. market, their technical compliance and project management team." They ultimately awarded the contract to Kinkisharyo who bid $890 million, which was lower than Siemens ($941 million), but higher than CAF.

This contract was done in 2010-2012... roughly the same time that Amtrak placed the order for the Viewliner II with CAF... and we all know what a disaster that turned out to be, for exactly the reasons LA Metro identified, so it was a great call.

So that's how buyers can get away with not accepting the lowest bid... and how it can actually be a better deal for taxpayers.


----------



## railiner

Reminds me of when RTD wanted to buy MCI 102-A3's for their Northern operations (Boulder and Longmont), but were forced by political pressures to buy Neoplan AN340/3, partly because Neoplan had built a bus assembly plant in Lamar. They made sure to write the next specs, so that they could get their desired MCI's....


----------



## nullptr

Looks like it will be venture coaches. They are saying dual powered locomotives though.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2021/07/07/amtrak-new-trains-northeast/



As anyone seen a more detailed press release? I'm curious if all the train sets will be dual powered.

This is in the article


> The train, built with bidirectional capacities, will reduce turnaround times while their dual-power engines — electric and diesel — will help reduce time it takes for trains to transition from electrified into non-electrified territory. The fleet will include diesel-only train sets for use on the West Coast, where tracks are not electrified, and some battery-diesel hybrid trains.


----------



## frequentflyer

So what will these dual powered locomotives look like? Chargers or Sprinters?


----------



## jis

nullptr said:


> Looks like it will be venture coaches. They are saying dual powered locomotives though.
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2021/07/07/amtrak-new-trains-northeast/
> 
> 
> 
> As anyone seen a more detailed press release? I'm curious if all the train sets will be dual powered.
> 
> This is in the article


I have seen a privately shared equipment order roster which I am unable to share in toto, well because it is private, but can share some overall information from it.

They will use whatever power is attached to them. On the corridor they will be ACS64 powered. They could continue to operate off NEC with power change pending acquisition of additional power. The present deal will not include any power heads as far as I understand it. It is stricly a replacement for Amfleet I cars with 7 car train sets with a cab car at one end and a type "H" coupler at the other end to attach whatever power one wants to attach. In spiriti you could view them as the American version of the Austrian Railjet configuration.

So the net net answer is No, the trains will not be dual mode powered, at least initially, Initially they will be powered by Sprinters and P42s, since there are no Corridor Chargers being ordered for the east coast yet.

However, the overall architecture is very flexible as far as power choice goes and this is not a one shot deal, there will be additional orders of power heads between now and 2031, which most likely will involve third rail dual mode for Empire Service, and may include catenary dual mode down the line for Virginia service and such. The battery thing is intriguing and I am not sure where they intend to use that since they are usually not long range.


----------



## Eric S

Here's Amtrak press release: Amtrak to Transform Rail Travel with $7.3 Billion Investment in State-of-the-Art Equipment - Amtrak Media

Just started to read it myself, not sure how much additional information is contained within.

EDIT:
Hmm, the release seems to have been removed from Amtrak's website. I'll update the link if I see it reposted.


----------



## nullptr

Here is the press release from Siemens, not much more information though.








Siemens Mobility awarded historic $3.4 billion in contracts from Amtrak | Press | Company | Siemens


Siemens Mobility has been awarded $3.4 billion in contracts in the United States to design, manufacture and technically support 73 multi-powered trains ...




press.siemens.com





The way they discuss the battery version makes me think it's just to increase fuel efficiency like the Wabtec FLXdrive prototype


> The order includes dual power and hybrid battery trains. The first will be delivered in 2024, while the first of its kind Venture Hybrid battery train will begin testing in 2025. The trains for the Northeast Corridor and State Supported routes will be delivered from 2024 through 2030. Through the use of multi-power systems, including hybrid battery operation, they will also provide a substantial environmental benefit through reduced emissions compared to the existing fleet.



Update to include a graphic from Siemens


----------



## Mailliw

This is good news. And apparently there's an option to expand the order up to 130 trainsets in the future if funding becomes available.


----------



## frequentflyer

nullptr said:


> Here is the press release from Siemens, not much more information though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siemens Mobility awarded historic $3.4 billion in contracts from Amtrak | Press | Company | Siemens
> 
> 
> Siemens Mobility has been awarded $3.4 billion in contracts in the United States to design, manufacture and technically support 73 multi-powered trains ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> press.siemens.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The way they discuss the battery version makes me think it's just to increase fuel efficiency like the Wabtec FLXdrive prototype
> 
> 
> Update to include a graphic from Siemens
> View attachment 23492


So NEC trains will have a cab car at one end then. Only the LD trains will need the Sunnyside Y.


----------



## frequentflyer

Present NEC trains are 7-8 cars, will the new trainsets match that?


----------



## Eric S

Looks like Amtrak's press release is back up: Amtrak to Transform Rail Travel with $7.3 Billion Investment in State-of-the-Art Equipment - Amtrak Media

Reading through the press release, dual-powered locomotives are mentioned (specifically in reference to Virginia trains) as well as a battery-hybrid version for Empire Service (perhaps instead of third rail?).


----------



## frequentflyer

I guess soon we will officially see the new Phase 5,6, or whatever livery Amtrak is on. We should be seeing a model or mock up soon.

Not a good day at Stadler.


----------



## jis

I would be interesting to see what the breakdown of configurations and cars are. I knew about the total of 83 sets. I am wondering what the 17 dedicated NY State sets will be configured as and what the hell are they going to use that many sets for. Originally I thought there were to be 8 NY dedicated sets, but maybe those are actually Connecticut/Massachusetts Inland Corridor targeted sets, and NY State get fully configured NEC 7/8 car sets.

I wait with much anticipation for further information.

Exciting times!

The total 83 sets list that I had seen included 5 sets for WashDOT, but there is no mention of that in this press release, so maybe that is separate from this order.

The dollar amount suggests that the order includes some power heads but not enough for all train sets, which makes sense given that the ACS64s are not going to be scrapped so soon. OTOH there is need for corridor diesels/dual modes to retire the army of P42s used in corridor service.


----------



## Cal

When is expected delivery and them being put into service?


----------



## jis

Cal said:


> When is expected delivery and them being put into service?


2024-2031 seems to ring a bell. They mention the Battery powered set will be ready for testing in 2025. That would presumably be one of the NY State configured trains.

Coming to think of it, the 17 number for NY State probably comes for the fact that there are 18 ACDMs today.


----------



## nullptr

I'm trying to figure out what went into the $7.3 billion headline number



> Amtrak has signed a mammoth contract with manufacturing company Siemens Mobility for 83 new train sets, part of a $7.3 billion plan to upgrade its rolling stock over the next decade.
> 
> Under the plan announced Wednesday, Amtrak will replace nearly 40 percent of its rail car fleet by 2031 and invest $2 billion in equipment upgrades systemwide.
> 
> Amtrak also is on track to replace its Acela fleet with 28 high-speed train sets from French manufacturer Alstom. Those trains, part of a $2.5 billion project, are expected to enter service next spring after delays caused by testing,
> 
> Amtrak’s base contract with Siemens, worth $3.4 billion, calls for 73 multi-powered train sets and the service agreement for Siemens to provide support, parts and materials. Railroad officials said another $1.5 billion would include an additional 10 train sets. Amtrak said the deal also facilitates the procurement of 130 trains to support Amtrak’s growth plans.



3.4 + 1.5 + 2.0 = 6.9 ...

Maybe it represents the full 130 train sets, which 3.4 and 1.5 are a part of. Interesting Siemens' press release went with $3.4 billion.


----------



## jis

nullptr said:


> I'm trying to figure out what went into the $7.3 billion headline number
> 
> 
> 
> 3.4 + 1.5 + 2.0 = 6.9 ...
> 
> Maybe it represents the full 130 train sets, which 3.4 and 1.5 are a part of. Interesting Siemens' press release went with $3.4 billion.


I think it includes parts and maintenance contract. All of it is not due up front, but over 10 or 20 years, whatever the period of the contracts is. Only $3.4 billion is apparently for the actual rolling stock. Of course even for the purchase, I am sure there will be some financial arrangement made which disperses the payment over a long period rather than all up front, like they did with the Acelas 21s. What exact mechanism, I don't know.


----------



## west point

Here is a Siemens release o battery CAT locos. I have a worry that as the batteries age they will loose ability to run full route. Siemens in the link below seems to indicate the battery can be charged from "overhead cable contacts. Sounds like CAT or just a trolley wire to recharge the battery. 

What might be a solution to extend battery distance would be CAT for about a mile from station to save battery life during rapid acceleration. As well the CAT could start charging batteries during deceleration to station 

e
Slide 1 of 1






Slide 1 of 1




Slide 1 of 1




Slide 1 of 1




Slide 1 of 1




Slide 1 of 1




*Traction batteries for partially electrified sections*
All the technological components in our battery-powered trains are installed on the roof or underfloor. Batteries have been proving themselves as an electrical storage system for decades. Equipped with state-of-the-art technologies, they're ideal for use in battery-powered trains with ranges up to 120 km. Batteries can be charged in stations via overhead cable contacts. The acceleration advantage and greater riding comfort of the electric drive as compared to DMUs is especially noticeable on shorter sections.


----------



## jis

120km range won't get it to Albany though. The incarnation that they will use is most likely for use just in the tunnels, and battery will probably be charged from the diesel prime mover while stationary outside the tunnels, or using some sort of electrical shore feed.


----------



## AFriendly

This article states "In addition to the Northeast Regional, other routes that will be serviced by the new fleet include the Adirondack, Carolinian, Cascades, Downeaster, Empire Service, Ethan Allen Express, Keystone Service, Maple Leaf, New Haven/Springfield Service (Amtrak Hartford Line and Valley Flyer), Pennsylvanian, Vermonter and Virginia Services." 

No surprises to me except for the Cascades, which is a geographic outlier and I had the impression Oregon and Washington might have had their own plans, but I guess the price was right. I think this is great news overall. Siemens Venture is a solid product from a manufacturer with a good reputation...if anyone can build a fleet that will stand up to the rigors of Amtrak service, it's them. I'm not sure about the semi-permanently coupled trainsets though, and I also feel that an opportunity is being missed to bilevel more trains which would have added capacity.


----------



## Cal

AFriendly said:


> feel that an opportunity is being missed to bilevel more trains which would have added capacity.


I quite like that they are starting to standardize their intercity fleet more. The only outliers will be the Piedmont, Capitol Corridor, and Pacific Surfliner I believe.


----------



## Mailliw

I think it's best to standardize the fleet with a proven design.


----------



## jis

Cal said:


> I quite like that they are starting to standardize their intercity fleet more. The only outliers will be the Piedmont, Capitol Corridor, and Pacific Surfliner I believe.


North Carolina will be using Amtrak leased equipment on the Piedmont. They are getting out of the business of doing their own cars. This order contains sets targeted for use in NC.


----------



## Cal

jis said:


> North Carolina will be using Amtrak leased equipment on the Piedmont. They are getting out of the business of doing their own cars. This order contains sets targeted for use in NC.


Oh, well even better then.


----------



## Brian Battuello

This is overall great news. I hope it happens at least three times as fast as the CAF contract. You'd hope Amtrak management would learn something.


----------



## TrackWalker

Looks like the're coming to the PNW first.









Amtrak plan to replace dozens of aging trains: cost $7.3B


The first delivery is planned for the Cascades line in the Northwest in 2024, with the rest continuing through 2030. The trains will have roughly six to eight cars.




www.seattletimes.com





“We look forward to the delivery of the new trains for Amtrak Cascades service. They will enhance the passenger experience on one of the most beautiful train routes in the country,” said Ron Pate, Washington State Department of Transportation Director of Rail, Freight and Ports. “Since our trains will be the first off the assembly line, it’s exciting they’ll be unveiled in the Pacific Northwest.”


----------



## Trogdor

AFriendly said:


> This article states "In addition to the Northeast Regional, other routes that will be serviced by the new fleet include the Adirondack, Carolinian, Cascades, Downeaster, Empire Service, Ethan Allen Express, Keystone Service, Maple Leaf, New Haven/Springfield Service (Amtrak Hartford Line and Valley Flyer), Pennsylvanian, Vermonter and Virginia Services."
> 
> No surprises to me except for the Cascades, which is a geographic outlier and I had the impression Oregon and Washington might have had their own plans, but I guess the price was right. I think this is great news overall. Siemens Venture is a solid product from a manufacturer with a good reputation...if anyone can build a fleet that will stand up to the rigors of Amtrak service, it's them. I'm not sure about the semi-permanently coupled trainsets though, and I also feel that an opportunity is being missed to bilevel more trains which would have added capacity.



Washington announced a year or two ago that they would join with Amtrak on the equipment order to replace their Talgo 6s which they were all to happy to get rid of.


----------



## Crowbar_k

Considering that the city splinters are relatively new, and I'm surprised Amtrak is ditching them already.


----------



## Cal

Crowbar_k said:


> Considering that the city splinters are relatively new, and I'm surprised Amtrak is ditching them already.


They'll get at least 9 more years of service I think.


----------



## frequentflyer

Crowbar_k said:


> Considering that the city splinters are relatively new, and I'm surprised Amtrak is ditching them already.


What gives you the impression they are being ditched?


----------



## Crowbar_k

frequentflyer said:


> What gives you the impression they are being ditched?


The press releases keep mentioning dual mode locomotives and saving time when switching between electric and diesel. Sounds like they are electric multiple units, it something similar.


----------



## Cal

Crowbar_k said:


> The press releases keep mentioning dual mode locomotives and saving time when switching between electric and diesel. Sounds like they are electric multiple units, it something similar.


However it probably won't be another 10 years till they are delivered or put into service, possibly more. So they aren't ditching them immediately.


----------



## jis

Crowbar_k said:


> The press releases keep mentioning dual mode locomotives and saving time when switching between electric and diesel. Sounds like they are electric multiple units, it something similar.


Nothing will be ditched. There will be dual modes replacing the P42s used in extended NEC service. You are reading more into it than intended. The pure electric WAS to BOS and Keystones will continue to use the Sprinters.


----------



## west point

JIS: Correct that 17 train sets for New York is puzzling. If you figure 3 in normal maintenance that leaves 14 sets for day to day operation. Maple leaf is an outlier . The 2 RTs to / from Buffalo will need 4 train sets. However they will be able to cover one or more trips to ALB <> NYP The 7 total additional ALB <> NYP RTS should be covered by the maybe 4 additional sets . that does leave the 6 train sets available for what ??

Now how to handle the food service that may change might lock some sets into longer distance assignments.


----------



## Mailliw

You left out the Adirondack and Ethan Allen Express. They account for 4 trainsets.


----------



## Andrew

I wonder if Amtrak will operate Empire Service trains in battery mode while in Sunnyside yard to reduce noise and pollution.

Also, does anyone know if Regional trains will still be 8 cars long?


----------



## Palmland

I was surprised that Amtrak’s press release also includes sets for the Palmetto, a LD train. Mixed feelings about that as it’s a route that should be extended to FL, although it would be feasible to turn the train in JAX rather than Savannah as was done in the past.


----------



## MARC Rider

Crowbar_k said:


> The press releases keep mentioning dual mode locomotives and saving time when switching between electric and diesel. Sounds like they are electric multiple units, it something similar.


Not every train that runs the corridor goes off into non-electrified territory. It's really only the Virginia trains and the Vermonter. The Empire Service trains only need electric for about 5 minutes or so when running into Penn Station. I would suspect the that battery hybrids would be fine for this. I think there will be plenty of work for the Sprinters between the long-distance trains that are run through the NEC, the Northeast Regionals that terminate in Washington and the Keystone service. None of these trains need dual-mode locomotives.


----------



## jis

For what it may be worth here is one of the configuration lists that I picked up for the 83 train sets about two months back as I recall. There may have been minor tweaks done to this before finalization of the order, but this is a pretty good approximation of the shape of things. Of course, at some point we will get the official word on what is in the final order. Treat this as hearsay, but an useful data point for a draft.



Note that the 70 Regional trains are all fully semi-permanently coupled. The WashDOT trains are entirely standard H couplers and the shorter 8 consists are two semi-permanently coupled pairs and two single cars with H couplers, without any Cab car.

Again, the details may have changed in the actual final order.


----------



## Palmland

Interesting that they’re calling the food service cars diner-lounge and not cafe cars. Amtrak semantics again


----------



## Cal

Palmland said:


> I was surprised that Amtrak’s press release also includes sets for the Palmetto, a LD train. Mixed feelings about that as it’s a route that should be extended to FL, although it would be feasible to turn the train in JAX rather than Savannah as was done in the past.


Well it's for Amfleet Is, doesn't the Palmetto use Amfleet Is? 



jis said:


> For what it may be worth here is one of the configuration lists that I picked up for the 83 train sets about two months back as I recall. There may have been minor tweaks done to this before finalization of the order, but this is a pretty good approximation of the shape of things. Of course, at some point we will get the official word on what is in the final order. Treat this as hearsay, but an useful data point for a draft.
> 
> View attachment 23513
> 
> Note that the 70 Regional trains are all fully semi-permanently coupled. The WashDOT trains are entirely standard H couplers and the shorter 8 consists are two semi-permanently coupled pairs and two single cars with H couplers, without any Cab car.
> 
> Again, the details may have changed in the actual final order.


I love the look of the Cascade livery, the normal one doesn't look terrible either, but I'm not in love.


----------



## frequentflyer

[


Cal said:


> I love the look of the Cascade livery, the normal one doesn't look terrible either, but I'm not in love.


At least Amtrak trains will look cohesive again, a big plus when majority of your potential passengers see you for the first time at a grade crossing.


----------



## Mailliw

Palmland said:


> Interesting that they’re calling the food service cars diner-lounge and not cafe cars. Amtrak semantics again


I'm actually pleasantly surprised Amtrak is going with cafe lounge cars instead of cafe/coaches given they choose not to have seating in the Avelia Liberty cafe cars. The above chart works out to a 7 car NER trainset: 2 business class cars, 3 economy cars, a cafe car, and an economy cab car.


----------



## Cal

So is Amtrak going from "coach" to "economy" now?


----------



## jis

Cal said:


> So is Amtrak going from "coach" to "economy" now?


The car type terminology is Siemens’ and not necessarily what Amtrak will use in its product as presented to its customers.


----------



## Andrew

Mailliw said:


> I'm actually pleasantly surprised Amtrak is going with cafe lounge cars instead of cafe/coaches given they choose not to have seating in the Avelia Liberty cafe cars. The above chart works out to a 7 car NER trainset: 2 business class cars, 3 economy cars, a cafe car, and an economy cab car.



And what about the length of both Empire and Keystone trains?


----------



## frequentflyer

Cal said:


> So is Amtrak going from "coach" to "economy" now?



Still more legroom than a coach seat on a Spirit A320.


----------



## AFriendly

Mailliw said:


> I think it's best to standardize the fleet with a proven design.



Sure, but consider: NJT operates Bombardier MultiLevel cars that are 14' 6" into NYP. Those are 6" taller than a Viewliner. More seats could have been added while operating shorter, lighter trains. I'm thinking that the almost equally proven Viaggio twin could have met the clearance requirement without much modification.


----------



## Andrew

AFriendly said:


> Sure, but consider: NJT operates Bombardier MultiLevel cars that are 14' 6" into NYP. Those are 6" taller than a Viewliner. More seats could have been added while operating shorter, lighter trains. I'm thinking that the almost equally proven Viaggio twin could have met the clearance requirement without much modification.



Wouldn't a Viaggio twin have increased boarding times?


----------



## jis

AFriendly said:


> Sure, but consider: NJT operates Bombardier MultiLevel cars that are 14' 6" into NYP. Those are 6" taller than a Viewliner. More seats could have been added while operating shorter, lighter trains. I'm thinking that the almost equally proven Viaggio twin could have met the clearance requirement without much modification.


It is pretty much done. You have stated your position a dozen times. Do you suppose the order will change if you type it another dozen times?


----------



## AFriendly

frequentflyer said:


> Still more legroom than a coach seat on a Spirit A320.



Siemens is quoting 70 to 74 seats per car from what I read. They will be cozier than an Amfleet II but not quite as much as an Amfleet I. A Spirit A320 isn't in this league...by airline standards it is still forward-cabin class room.


----------



## jis

Wait till people start complaining about the reclining mechanism - the European style base moves forward reclining rather than the back reclines back into the lap of the person behind


----------



## Dutchrailnut

who said anything about tilting ?


----------



## jis

Dutchrailnut said:


> who said anything about tilting ?


The seats, not the car. A more proper word to use would have been reclining  Duly corrected in the original. Thank you!


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> Wait till people start complaining about the tilting mechanism - the European style base moves forward tilting rather than the back tilts back into the lap of the person behind


That's becoming a common design of airline seats as well.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

jis said:


> The seats, not the car. A more proper word to use would have been reclining  Duly corrected in the original. Thank you!


That makes more sense. I was having a hard time wrapping my brain around your original post.


----------



## Andrew

Maybe Amtrak should have ordered 6 car double decker trains instead of 7 car single level trains.


----------



## Cal

Andrew said:


> Maybe Amtrak should have ordered 6 car double decker trains instead of 7 car single level trains.


Unless they want to go with the Bombardier Multi-Level cars they'd have to get a new design or a modified European one. I think single level cars are fine.


----------



## Mailliw

Any bilevel car is going to run into accessiblity issues, specifically the ability for disabled passengers to easily move between cars. Venture Coaches are designed to provide access to the entire trainset. The benefits of single level trains outway the disadvantages.


----------



## joelkfla

frequentflyer said:


> Still more legroom than a coach seat on a Spirit A320.


So does the back seat of my mini-SUV.


----------



## jadebenn

Interesting how Siemens, by simply being in the right place at the right time, is going to standardize pretty much everything but the commuter trains and Amtrak LDs at 50" high platforms.

I mean sure, not like there's any plan to rebuild the low-platform stations for level boarding at the moment, but it could have some interesting effects down the line...


----------



## tbk

Hello all from Austria, I just joined.
It looks like there will be a dual power version (electric and diesel-electric) for partly electrified lines and a diesel-battery hybrid version for non-electrified lines. How many trains of each type are ordered?
I guess having a battery will allow regenerative braking (rather than just generating heat in resistors) and providing air conditioning in stations without a noisy diesel engine running.
How about trains completely under electric wires such as Northeast Regional? It would make sense to use the ACS-64 locomotives for those, they are new enough and working fine. So is part of the order coach sets without locomotive?
Will night trains keep Amfleet II cars?


----------



## Intercity

jadebenn said:


> Interesting how Siemens, by simply being in the right place at the right time, is going to standardize pretty much everything but the commuter trains and Amtrak LDs at 50" high platforms.


The Brightline sets are designed for boarding 48” above Top of Rail. Now I’m curious what the level boarding height is on the Midwest, CalTrans, and Via Rail sets is.

Are any of NE Regional stations low level platforms? Wondering if we’ll see the first Venture cars with no stairs and no gap filler on this order.


----------



## me_little_me

TrackWalker said:


> Looks like the're coming to the PNW first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak plan to replace dozens of aging trains: cost $7.3B
> 
> 
> The first delivery is planned for the Cascades line in the Northwest in 2024, with the rest continuing through 2030. The trains will have roughly six to eight cars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.seattletimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “We look forward to the delivery of the new trains for Amtrak Cascades service. They will enhance the passenger experience on one of the most beautiful train routes in the country,” said Ron Pate, Washington State Department of Transportation Director of Rail, Freight and Ports. “Since our trains will be the first off the assembly line, it’s exciting they’ll be unveiled in the Pacific Northwest.”


They get to be the ones that work out the bugs.


----------



## Trogdor

Intercity said:


> The Brightline sets are designed for 48” above Top of Rail. Now I’m curious what the level boarding height is on the Midwest, CalTrans, and Via Rail sets is.
> 
> Are any of NE Regional stations low level platforms? Wondering if we’ll see the first Venture cars with no stairs and no gap filler on this order.



There are several NEC stations with low-level platforms. I can’t list them off the top of my head, but I recall Aberdeen, MD, some place out between NYP and BOS (Westerly, RI, maybe?), plus places south of WAS such as Alexandria, and even some platforms at WAS itself.


----------



## cocojacoby

AFriendly said:


> Siemens is quoting 70 to 74 seats per car from what I read. They will be cozier than an Amfleet II but not quite as much as an Amfleet I. A Spirit A320 isn't in this league...by airline standards it is still forward-cabin class room.



I will assume that these cars will have permanently fixed seats. Yeah half of us will be forced to ride backwards - like it or not. Since the seats today have to be spaced far enough apart for turning, these will not need that much space so expect less legroom.


----------



## jis

jadebenn said:


> Interesting how Siemens, by simply being in the right place at the right time, is going to standardize pretty much everything but the commuter trains and Amtrak LDs at 50" high platforms.
> 
> I mean sure, not like there's any plan to rebuild the low-platform stations for level boarding at the moment, but it could have some interesting effects down the line...


Not all, but many of the low level platforms are slated to get high level platforms over time. It is to be partly funded through ADA line items and partly from general funds.


cocojacoby said:


> I will assume that these cars will have permanently fixed seats. Yeah half of us will be forced to ride backwards - like it or not. Since the seats today have to be spaced far enough apart for turning, these will not need that much space so expect less legroom.


If it is like Brightline's Smart Class (which is what they call their Coach Class) they have two rows of seat per window and they have ten windows per side. Amtrak has specified 74 seats, so either they have a slightly greater pitch or they have open floor space for wheelchair and baggage. But the bottom line is that the seat pitch will be more or less the same as in Amfleet Is.Amfleet Is have about the same number of seats in the same length of compartment.








I suspect Amtrak's pitch will be similar and close to those in Amfleet I Coaches. Afterall these are replacements for Amfleet Is, not Amfleet IIs or Superliners.


----------



## NES28

Another interesting tidbit that appeared in today's _Railway Gazette International _feed is the order "includes 50 electro-diesel sets and 15 diesel-battery sets, with the rest [8] being EPA Tier 4 compliant diesels capable of using biodiesel fuel. The batteries can be charged from regenerated braking energy, the diesel engine or an external supply. 
There are options for up to 140 more trainsets and further maintenance agreements.
The trains are intended to operate on the Northeast Corridor and various state-supported routes including those in Maine, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. Amtrak said it expects the increased capacity and ability to shorten trip times to increase ridership by more than 1·5 million passengers/year."

My guess is that the 8 pure diesel sets will go to Washington and Maine, the 15 diesel-battery sets will go to New York, with the 50 electro-diesel sets going to NEC. The dual mode capabilities should provide greatly increased reliability, allowing trains to keep moving in the event of catenary problems or diesel engine failure. I wonder whether the diesel-battery sets will have a pantograph to facilitate battery charging; I suspect not. Is the basis for the reduced trip time claim the elimination of engine changes at DC for trains to/from the South and at Albany for trains to/from the West?


----------



## jis

I had no idea that NIST is involved in the business of rail car standards too...



https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/mep/specs_single_level_passenger_rail_car.pdf



This is the base standard that has subsequently been slightly modified to incorporate real world experience from Siemens.


----------



## NES28

jadebenn said:


> Interesting how Siemens, by simply being in the right place at the right time, is going to standardize pretty much everything but the commuter trains and Amtrak LDs at 50" high platforms.
> 
> I mean sure, not like there's any plan to rebuild the low-platform stations for level boarding at the moment, but it could have some interesting effects down the line...



High level platforms (generally at 48 inches above top of rail) have been spreading around the country in the years since U.S. DOT's publication of level boarding requirements and inclusion in many Federally-funded projects. These now include stations at most Upstate NY cities, Springfield, and, now Worcester (MA), Raleigh, Charlotte, Roanoke, Brightline, and will include Texas Central and CAHSR. If Superliners are eventually replaced by single-level cars this will become the _de facto _U.S. standard.


----------



## jis

The PRIIA single level cars are speced for floor height of 51" above top of rail.


----------



## Eric S

Quite a bit more detail here (Amtrak's fleet modernization plan includes historic firsts - Runway Girl) than we've seen so far. Just staring to read through it again myself, but if true, I'm more than a little surprised about the locomotive plans...


----------



## chrsjrcj

Eric S said:


> Quite a bit more detail here (Amtrak's fleet modernization plan includes historic firsts - Runway Girl) than we've seen so far. Just staring to read through it again myself, but if true, I'm more than a little surprised about the locomotive plans...



Was just about to hit "post" when you posted that.

Some more (slightly horrifying) details here:

*The battery-hybrid locomotive will have a separate trailer car for the battery. Why not just use the already existing 3rd rail?
*The relatively new ACS-64 Sprinters will be sold off except for a few to support the long distance trains. Why not use DEMUs and EMUs for the NE Regionals then?
*New "contemporary" food options.

Makes the Viewliner IIs look like a good investment in hindsight. Maybe Amtrak shouldn't be given so much extra cash?


----------



## frequentflyer

I can think of three transit agencies in the North East area that are blowing up Amtrak's email and text right about now to get first in line on some "good" condition (using NADA/Kelly Bluebook terminology) used Sprinters.

Makes since the Sprinters go, the word "trainsets" should have been a clue.


----------



## jadebenn

Yeah, more than a bit hesitant to hear they're planning to replace much of their electric fleet with dual-mode. If it works, sure, but I can't help but fear they'll be very maintenance-intensive compared to the ACS-64s.

Slightly related: I wonder if these locomotives have any commonality with the ones Brightline West plans to use? We've got a render of a Charger-esque locomotive (I used to think it was a cab car) from them, the system is supposed to be electrified, and Brightline is responsible for the existence of the Siemens Venture cars in the first place, so they clearly enjoy a close working relationship.

*EDIT:* Er, actually, disregard. On second thought, the Brightline West trainset looks like a Velaro D (ICE 3) trainset.


----------



## Andrew

frequentflyer said:


> I can think of three transit agencies in the North East area that are blowing up Amtrak's email and text right about now to get first in line on some "good" condition (using NADA/Kelly Bluebook terminology) used Sprinters.
> 
> Makes since the Sprinters go, the word "trainsets" should have been a clue.



Which 3 transit agencies are you referring to?


----------



## cocojacoby

Andrew said:


> Which 3 transit agencies are you referring to?



The MBTA for one is saying that electrification is in their future plans.


----------



## Tlcooper93

cocojacoby said:


> The MBTA for one is saying that electrification is in their future plans.



MBTA is a possible destination of sprinters, especially since it will take decades to electrify the entire fleet/tracks.

They have, however, already toured the Stadler facility, and have plans to follow in the footsteps of Caltrain. I spoke briefly with a representative from Stadler who said the MBTA really wants to get it right and only do it once. In fact, I think a prototype is about to run on the providence line tracks within 4 years.

I applaud them for their care with the decision, but it’s far too long to wait.

In terms of the article above, I’m also concerned about some aspects of these new trains. Seems like Amtrak can always find a way to mess things up. I’ll say positive for now though.


----------



## Andrew

Tlcooper93 said:


> MBTA is a possible destination of sprinters, especially since it will take decades to electrify the entire fleet/tracks.
> 
> They however, have already toured the Stadler facility, and have plans to follow in the footsteps of Caltrain. I spoke briefly with a representative from Stadler who said the MBTA really wants to get it right and only do it once. In fact, I think a prototype is about to run on the providence line tracks within 4 years.
> 
> I applaud them for their care with the decision, but it’s far too long to wait.
> 
> In terms of the article above, I’m also concerned about some aspects of these new trains. Seems like Amtrak can always find a way to mess things up. I’ll say positive for now though.



So maybe Amtrak can sell their Sprinter locomotives to NJ Transit?

And Amtrak can improve their fleet utilization if both their Regional and Keystone trains are 7 cars long.

I also wonder what Stadler's bid was for Amtrak.


----------



## Intercity

chrsjrcj said:


> *The relatively new ACS-64 Sprinters will be sold off except for a few to support the long distance trains. Why not use DEMUs and EMUs for the NE Regionals then?



This feels backwards to me. Wouldn’t it make more sense to keep the Sprinters on the Regionals and pair one of the new Bi-mode Chargers with a standard Charger on the LDs so that an engine change isn’t needed?


----------



## MARC Rider

Intercity said:


> This feels backwards to me. Wouldn’t it make more sense to keep the Sprinters on the Regionals and pair one of the new Bi-mode Chargers with a standard Charger on the LDs so that an engine change isn’t needed?


No, because then the bi-modal loco is running for 2 days down in diesel-land where bimodals aren't needed and is not available for use up where it's needed. A speedy pass through Washington really isn't as necessary for the long-distance trains, anyway. Passengers who are OK with a 24 hour ride from the NEC to Miami aren't going to care as much about a 20-30 minute stop to change engines as regional passengers who want to get from, say, Baltimore to Richmond.


----------



## frequentflyer

Andrew said:


> Which 3 transit agencies are you referring to?



The two in the NYC area and in Maryland. But even if that is not the case Siemens can take the units back as trade ins. I am pretty sure the Sprinter question came up on the Zoom call between Siemens and Amtrak. EMD did it for Amtrak when it traded some of its SDP40s in and parts were used for the first batches of F40s. There is nothing special about the Sprinters, they are based off a locomotive running across Europe.

Amtrak plans to have NEC trains runoff the corridor in much greater numbers than today. Washington DC and NYC will just be stations on a longer schedule and not the end point. As been stated here in other posts, due to FRA regulations, the good old days of doing an engine change in less than 15 minutes are gone. No doubt Seimens looked at Amtrak specs, and said, " yeah, we can do that". Looking at Europe, Siemens have shown they can design good equipment, apparently Amtrak agrees.


----------



## west point

If present dining and other set ups have more passengers short using sleepers catering at WASH may become a must Then you will have longer stops at WASH.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> If present dining and other set ups have more passengers short using sleepers catering at WASH may become a must Then you will have longer stops at WASH.


I don't think one requires more than the current 30mins stops at WAS to load some extra food. 


Andrew said:


> So maybe Amtrak can sell their Sprinter locomotives to NJ Transit?


NJ Transit does not need any more electric locos for a long time to come. They are in the process of acquiring mutli-level power cars to convert quite a bit of their multi-level fleet into EMUs. So no, NJT is not a potential customer.


----------



## Ryan

When I last discussed it with someone in a position to know (which has been a few years, as the conversation then was about joining the in-progress Amtrak order), MARC was profoundly disinterested in further investments in new electric motors, since they would remain captive to the Penn Line. Perhaps with a few more years of run time on the MP-36 fleet and the introduction of Chargers complete, that view has evolved. They have continued to put money into the maintenance and operation of the hippos, so perhaps there would be some new interest there...


----------



## jis

Ryan said:


> When I last discussed it with someone in a position to know (which has been a few years, as the conversation then was about joining the in-progress Amtrak order), MARC was profoundly disinterested in further investments in new electric motors, since they would remain captive to the Penn Line. Perhaps with a few more years of run time on the MP-36 fleet and the introduction of Chargers complete, that view has evolved. They have continued to put money into the maintenance and operation of the hippos, so perhaps there would be some new interest there...


Or they could go for the dual modes which would work all across their system. NJT seems to have shunned ordering any more pure diesels altogether and ordered a second tranche of dual modes instead.


----------



## Andrew

Does anyone know if Stadler bid on the new Amfleet trainset contract, and if so, would they have made an appropriate choice over Siemens?

Also, who were the other bidders on this contract?


----------



## frequentflyer

I am sure Stadler did bid on the contract, they have a facility in Utah to build the equipment. There is a video of then CEO Anderson wanting to talk them after the seminar, so I am sure they were in on the bid.


----------



## DCAKen

Ryan said:


> When I last discussed it with someone in a position to know (which has been a few years, as the conversation then was about joining the in-progress Amtrak order), MARC was profoundly disinterested in further investments in new electric motors, since they would remain captive to the Penn Line. Perhaps with a few more years of run time on the MP-36 fleet and the introduction of Chargers complete, that view has evolved. They have continued to put money into the maintenance and operation of the hippos, so perhaps there would be some new interest there...



Part of the agreement for rebuilding the Baltimore tunnel is that MARC will be required to electrify its trains by 2032


https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2021/06/18/amtrak-maryland-baltimore-rail-tunnel/


----------



## Ryan

Oh, good catch. I recall reading that but clearly hadn't internalized it yet. It seems as though surplus ACS-64's with some good life left in them will be a good fit.


----------



## MARC Rider

Ryan said:


> When I last discussed it with someone in a position to know (which has been a few years, as the conversation then was about joining the in-progress Amtrak order), MARC was profoundly disinterested in further investments in new electric motors, since they would remain captive to the Penn Line. Perhaps with a few more years of run time on the MP-36 fleet and the introduction of Chargers complete, that view has evolved. They have continued to put money into the maintenance and operation of the hippos, so perhaps there would be some new interest there...


Are the proposals for through-running of MARC trains into VRE-land and VRE trains into MARC-ville still being considered? If so, there might be some interest in getting dual-mode locomotives.


----------



## Andrew

frequentflyer said:


> I am sure Stadler did bid on the contract, they have a facility in Utah to build the equipment. There is a video of then CEO Anderson wanting to talk them after the seminar, so I am sure they were in on the bid.



Can you post a link to the video?


----------



## frequentflyer

Andrew said:


> Can you post a link to the video?


Its actually on this site somewhere. Anderson went to a California rail meeting where he first brought up the subject of DMUs. Stadler was of course in attendance and he can be seen and heard mentioning Stadler and he wanted to talk them after the meeting.


----------



## cocojacoby

jis said:


> The PRIIA single level cars are speced for floor height of 51" above top of rail.



Can anyone explain why the required car floor height is 51" and the platform height is 48"? Since there will be gap fillers I assume the difference is no way related to portable ADA ramp design. Is it weather related (i.e., rain will not enter) or something else? 3 inches seems a little much and a possible tripping hazard. Why not both at 48" or 51"?


----------



## MikefromCrete

frequentflyer said:


> Its actually on this site somewhere. Anderson went to a California rail meeting where he first brought up the subject of DMUs. Stadler was of course in attendance and he can be seen and heard mentioning Stadler and he wanted to talk them after the meeting.



There always seem to be a lot of interest in Stadler obtaining various Amtrak contracts. I suppose they would be more competent than CAF, but are they some kind of supersensational builder? What's their claim to fame? Or is somebody here a big investor in Stadler?


----------



## frequentflyer

MikefromCrete said:


> There always seem to be a lot of interest in Stadler obtaining various Amtrak contracts. I suppose they would be more competent than CAF, but are they some kind of supersensational builder? What's their claim to fame? Or is somebody here a big investor in Stadler?



Stadler is big into DMUs and EMUs have a good reputation with their popular KISS product. At the time CEO Anderson made noises about EMU/DMUs for the NEC and that is Stadler's strong point. So its makes sense that they be in the conversation.


----------



## Eric S

Claim to fame? Really catchy English-language product names/acronyms (FLIRT, KISS, SMILE, etc.), perhaps among other things.


----------



## Andrew

frequentflyer said:


> Stadler is big into DMUs and EMUs have a good reputation with their popular KISS product. At the time CEO Anderson made noises about EMU/DMUs for the NEC and that is Stadler's strong point. So its makes sense that they be in the conversation.



I wonder if Amtrak should have picked Stadler FLIRTS for new NEC trainsets?


----------



## frequentflyer

Andrew said:


> I wonder if Amtrak should have picked Stadler FLIRTS for new NEC trainsets?



The advantage of Siemens is uniformed fleet with the states which should lead to a cheaper mx contract. Would not surprise me that Amtrak got a better per unit deal than the states since it was on the tail end of their contract and larger in numbers.. Siemens is selling products already in service somewhere in the world, even the dual mode locomotive will have been in service for years in Germany before Amtrak gets their first one. Off the shelf products means lower prices.

Stadler would have made a KISS like train, similar to what they are using in the UK, widened it, and engineered it to meet FRA regs. Most likely higher price than Siemens, and Amtrak was probably more comfortable with Siemens "train sets" concept compared to the mid power car used in Stadler KISS sets.


----------



## Andrew

frequentflyer said:


> The advantage of Siemens is uniformed fleet with the states which should lead to a cheaper mx contract. Would not surprise me that Amtrak got a better per unit deal than the states since it was on the tail end of their contract and larger in numbers.. Siemens is selling products already in service somewhere in the world, even the dual mode locomotive will have been in service for years in Germany before Amtrak gets their first one. Off the shelf products means lower prices.
> 
> Stadler would have made a KISS like train, similar to what they are using in the UK, widened it, and engineered it to meet FRA regs. Most likely higher price than Siemens, and Amtrak was probably more comfortable with Siemens "train sets" concept compared to the mid power car used in Stadler KISS sets.



Very interesting but I thought that the KISS train was double decker and that Amtrak wanted single level trains.


----------



## tbk

frequentflyer said:


> Stadler would have made a KISS like train, similar to what they are using in the UK, widened it, and engineered it to meet FRA regs. Most likely higher price than Siemens, and Amtrak was probably more comfortable with Siemens "train sets" concept compared to the mid power car used in Stadler KISS sets.



In UK Stadler has a FLIRT variant. The KISS is double deck.
The SMILE (Giruno) is not much different: Articulated throughout but multi-system, 250 km/h, currently used in German/Swiss/Italian international trains. For a dual power version they could insert a genset section as they did in some versions of the FLIRT.

However you build it, a dual power train is complex and has a lot of dead weight that could be used to provide space for more paying passengers. So replacing purely electric trains on purely electric lines by dual power trains still doesn't make much sense to me. It can only be explained by a desire to expand the network without having to electrify more (because new electrification is more costly and involves more lengthy bureaucracy than buying highly sophisticated trains).


----------



## frequentflyer

tbk said:


> In UK Stadler has a FLIRT variant. The KISS is double deck.
> The SMILE (Giruno) is not much different: Articulated throughout but multi-system, 250 km/h, currently used in German/Swiss/Italian international trains. For a dual power version they could insert a genset section as they did in some versions of the FLIRT.
> 
> However you build it, a dual power train is complex and has a lot of dead weight that could be used to provide space for more paying passengers. So replacing purely electric trains on purely electric lines by dual power trains still doesn't make much sense to me. It can only be explained by a desire to expand the network without having to electrify more (because new electrification is more costly and involves more lengthy bureaucracy than buying highly sophisticated trains).



Thank you for the correction, it is the FLIRT that Stadler would have most likely used for Amtrak. KISS is what I think Caltrans will be using.


----------



## jis

It is pretty obvious from the structure of the trains that Amtrak has ordered that they were not quite ready to go all the way to the FLIRT/KISS architecture yet in spite of all of Anderson's huffing and puffing. They basically chose the Railjet architecture exclusively. They do not lose an entire train set just because a power head failed. They can easily substitute a power head and carry on.


----------



## cocojacoby

cocojacoby said:


> Can anyone explain why the required car floor height is 51" and the platform height is 48"? Since there will be gap fillers I assume the difference is no way related to portable ADA ramp design. Is it weather related (i.e., rain will not enter) or something else? 3 inches seems a little much and a possible tripping hazard. Why not both at 48" or 51"?



Found some more related information from the California HSR project concerning platform design:

Platforms must be within 5/8" of the height of the train floor (36CFR1192.175 and 36CFR1192.93) for level boarding
So again, why the 51"???


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> It is pretty obvious from the structure of the trains that Amtrak has ordered that they were not quite ready to go all the way to the FLIRT/KISS architecture yet in spite of all of Anderson's huffing and puffing. They basically chose the Railjet architecture exclusively. They do not lose an entire train set just because a power head failed. They can easily substitute a power head and carry on.



Right, but has Amtrak officially ordered new dual-powered Charger locomotives or just the new Venture coaches?


----------



## Ryan

You should go check out the press release again:








Amtrak to Transform Rail Travel with $7.3 Billion Investment in State-of-the-Art Equipment - Amtrak Media


WASHINGTON – Amtrak is contracting with California-based Siemens Mobility Inc. to manufacture a new fleet of up to 83 multi-powered modern trains that will be leveraged for state and northeast services, with further options for up to 130 additional trains to support Amtrak growth plans. The new...




media.amtrak.com


----------



## Bluejet

I might have missed it somewhere, are the plans to have a dual mode locomotive on each end, or a single locomotive on one end and a cab car on the other? With HEP etc would a single dual mode locomotive have enough power and acceleration and range (diesel mode) to efficiently operate in both diesel and electric configuration?

My limited understanding of dual modes are they usually sacrifice a significant amount of power via a smaller prime mover or such trying to be a “jack of all trades”.


----------



## jis

Bluejet said:


> I might have missed it somewhere, are the plans to have a dual mode locomotive on each end, or a single locomotive on one end and a cab car on the other?


Single locomotive at one end, cab car at the other end.


> With HEP etc would a single dual mode locomotive have enough power and acceleration and range (diesel mode) to efficiently operate in both diesel and electric configuration?


It will have more than enough power to operate a seven car train. NJT operates 8-9 multi-level car trains with a single dual mode ALP45 regularly.


> My limited understanding of dual modes are they usually sacrifice a significant amount of power via a smaller prime mover or such trying to be a “jack of all trades”.


Dual modes these days usually have 3,600HP or more in diesel mode, close to 3,000HP at rail with HEP load for 7-8 car train. This is for the what is now the previous generation as found in the NJT ALP45DPs. These are a decade later so are likely to have better performance.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Single locomotive at one end, cab car at the other end.
> 
> It will have more than enough power to operate a seven car train. NJT operates 8-9 multi-level car trains with a single dual mode ALP45 regularly.
> 
> Dual modes these days usually have 3,600HP or more in diesel mode, close to 3,000HP at rail with HEP load for 7-8 car train. This is for the what is now the previous generation as fund in the NJT ALP45DPs. These are a decade later so are likely to have better performance.



Will all new NEC trainsets have 7 cars?


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Single locomotive at one end, cab car at the other end.
> 
> It will have more than enough power to operate a seven car train. NJT operates 8-9 multi-level car trains with a single dual mode ALP45 regularly.
> 
> Dual modes these days usually have 3,600HP or more in diesel mode, close to 3,000HP at rail with HEP load for 7-8 car train. This is for the what is now the previous generation as found in the NJT ALP45DPs. These are a decade later so are likely to have better performance.





Andrew said:


> Will all new NEC trainsets have 7 cars?



I wonder if Anderson was still running Amtrak if they would have chosen Stadler trains for the NEC instead of Venture Coaches made by Siemens.

It is my understanding that Anderson liked Stadler a lot as a manufacturer.

Also, could a dual-mode Charger locomotive have the same horsepower in electric mode as a Sprinter?


----------



## tbk

It seems like the Charger bogies are not much different from those of the ACS64. So they could also install the more powerful traction motors. By the concept leaked so far it looks like the transformer will go into the next car, perhaps part of the power electronics too (what's needed for regenerative braking). You just need to split up the electronics at the right point to have an easy power connection and use the locomotive's inverters in diesel mode as well. Since a charger is single cab there is a bit more space in the body as well.


----------



## jis

tbk said:


> It seems like the Charger bogies are not much different from those of the ACS64. So they could also install the more powerful traction motors. By the concept leaked so far it looks like the transformer will go into the next car, perhaps part of the power electronics too (what's needed for regenerative braking). You just need to split up the electronics at the right point to have an easy power connection and use the locomotive's inverters in diesel mode as well. Since a charger is single cab there is a bit more space in the body as well.


We can imagine all sorts of fun stuff, but there is no power equipment that will go in the adjacent car because the adjacent car is connected to the power head by a standard Type H coupler and standard trainline control, brake lines and HEP cables and nothing else. Essentially the articulated sets can be powered by almost any existing or future locomotives with standard connectors. If a power head fails it would be substitutable by another power head or locomotive pretty seamlessly. What we are getting is an exact American version of the Austrian RailJet. Nothing fancier or more complicated than that.

Oh and yes the Charger and Sprinters share a lot of common electronics and electrical parts including most of the truck.


----------



## Mailliw

I found this video on YouTube. It gives a preliminary trainset breakdown breakdown by route, but only by regular car vs cab car (no info on cafe cars). There's a chart near the end.


----------



## jis

Mailliw said:


> I found this video on YouTube. It gives a preliminary trainset breakdown breakdown by route, but only by regular car vs cab car (no info on cafe cars). There's a chart near the end.


Good stuff! Very few surprises. The consists and numbers are consistent with a single slide copy I had posted in this thread a while back. The biggest surprise is the complete replacement of of the ACS64s. I wonder who is going to buy that many ACS64s, what with most electric operators moving towards EMUs. I suppose MBTA might be a target, as well as MARC. Who knows? Maybe Siemens can palm some off somewhere in Europe.


----------



## Tlcooper93

jis said:


> Good stuff! Very few surprises. The consists and numbers are consistent with a single slide copy I had posted in this thread a while back. The biggest surprise is the complete replacement of of the ACS64s. I wonder who is going to buy that many ACS64s, what with most electric operators moving towards EMUs. I suppose MBTA might be a target, as well as MARC. Who knows? Maybe Siemens can palm some off somewhere in Europe.



I had mentioned the likelihood of the MBTA acquiring a few ACS-64’s to compliment their possible EMU’s from Stadler.

especially since they’ve purchased a lot of double decker rolling stock recently, it won’t make sense to retire all of it, for the sake of new stuff from Stadler, and the ACS’s will really shine here!

in addition to the MBTA, I’m sure all of the commuter railroads on the NEC may have interest.

personally, I think it’s short sighted of Amtrak to get rid of them, and wonder what factors went in to the decision.


----------



## jis

Tlcooper93 said:


> in addition to the MBTA, I’m sure all of the commuter railroads on the NEC may have interest.


I am almost certain that NJTransit will have absolutely no interest. SEPTA might have limited interest but they lean towards EMUs. MARC is the only one that stands out. And MNRR might want a few to run push pulls to Penn Station from the New Haven Line. 

I wonder what is the state of negotiations between MNRR and Siemens regarding their dual or triple or quadruple modes.


----------



## frequentflyer

jis said:


> Good stuff! Very few surprises. The consists and numbers are consistent with a single slide copy I had posted in this thread a while back. The biggest surprise is the complete replacement of of the ACS64s. I wonder who is going to buy that many ACS64s, what with most electric operators moving towards EMUs. I suppose MBTA might be a target, as well as MARC. Who knows? Maybe Siemens can palm some off somewhere in Europe.



I bet Siemens take a few as trade ins, like EMD did with the SDP40s. The ASC64s are Vectrons in a pretty body. Pretty sure they could be off loaded to someone around the world.


----------



## George Harris

cocojacoby said:


> Found some more related information from the California HSR project concerning platform design:
> 
> Platforms must be within 5/8" of the height of the train floor (36CFR1192.175 and 36CFR1192.93) for level boarding
> So again, why the 51"???


A better question would be the "why the 48 inches?" 51 inches has been a standard North American car floor height for a long time. I would suspect the answer is history. The 48 inch elevation long predates the ADA requirement in the CFR. There has been the long time thought, for no real reason I can see, that the platform should never be higher than the car floor, and there should be some allowance for spring compression, wheel wear, etc. 51 inches does not mean 51.0000 inches. It can vary up slightly due to car sway or off level standing, and vary down an inch or more due to wheel wear, rail wear, and sway and off level in the other direction. The reality is that if the track is on ballast, over time leveling and lining will usually result in an upward creep in track level due to addition of ballast, or relay with heavier rail. The horizontal gap to train in NEC high platforms is likewise due to history, but that one is essentially uncorrectable due to the need to pass standard width freight cars. Use of Shinkansen width cars would allow this gap to also be made ADA compliant as they are wider than the standard American passenger car. If standard European width cars are used, used, the gap situation would be even worse as they are narrower in width than US cars. My own opinion is that the platform level should be set to match the design car floor elevation and the design horizontal offset should be no more than 1/2 inch or so less than the ADA requirement. If you are concerned about a car sway or offset hitting the platform edge then set a taper on the last few feet of platform end, which should be beyond the last passenger doorway and tell the vehicle maintenance guys to fix your suspension and buff out the scuffs.


----------



## Andrew

From watching that YouTube video, it appears that Regional trains will remain 8 cars long, but Empire Service will be lengthened to 6 cars.

Does anyone know if the paint scheme of the Venture coaches is correct? And why wouldn't Keystone trains also be 8 cars long?


----------



## sttom

George Harris said:


> A better question would be the "why the 48 inches?" 51 inches has been a standard North American car floor height for a long time. I would suspect the answer is history. The 48 inch elevation long predates the ADA requirement in the CFR. There has been the long time thought, for no real reason I can see, that the platform should never be higher than the car floor, and there should be some allowance for spring compression, wheel wear, etc. 51 inches does not mean 51.0000 inches. It can vary up slightly due to car sway or off level standing, and vary down an inch or more due to wheel wear, rail wear, and sway and off level in the other direction. The reality is that if the track is on ballast, over time leveling and lining will usually result in an upward creep in track level due to addition of ballast, or relay with heavier rail. The horizontal gap to train in NEC high platforms is likewise due to history, but that one is essentially uncorrectable due to the need to pass standard width freight cars. Use of Shinkansen width cars would allow this gap to also be made ADA compliant as they are wider than the standard American passenger car. If standard European width cars are used, used, the gap situation would be even worse as they are narrower in width than US cars. My own opinion is that the platform level should be set to match the design car floor elevation and the design horizontal offset should be no more than 1/2 inch or so less than the ADA requirement. If you are concerned about a car sway or offset hitting the platform edge then set a taper on the last few feet of platform end, which should be beyond the last passenger doorway and tell the vehicle maintenance guys to fix your suspension and buff out the scuffs.


From what I understand digging through Siemens' technical documents, they make things to a 48 inch floor height and that's what we're getting. This is kind of the problem with buying "off the shelf" equipment is you get discrepancies like this. Nevermind that "off the shelf" is a complete misnomer since no transit vehicle is fully standardized. The shell might be the same, but something about it will always be different between orders and operators. I also remember seeing on another thread here that 48 inches is the new preferred ADA platform height for whatever reason. I had just assumed that it was what the platform height in Penn Station was so the feds were just blindly going off what is on the NEC, the rest of us be damned. I'm a bit surprised that even for the NEC, its a dumb standard.


----------

