# Sumitomo/Siemens contract for 137 Cars (former bi-levels)



## afigg

The news is out this morning that Nippon-Sharyo in partnership with Sumitomo Corporation has been selected to build the 130 corridor bi-level cars at their new plant in Rochelle, IL. The bid was only $352 million, well below the amount allocated by the FRA grants, although I'm sure there are overhead, training, and spare parts costs built into the HSIPR and CA allocated amounts. With the low price per unit, exercise of options to buy more cars if Nippon-Sharyo can deliver satisfactory cars on the initial order is likely.

Chicago Tribune AP article on the breaking news.

Excerpt:



> CHICAGO — The company that makes cars for Japan's bullet train has been picked to build a fleet of next generation passenger cars for rail corridors in the Midwest and California.
> Illinois, Michigan, Missouri and California teamed up to buy the 130 bi-level cars at a lower cost.
> 
> The cars will be made at a new plant opened up by Nippon-Sharyo's U.S. subsidiary in Rochelle, Ill. It submitted a bid of $352 million with partner Sumitomo Corporation of America.


----------



## MikefromCrete

It's been reported on several other sites that a contract for 130 bi-level cars to be used in Illinois, Michigan, Missouri and California has been awarded to a joint bid from Nippon-Sharyo and Sumitoma Corporation of America. The cars will be built at Nippon-Sharyo's new plant in Rochelle, IL. That plant is currently building bi-level gallery EMU's for use on Metra's Electric Division. Cost for the will be $352 million with delivery to start in 2015. There's talk that California might add another 20-30 cars to the contract at a latter date.

Nippon-Shayro has built single-level EMUs for the South Shore, bi-level EMUs for South Shore and Metra, unpowered bi-level galleries for Metra and VRE.

So that's good news, Amtrak will be getting new equipment and Illinois will benefit from having the cars assembled in-state.


----------



## Amtrak Cajun

That is great news. These Bi-Levels will have a build similar to the California cars correct? I saw the plans for the Bi-Level cars on here a while back, and I was impressed.

Im happy to see that they have been green lighted. Maybe this will take some of the strain off of the current fleet once they are released for service.


----------



## MattW

This sounds great! The company has a solid history of building bi-level commuter cars for railroads in this country, and I haven't heard of any big problems with the cars.


----------



## Blackwolf

I, for one, really look forward to climbing aboard one of these new cars in a few years time. I vaguely remember when the first-generation California Cars were first introduced and the hype surrounding them; they (rightfully) made the Horizon fleet then in daily use on the Capitol Corridor look downright embarrassing. It's the Midwest's turn to have the same shock value.

As for the company making them, I completely agree with MattW. Nippon-Sharyo makes a solid product, has a very strong reputation, and obviously made their bid as competitive as they possibly could in order to land this project. Their plant is established, their workers already experienced in making double-level passenger equipment, and minor to moderate retooling is really all that needs to be done; something that companies like CAF could not match.

Good news!


----------



## Steve4031

I can't wait either. And they'll be riding on rebuilt tracks at 110 mph!!


----------



## peremichel

MattW said:


> This sounds great! The company has a solid history of building bi-level commuter cars for railroads in this country, and I haven't heard of any big problems with the cars.


Agreed. They make good solid cars and they make sure that they run properly. Not a particularly flashy company but exceedingly competent. I am pleased.


----------



## Hanno

Am I correct in my understanding that these cars are not like the Superliners and are more like commuter cars? I'm not familiar with The California cars.


----------



## MikeM

Hanno said:


> Am I correct in my understanding that these cars are not like the Superliners and are more like commuter cars? I'm not familiar with The California cars.


California cars have the same basic outside size / shape of a superliner, but have two doors. There is a larger stairway (ramp?) between levels. Lower level is more open, bathroom on bottom level is single stall but larger and handicap accessible. Can be used interchangeably with superliner cars, no issues. I rode them a few years ago, and thought they were pretty comfortable on San Diegan service; the only issue was they were crowded and it was hard to find seats at first.


----------



## MattW

No, there is no ramp in them. On a whim, I once calculated what it would take to produce an ada-compliant ramp for a bi-level railcar, and it would have taken up most of one side of the car meaning loss of seating. Probably the best analogy is the California cars and upcoming bi-levels are like Amfleet-Is, while the Superliner coaches are more like Amfleet-IIs. It's not a direct comparison with stuff like window size of course, but similar idea.


----------



## VentureForth

Nippon-Sharyo is responsible for the majority market share of the Shinkansen rolling stock, delivering over 3000 cars in the last 40 years. They have built the original 0 series, the 200, 100, 300, 500, 700, N700 and E2 trainsets.

I approve.


----------



## afigg

Amtrak Cajun said:


> That is great news. These Bi-Levels will have a build similar to the California cars correct? I saw the plans for the Bi-Level cars on here a while back, and I was impressed.
> 
> Im happy to see that they have been green lighted. Maybe this will take some of the strain off of the current fleet once they are released for service.


The new bi-levels should free up the Amfleet Is and Superliner coach cars used in California and the Superliners that get used in winter in the Chicago corridors. I think Caltrans would be inclined to order as many as they need to have an entirely bi-level corridor car fleet of Surfliners, California cars, and the new bi-levels. Keep in mind if delivery starts in 2015, the initial units have to go through extensive testing, and only so many units will be delivered per month or quarter. So it probably will be 2016 or 2017 before enough bi-levels are delivered to free up the various Amfleets or Superliners to be used elsewhere. What happens to the Horizons is not known, but that is another topic.

That the bi-levels will be built in Illinois and that the CAF plant making the Viewliner IIs (or whatever they will officially be called) is in Elmira New York, states with strong support of passenger rail service, helps the politics of Amtrak placing follow-on orders with the 2 companies if Amtrak is satisfied with what they deliver. Easy to get the Senators and the Congressional delegation on board in support of funding for equipment orders if they realize that the cars will almost certainly be built in their state.


----------



## Agent

> CHICAGO — The company that makes cars for Japan's bullet train has been picked to build a fleet of next generation passenger cars for rail corridors in the Midwest and California.
> Illinois, Michigan, Missouri and California teamed up to buy the 130 bi-level cars at a lower cost.


And Iowa contributed nothing, so it will get nothing.


----------



## afigg

Agent said:


> And Iowa contributed nothing, so it will get nothing.


Illinois is buying the rolling stock for the Chicago-Quad Cities service. IL got $177.3 million of the FY2010 $230 million Chicago-Iowa City corridor grant parceled off to proceed with its portion of the corridor track upgrades and buy the equipment. If Iowa decides to proceed with the extension to Iowa City and put up the 20% state matching funds, the remaining $52.7 million for Iowa is still available. By 2015 or 2016, the corridor bi-levels and new locomotives will be in service on the IL portion of the corridor. Then if Iowa takes the federal money and upgrades the tracks to Iowa City with new stations, voilà, the trains can continue onward to Iowa City. Makes for a very low hanging fruit at that point for extending Amtrak service to a new city.


----------



## Anderson

Agent said:


> CHICAGO — The company that makes cars for Japan's bullet train has been picked to build a fleet of next generation passenger cars for rail corridors in the Midwest and California.
> Illinois, Michigan, Missouri and California teamed up to buy the 130 bi-level cars at a lower cost.
> 
> 
> 
> And Iowa contributed nothing, so it will get nothing.
Click to expand...

True, but IA's train plans are (rather annoyingly) stalled out. To be fair, they could probably buy off some options at a later date.

Remind me...was the original allocation $500 million? If so, that's enough "spare space" to throw another 20-30 cars into the fleet without too much trouble. At $2.7 million/car, this is actually on par with the projected single-level car purchases ($2.5 million) and _miles_ below the projected $4million per bilevel number.

Also, does anyone know how many options there are in the contract?


----------



## afigg

Anderson said:


> Remind me...was the original allocation $500 million? If so, that's enough "spare space" to throw another 20-30 cars into the fleet without too much trouble. At $2.7 million/car, this is actually on par with the projected single-level car purchases ($2.5 million) and _miles_ below the projected $4million per bilevel number.
> 
> Also, does anyone know how many options there are in the contract?


Yes, the total funding for the bi-level corridor cars worked out to right around $4 or $4.5 million per car times 130 as I recall. We have not seen the details of the award, so there may be additional costs for spare parts, training from Nippon-Sharyo and there should be overhead costs covered with the HSIPR & state funds. Still, the bid price per unit is way lower than the "loaded" placeholder amount of $4.5 million listed in the Amtrak Fleet Strategy Plan. Same goes for the single level cars being build by CAF at ~ $2.3 million each compared to the $3.5 million in the plan.

Besides allowing the states to exercise options to buy more cars from the remaining unspent funds, the lower actual bid prices means that the price of ordering 700 single level cars to replace the Amfleets I & IIs and, say, up to 300 bi-levels configured as sleepers, diners, lounge cars, LD coach cars to replace the Superliner Is is perhaps a billion dollars less than what Amtrak projects in their Fleet strategy plans.

According to the Illinois bi-level RFP document from April, the total options is for 200 cars. Amazing what can turn up with a Google search.


----------



## Anderson

200 options? *whistles* That could make a _very_ real mark in the impending car shortage. At the _very_ least, it should clear single-level cars (other than the Talgos) out of everywhere outside the NEC. Assuming that the plans play out in the timeframe in question, that could _easily_ cover most of the plausible service expansions in the Midwest and West over the next decade. Heck, there are various "other" projects (most notably FEC's service) that could also "fit in" with the options available.

To be fair, unless there are service expansions and/or train lengthening plans in the Midwest that I'm not aware of (and of course, extending trains by a car or two wouldn't be an unrealistic ambition), I can only think of three plausible projects in the medium-range timeframe (Quad Cities-Omaha, CHI-MSP, and MSP-Duluth), though if Kaisch gets the boot in '14 it is at least _possible_ that 3Cs might get restarted (and ditto the Madison project if Walker gets thrown out).


----------



## AlanB

Anderson said:


> To be fair, unless there are service expansions and/or train lengthening plans in the Midwest that I'm not aware of (and of course, extending trains by a car or two wouldn't be an unrealistic ambition), I can only think of three plausible projects in the medium-range timeframe (Quad Cities-Omaha, CHI-MSP, and MSP-Duluth),


Keep in mind that going from single level to bi-level cars is already going to increase capacity of the existing trains, assuming that they use the same number of cars.



Anderson said:


> though if Kaisch gets the boot in '14 it is at least _possible_ that 3Cs might get restarted (and ditto the Madison project if Walker gets thrown out).


Won't help there, as IIRC Ohio's plan was for DMU's.

I suppose that they could change their minds, if they were to decide to go ahead.


----------



## Nathanael

afigg said:


> The news is out this morning that Nippon-Sharyo in partnership with Sumitomo Corporation has been selected to build the 130 corridor bi-level cars at their new plant in Rochelle, IL. The bid was only $352 million, well below the amount allocated by the FRA grants, although I'm sure there are overhead, training, and spare parts costs built into the HSIPR and CA allocated amounts. With the low price per unit, exercise of options to buy more cars if Nippon-Sharyo can deliver satisfactory cars on the initial order is likely.


I'm now wondering how much "leftover" there is in the FRA grants for this. There will probably be a rush to spend the leftover. CA will probably simply buy extra cars with it; IL might too, given its penchant for expanding services. MI and MO, I'm not so sure.


----------



## Nathanael

afigg said:


> The new bi-levels should free up the Amfleet Is and Superliner coach cars used in California and the Superliners that get used in winter in the Chicago corridors.


And I think it should free up the Horizons and Amfleet Is used in the Chicago corridors too! Well, eventually.

I haven't actually figured out what the state-for-state split is (they've been awfully vague about that). Thanks to the person who tracked down the RFP: It's 42 to Caltrans and 88 to "the Midwest Coalition" (no MI/MO/IL breakdown).

There are 96 Horizons, so the midwest order is not quite enough to replace the Horizon fleet. However, a whole bunch of those are used for the Hiawatha, and a couple for the soon-to-end Hoosier State. So I assume it's intended to replace everything except those. It still seems a bit tight, so I would expect them to take up some options just to have spares and room for expansion. Perhaps if they take the option, they'll get enough to use them for the Hiawathas too; Illinois does pay *part* of the cost of the Hiawathas. That would eliminate single-level cars from Amtrak in the Midwest (except for the long-distance trains heading east, obviously).

I assume California plans to keep the California Cars / Surfliners, replace the Amfleet set on the Surfliner and the ones on the San Joaquins, replace the 7 California-repaired Superliners, and replace the Comets they just bought. With an order of 42 this means they are already ordering enough for spares and more expansion.

(Reviews topic....)

Whoa. $551 (allocated) - $352 (bid) = 199 million. That is enough to get quite a lot of extra cars. Enough that some of the money might even be redirected to something else.

...

The freed-up Amfleets, Horizons, and Superliners will provide only a little relief; 7 coaches doesn't help the Superliner shortage much, and the acute single-level shortage is Amfleet IIs. (I wonder if Amtrak will convert some Amfleet Is to long-distance seating to alleviate the mid-term Amfleet II shortage.) That said, the Horizons are almost certainly going to end up on the NEC.

Here's hoping for a Viewliner Coach order in the new year, followed by a Superliner III order...


----------



## johnny.menhennet

I think it's pretty strange that Trains News Wire reported that Sumitomo Corp. was awarded the contract for the cars. I checked multiple websites to see if Sumitomo may have been some parent company, but I saw no mention of that. If they are not though, then that sure is a major blunder, but I would note that I would not be surprised - mistakes are many in those articles.


----------



## Anderson

Just wondering, but would these cars (with a different seating layout) be acceptable for use as LD coaches (or for use as a shorter-haul coach on some of the LD trains)?

88 cars is probably enough for 12 sets of 6 plus 16 spares, or 14 sets of 5 plus 18 spares. Either figure is believable.

Running down the list in my head, the IL Zephyr/Carl Sandburg needs two sets (one for each). The Illini/Saluki needs two sets . That's four sets needed. I'm not totally sure about is how many sets the Lincoln Service/MoRR would need. I am _thinking_ six sets (4 Lincoln and 2 MoRR) assuming they can all turn, but I'm not sure there. That would be 10 sets. The MI trains _should_ need five sets (since I think all of those trains can turn at one end or the other), for 15 sets of equipment.

Going to the "coming soon" category, the Quad Cities train and the Blackhawk should take at _least_ one set apiece. I don't know if IL plans to run a second daily train out to the Quad Cities _a la_ the IL Zephyr/Carl Sandburg. Assuming so, that would bring us to a total of 20 sets to the Midwest to cover all services if you also throw in the Hiawathas (which seem to either need two sets...though some of those turns are just a _bit_ tight for me to assume that two sets "cuts it").

20 sets at 4 cars apiece would use 80 cars from the start, which is too thin on the spares-and-maintenance front. Granted, all of the cars would ultimately operate out of CHI, but I can _not_ see them making do with only a 10% allocation for spares and/or backups. So you'd still have either Superliners or something else doing backup duty in the Midwest at times (even if the out-of-service time _would_ be minimal given where Beech Grove is compared to Chicago).

18 sets at 4 cars apiece would leave 16 spares. That's about the right number, but...well, it's probably just me, but four cars/train _does_ seem short. That might just be the part of me that has almost always been on either single-level or LD bilevel trains speaking, though.

15 sets of 5 would cover everything in service now except the Hiawathas, and 13 spares (though a bit low) _might_ just be enough. Still, you'd need a supplemental order if you also wanted to cover the "coming soon" trains.

And, naturally, it _does_ seem possible that some trains could run with 4 cars and some with 5.


----------



## trainfan969

johnny.menhennet said:


> I think it's pretty strange that Trains News Wire reported that Sumitomo Corp. was awarded the contract for the cars. I checked multiple websites to see if Sumitomo may have been some parent company, but I saw no mention of that. If they are not though, then that sure is a major blunder, but I would note that I would not be surprised - mistakes are many in those articles.


As usual the news parrots what they are told without too much checking. Looks like Nippon and the Sumitomo corp have partnered for many projects before.


----------



## Anderson

One other thought: I think Amtrak could easily justify an order of 15-20 (or thereabouts) high-density bilevels for the LD trains:

2 for the CHI-STL part of the Texas Eagle (X21/X22)

2 for the CHI-MSP part of the Builder (807/808)

2 for the LAX-EMY/SAC part of the Coast Starlight

4 for the "Sparks Cars" plan on the Zephyr

2/3 for a CHI-OMA/DEN cutoff coach (directed at CHI-OMA business but potentially run through to DEN)

That plus a couple of spares to contribute to the "spare pools" in the Midwest and in California would likely justify a piggyback option order. This seems doubly likely if the Amtrak FEC plan actually comes together and FL wants a second daily train to fill a different slot than the Star allows to be filled but FL would rather rent the cars than buy them. If they reconfigured the seating pattern in some to lower density levels, an order for another 30-50 wouldn't be out of place, either.


----------



## cirdan

afigg said:


> With the low price per unit, exercise of options to buy more cars if Nippon-Sharyo can deliver satisfactory cars on the initial order is likely.


I'm pretty confident they will deliver satisfactory cars. Nippon-Sharyo is a decent solid company that takes its work seriously.


----------



## Steve4031

Does Nippon-Sharyo have experiences building single level equipment in america?


----------



## jis

trainfan969 said:


> As usual the news parrots what they are told without too much checking. Looks like Nippon and the Sumitomo corp have partnered for many projects before.


Right. Apparently the outfit that is building those cars and has been building cars for Chicago area commuter services, is a jointly owned subsidiary of Nippon Sharyo and Sumitomo.


----------



## jis

Steve4031 said:


> Does Nippon-Sharyo have experiences building single level equipment in america?


Yes. Maryland MARC Train single-level push-pull coaches (jointly with Sumitomo Corporation).


----------



## The Davy Crockett

Nathanael said:


> That said, the Horizons are almost certainly going to end up on the NEC.


Now that's something to look forward to. :lol:


----------



## jis

The Davy Crockett said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> 
> That said, the Horizons are almost certainly going to end up on the NEC.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's something to look forward to. :lol:
Click to expand...

Well, either the Horizons or some Amfleet Is could be converted to LD coaches. There is nothing that says that only Amfleets can be converted. So it could very well be that Horizons go LD and Amfleets go to NEC. One can never tell based on info available at present. Or, of course, the entire lot could go to NEC and Eastern medium distance fleet, with nothing going to LD's, unfortunately the more likely scenario IMHO, since it is the least cost and most revenue alternative.


----------



## afigg

Anderson said:


> Just wondering, but would these cars (with a different seating layout) be acceptable for use as LD coaches (or for use as a shorter-haul coach on some of the LD trains)?


Amtrak states in the Fleet Strategy Plan that they intend to base the LD replacement cars on the new bi-level cars. With 2 doors on each side, that will have less space than the Superliner design, but Amtrak may just go ahead and stay with 2 doors for the LD coach cars while the other LD car types have only 1 door on each side with the second door deleted.



Anderson said:


> Going to the "coming soon" category, the Quad Cities train and the Blackhawk should take at _least_ one set apiece. I don't know if IL plans to run a second daily train out to the Quad Cities _a la_ the IL Zephyr/Carl Sandburg.


The application for the Chicago-Quad Cities/Iowa City service called for 2 trainsets with 2 daily round trips. The plans for the Chicago-St. Louis corridor are to expand to 8 daily trains, although IL will need several billion more to double track enough of the corridor and make other capacity upgrades to be able to run 8 daily round trip 110 mph trains.

We need to think about possible service frequency expansion to all of the corridors, not just in terms of the current limited level of service. Don't think in the next 3 year terms, but 5, 10, 15 years from now. I expect with the low bid price, IL, MI, MO will be adding at least a few cars to the order by exercising a small part of the option.

One thought occurs to me is whether the FRA can use the funds left over to re-allocate the distribution of the money for the bi-levels to other states, namely Minnesota for a Chicago-Twin Cities corridor train. Since MN submitted an application for a Chicago-Twin Cities H®SR corridor and got a planning grant, can the FRA say, ok, we are going to re-allocate a portion of the obligated multi-state grant and add a purchase of 12 cars for a Chicago-Twin Cities daily train? 5 cars for each consist plus 2 spares for the pool. I expect only an expert in the federal regulations and rules could answer that question.


----------



## VentureForth

jis said:


> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> 
> That said, the Horizons are almost certainly going to end up on the NEC.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's something to look forward to. :lol:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, either the Horizons or some Amfleet Is could be converted to LD coaches. There is nothing that says that only Amfleets can be converted. So it could very well be that Horizons go LD and Amfleets go to NEC. One can never tell based on info available at present. Or, of course, the entire lot could go to NEC and Eastern medium distance fleet, with nothing going to LD's, unfortunately the more likely scenario IMHO, since it is the least cost and most revenue alternative.
Click to expand...

I was thinking one of the intents was to remove the Horizons from the roster completely.


----------



## jis

VentureForth said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> 
> That said, the Horizons are almost certainly going to end up on the NEC.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's something to look forward to. :lol:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, either the Horizons or some Amfleet Is could be converted to LD coaches. There is nothing that says that only Amfleets can be converted. So it could very well be that Horizons go LD and Amfleets go to NEC. One can never tell based on info available at present. Or, of course, the entire lot could go to NEC and Eastern medium distance fleet, with nothing going to LD's, unfortunately the more likely scenario IMHO, since it is the least cost and most revenue alternative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was thinking one of the intents was to remove the Horizons from the roster completely.
Click to expand...

I know of one person at NARP who thinks so, but none at Amtrak AFAICT. Would anyone in their right mind get rid of something completely when they are suffering from a serious shortage of the same thing? Not anyone that has to actually operate a railroad providing service would do that with perfectly serviceable equipment. Horizons will live on for quite a while yet.


----------



## Trogdor

Amtrak's fleet plan (at least the one from 2010) had the Horizons staying until at least 2030, IIRC.


----------



## VentureForth

jis said:


> Steve4031 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Nippon-Sharyo have experiences building single level equipment in america?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Maryland MARC Train single-level push-pull coaches (jointly with Sumitomo Corporation).
Click to expand...

And DMU's that are being built for Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit Authority to work its commuter service between Cloverdale and Larkspur to the north of San Francisco as well as a new order for 12 two-car DMUs for Torontos future airport rail link to Pearson International Airport, in time for the Pan Am Games.

I don't think we'll see Rader's Colorado Rail Car resurrected.


----------



## jis

VentureForth said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve4031 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Nippon-Sharyo have experiences building single level equipment in america?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Maryland MARC Train single-level push-pull coaches (jointly with Sumitomo Corporation).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And DMU's that are being built for Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit Authority to work its commuter service between Cloverdale and Larkspur to the north of San Francisco as well as a new order for 12 two-car DMUs for Toronto’s future airport rail link to Pearson International Airport, in time for the Pan Am Games.
> 
> I don't think we'll see Rader's Colorado Rail Car resurrected.
Click to expand...

Those SMART DMUs are very nice indeed. Capable of 90mph but currently going to operate at 79mph.


----------



## Nathanael

VentureForth said:


> I was thinking one of the intents was to remove the Horizons from the roster completely.


Amtrak has specifically said that since they're among the newer cars they intend to hang on to them for a while, even though they're not very popular with riders. What Amtrak has actually said is that they want to move them to warmer locations because they are unreliable in consistent cold weather.

Obviously California is going all-bilevel, so that's out. Further, I'd expect any other future new corridor services in the South or Southwest to use bilevel equipment: it makes for cheaper platforms (new construction has to have level-boarding platforms) and more capacity per car, and the clearances are always present. The only reason to go single-level is to connect through to the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, which already has high platforms and restricted clearances.

I suppose the Horizons could be converted to long-haul coaches for the southern LD trains. Or, in their current configuration, they could be used for the Virginia or North Carolina corridor trains. Running through to Boston is probably tolerable as long as they get thawed out every day by going south of DC. NC has its own odd equipment policy for the Piedmont. So I'm predicting that the Horizons will end up on the NEC, allocated to the south-of-DC trains.

Along similar lines (and drifting further off topic) I'm told that the Viewliner Is have freezing problems which the Viewliner IIs are supposed to address, which might indicate that the Viewliner II sleepers will initially be 'captive' to the more northerly trains, with the trains which go into North Carolina on a daily basis retaining the Viewliner Is. (The numbers work out just about right for that.) This would fit with the statement that the new Viewliners would go to the LSL first. There may be a Viewliner rebuild/retrofit program, of course.

Speculating about equipment cascading is far more entertaining than it should be.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Now that the contract has been confirmed, I would love to see some renderings, specs, and maybe even what the interior might look like.

I also hope Amtrak will convert some Amfleet Is back to LD config, maybe even Sleeper config. Anyway, more cars, always better.


----------



## Amtrak Cajun

I think the Horizons would be best suited for the NEC. They would probably be too uncomfortable for long haul use. I think the LD trains should be Viewliners, Amfleets and Superliners, and maybe the new bilevels in a pinch.

Could the new bilevels serve as LD units? Or would Superliner 3's be different enough to warrant seperate orders?


----------



## Anderson

Amtrak Cajun said:


> I think the Horizons would be best suited for the NEC. They would probably be too uncomfortable for long haul use. I think the LD trains should be Viewliners, Amfleets and Superliners, and maybe the new bilevels in a pinch.
> 
> Could the new bilevels serve as LD units? Or would Superliner 3's be different enough to warrant seperate orders?


I'm not sure how much layout tinkering would be needed to switch the cars to LD use. If it were _just_ moving seats around, then there would be no issue, but naturally things are a bit more complicated than that. As I noted earlier, you could at least in theory tag these onto an LD train for shorter-haul seating as-is (i.e. Chicago-Omaha, Chicago-Minneapolis, and Chicago-St. Louis in the Midwest and a couple of segments elsewhere in the system on the West Coast), getting you an extra car's worth of seats and opening up slots for longer-distance travelers. Selling these seats at a discount or slightly bumping up the charge for the LD coaches while providing these seats might feasibly ensue as well (as I know I'd usually be willing to shell out an extra $10-20 for a better seat on the Zephyr, for example). However, to make them suitable for "real" LD service, you'd probably need to add luggage space and an extra "necessities", which would require a different model.

Corridor service in the South might or might not go bilevel. At the present time, the big hangup is that for anything running into VA and NC, there's a big desire to run trains up the NEC to at least NYP (as is the case with both the Carolinian and the VA Regionals), not to mention that you've got the Crescent and Silver Service running through the region regardless. I suspect this desire will at least limit the ability to run bilevels in the region, since your trains along these lines will have to be compatible with anything running north of DC and since a notable minority of new trains are quite possibly going to be running north of DC themselves. The big exception to this _might_ be Florida: Though you've got the Silver Service running down there as well, it is quite possible that the solution might be to have the operations down there use bilevels for the corridor service(s) and just have a "fig leaf" high level platform for one or two cars.

I'll note that another thing Amtrak _might_ be able to do with NC, should the latter desire to expand service at some point in the future, is to "sell" them the Horizons as Amtrak acquires new rolling stock. NC is a bit wacky in terms of their equipment, though, so there is _no_ telling what they are going to want to do if they add any frequencies.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

Amtrak Cajun said:


> I think the Horizons would be best suited for the NEC. They would probably be too uncomfortable for long haul use.


problem with Horizons on NEC is they do not have elecric doors or door trainlines/door control stations.


----------



## jis

Dutchrailnut said:


> Amtrak Cajun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Horizons would be best suited for the NEC. They would probably be too uncomfortable for long haul use.
> 
> 
> 
> problem with Horizons on NEC is they do not have elecric doors or door trainlines/door control stations.
Click to expand...

That is precisely why I think Horizons will go to LDs and Medium distance trains before they will go to NEC Regionals. OTOH, Amfleets will definitely go to the NEC Regionals.


----------



## Amtrak Cajun

Thanks for the correction about the Horizon doors. Well, whatever Amtrak decides should be ok. It is fun to speculate though.


----------



## afigg

Amtrak Cajun said:


> Could the new bilevels serve as LD units? Or would Superliner 3's be different enough to warrant seperate orders?


The coach cars could be adopted with LD seats and seat spacing. Which may be the plan, once Amtrak can line up the funding to begin replacement of the Superliner Is. The most serious shortage that Amtrak faces with the Superliners are sleeper cars. The new bi-level car design of course would have to be extensively reconfigured for use as sleeper cars, diner cars, sightseer lounge cars, and trans-dorms if Amtrak want to retain the trans-dorm configuration. All of which would have to be a new order and contract.

Amtrak states in the Fleet Strategy Plan that the plan is to base the Superliner replacements on the new bi-level design and car order. That would mean a bi-level/Superliner III fleet where the LD and corridor cars share the same frame, trucks, windows, many of the same parts which will keep maintenance and spare part inventory costs down.


----------



## afigg

Anderson said:


> Corridor service in the South might or might not go bilevel. At the present time, the big hangup is that for anything running into VA and NC, there's a big desire to run trains up the NEC to at least NYP (as is the case with both the Carolinian and the VA Regionals), not to mention that you've got the Crescent and Silver Service running through the region regardless. I suspect this desire will at least limit the ability to run bilevels in the region, since your trains along these lines will have to be compatible with anything running north of DC and since a notable minority of new trains are quite possibly going to be running north of DC themselves. The big exception to this _might_ be Florida: Though you've got the Silver Service running down there as well, it is quite possible that the solution might be to have the operations down there use bilevels for the corridor service(s) and just have a "fig leaf" high level platform for one or two cars.
> 
> I'll note that another thing Amtrak _might_ be able to do with NC, should the latter desire to expand service at some point in the future, is to "sell" them the Horizons as Amtrak acquires new rolling stock. NC is a bit wacky in terms of their equipment, though, so there is _no_ telling what they are going to want to do if they add any frequencies.


Raleigh, Savannah, Jacksonville FL, and Tampa are all funded to build high level platforms to comply with the recent USDOT mandated level boarding requirement. Whether Jacksonville and Tampa could also retain low level platforms that could be used by Superliners or bi-levels, don't know. What happens to the platforms for the Sunrail commuter stations which will be shared with the Amtrak Silver trains in central Florida, don't know. The USDOT cutoff was February 1, 2012 where the new rule does not apply to construction contracts, including a commitment to a specific design, which were signed before then. The cutoff date probably means the Miami Central Station, which is to get thousand foot long platforms, will be low level, either 8" or 15" ATR.

The USDOT rule for level boarding platforms will have a complicated impact on where the bi-level and single level cars operate. if they have to build two mini-high platforms with ramps and bridgeplates, one for 48" ATR and one for 15" ATR, at each mixed use station, that could get a bit expensive. My guess is that for Amtrak, the east coast from Maine to the northern Florida border will be the domain of single level cars. Florida may see both, depending on what Sunrail and the FEC do.

As for NC, the HSIPR grants provide funding to refurbish additional equipment, enough for a 3rd daily Piedmont and maybe for 4 daily Piedmonts, but I have to check on whether the funding cover 4 daily Piedmonts. Bu the time NC would be looking to acquire additional equipment, a large combined order of new single level coach cars should be underway.


----------



## Amtrak Cajun

Afigg, thank you for the kind explanation there.


----------



## Paulus

My major concern is whether these will weigh the same as the bloated Superliners (why are they and their Hi-Level predecessors so heavy anyhow?) or whether they'll be in line with other bilevel cars and be about 15-20 tons less. It's not a trivial concern as the added weight impairs acceleration and fuel economy.


----------



## jis

Paulus said:


> My major concern is whether these will weigh the same as the bloated Superliners (why are they and their Hi-Level predecessors so heavy anyhow?) or whether they'll be in line with other bilevel cars and be about 15-20 tons less. It's not a trivial concern as the added weight impairs acceleration and fuel economy.


The specification says they must weigh less than 150,000lb (Coach) to 154,000lb (Coach-Baggage). The current Superliners weigh in at something like 148,000lb (Coach). The current California Cars are a little heavier. The California Cars are already capable of 125mph, though they have nowhere to run that fast.

The Go Transit style Bombardier (ex- Hawker-Siddeley) lozenges are about 110,000lb, but generally have less space capacity than Superliners and are also less robust in collisions.

If there was real interest in running an energy efficient operation at 125 mhp then the double decker cars would look and weigh more like the TGV Duplex or the Shinkansen Green Cars, and not the behemoths that the Superliners are. But that is clearly not where the focus is. These cars have to run in the wild west where truck drivers think it is their birth right to plow straight through a train at a grade crossing and such


----------



## Ziv

Follow the link to see what an Amtrak train looks like after being hit by a loaded semi truck yesterday. Not bad. Not one fatality, worst injury appears to be a broken leg that a passenger suffered when they fell. And, as the link suggests, the crossing gate was down. Given that the truck hit the car behind the engine, I would guess the truck lost its brakes. That is a driver that has a story to tell...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/02/crossing-gate-down-in-california-train-crash-amtrak-official-says/


----------



## jis

Ziv said:


> Follow the link to see what an Amtrak train looks like after being hit by a loaded semi truck yesterday. Not bad. Not one fatality, worst injury appears to be a broken leg that a passenger suffered when they fell. And, as the link suggests, the crossing gate was down. Given that the truck hit the car behind the engine, I would guess the truck lost its brakes. That is a driver that has a story to tell...
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/02/crossing-gate-down-in-california-train-crash-amtrak-official-says/


The train was in push mode. The truck hit the car ahead of the engine, so three or four cars behind the lead cab car.


----------



## VentureForth

Ziv said:


> Follow the link to see what an Amtrak train looks like after being hit by a loaded semi truck yesterday. Not bad. Not one fatality, worst injury appears to be a broken leg that a passenger suffered when they fell. And, as the link suggests, the crossing gate was down. Given that the truck hit the car behind the engine, I would guess the truck lost its brakes. That is a driver that has a story to tell...
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/02/crossing-gate-down-in-california-train-crash-amtrak-official-says/


Cool:



> The track, meanwhile, reopened Tuesday morning after crews replaced hundreds of feet of damaged track and some signal equipment, BNSF Railway spokeswoman Lena Kent said. BNSF owns the line.


----------



## Ziv

That would explain why the car on the far left in the photo below looks to be fine. I still have a hard time getting used to the locomotive being in the back of the consist, it seems to be arsey-versey somehow. Not quite cats and dogs living together in harmony kind of wrong, but...

http://ww1.hdnux.com...4/3/628x471.jpg

Just kidding. Sort of.



jis said:


> Ziv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Follow the link to see what an Amtrak train looks like after being hit by a loaded semi truck yesterday. Not bad. Not one fatality, worst injury appears to be a broken leg that a passenger suffered when they fell. And, as the link suggests, the crossing gate was down. Given that the truck hit the car behind the engine, I would guess the truck lost its brakes. That is a driver that has a story to tell...
> 
> http://www.foxnews.c...-official-says/
> 
> 
> 
> The train was in push mode. The truck hit the car ahead of the engine, so three or four cars behind the lead cab car.
Click to expand...


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Dutchrailnut said:


> Amtrak Cajun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Horizons would be best suited for the NEC. They would probably be too uncomfortable for long haul use.
> 
> 
> 
> problem with Horizons on NEC is they do not have elecric doors or door trainlines/door control stations.
Click to expand...

I do not understand, how does that prevent Horizons from being used on the NEC?


----------



## AlanB

Swadian Hardcore said:


> I do not understand, how does that prevent Horizons from being used on the NEC?


On the NEC you can have 9 to 10 car long trains. There are only 2 conductors. There are lots of stops along the way. If the conductors can't hit 1 button to open all the doors at the same time, it's going to be a very big problem. A problem for the riders who want off, a problem for the conductors trying to fight their way through the crowds to open the doors, and a problem for the dispatchers when the train takes 5 to 10 minutes longer per stop to load & unload.

Out in the midwest the Horizon's work because most stops don't need all doors to be opened, except when you get to Chicago. One can get away with the conductors only opening a couple of doors. Can't do that on the NEC.


----------



## PerRock

Railway Age is reporting the Sumitomo is getting the bid for these cars...

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/intercity/sumitomo-eyed-for-multistate-bilevel-order.html?channel=41#.UGw_Efk5xHs



> The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) on Thursday said that, on behalf of the departments of transportation from Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri, it has issued a Notice of Intent to Award to Sumitomo Corp. of America to design, build, and deliver 130 bilevel passenger railcars for use in regional intercity rail corridors in California and the Midwest.


peter


----------



## jis

PerRock said:


> Railway Age is reporting the Sumitomo is getting the bid for these cars...
> 
> http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/intercity/sumitomo-eyed-for-multistate-bilevel-order.html?channel=41#.UGw_Efk5xHs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) on Thursday said that, on behalf of the departments of transportation from Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri, it has issued a Notice of Intent to Award to Sumitomo Corp. of America to design, build, and deliver 130 bilevel passenger railcars for use in regional intercity rail corridors in California and the Midwest.
> 
> 
> 
> peter
Click to expand...

This has been discussed before. It is a jointly owned subsidiary of Sumitomo and Nippo-Sharyo, such that both can claim to be getting the order. The ways of Japanese Kairetsus are hard to decipher sometimes.


----------



## Anderson

AlanB said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not understand, how does that prevent Horizons from being used on the NEC?
> 
> 
> 
> On the NEC you can have 9 to 10 car long trains. There are only 2 conductors. There are lots of stops along the way. If the conductors can't hit 1 button to open all the doors at the same time, it's going to be a very big problem. A problem for the riders who want off, a problem for the conductors trying to fight their way through the crowds to open the doors, and a problem for the dispatchers when the train takes 5 to 10 minutes longer per stop to load & unload.
> 
> Out in the midwest the Horizon's work because most stops don't need all doors to be opened, except when you get to Chicago. One can get away with the conductors only opening a couple of doors. Can't do that on the NEC.
Click to expand...

This is something I've only learned recently (the problem with the Horizons). With that said, I _could_ see Horizons put on a few of the oddball trains in the region (such as 66/67, which is both shorter than your average Regional and not in any big hurry due to the need to arrive at WAS and BOS at decent times or the NHV-SPG Shuttle) or on some routes attached to the NEC (such as the NYP-ALB Empire trains or the Downeaster) that run shorter consists.


----------



## Nathanael

Anderson said:


> This is something I've only learned recently (the problem with the Horizons). With that said, I _could_ see Horizons put on a few of the oddball trains in the region (such as 66/67, which is both shorter than your average Regional and not in any big hurry due to the need to arrive at WAS and BOS at decent times or the NHV-SPG Shuttle) or on some routes attached to the NEC (such as the NYP-ALB Empire trains or the Downeaster) that run shorter consists.


Perhaps the Carolinian and Palmetto are the most likely choices, along with 66/67.


----------



## jis

Nathanael said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is something I've only learned recently (the problem with the Horizons). With that said, I _could_ see Horizons put on a few of the oddball trains in the region (such as 66/67, which is both shorter than your average Regional and not in any big hurry due to the need to arrive at WAS and BOS at decent times or the NHV-SPG Shuttle) or on some routes attached to the NEC (such as the NYP-ALB Empire trains or the Downeaster) that run shorter consists.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the Carolinian and Palmetto are the most likely choices, along with 66/67.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the few Amfleet Is could be substituted by Horizons on the Palmetto. Palmetto carries some two or three Amfleet IIs too. Palmetto is officially an LD train though it does not travel overnight. It is also one of the fastest LD trains, and if CSX could dispatch a little more dependably, it could be a bit faster too.


----------



## bmorechris

I for one hope this is not a one-and-done order, and that it will lead to a sustained long-term program of Superliner long distance equipment replacement as well as additional corridor equipment. (unfortunately "long-term" seems to be a dirty word in Amtrak land due to the whims of politicians). Looking at the specification, they have notional designs for a coach, cab/baggage/coach, and cafe. It should be pretty simply to make any necessary mods to allow the same carbody to be used for long distance cars (converting to single doors on each side, having only one staircase between levels). Even if it was only a few cars a month, if it could be sustained for years it would go a long way towards updating the fleet. (I hope the same happens with the Viewliner II line, continue to churn out additional cars (including Viewliner coaches) for years to begin replacement of the single level fleet.)


----------



## Anderson

bmorechris said:


> I for one hope this is not a one-and-done order, and that it will lead to a sustained long-term program of Superliner long distance equipment replacement as well as additional corridor equipment. (unfortunately "long-term" seems to be a dirty word in Amtrak land due to the whims of politicians). Looking at the specification, they have notional designs for a coach, cab/baggage/coach, and cafe. It should be pretty simply to make any necessary mods to allow the same carbody to be used for long distance cars (converting to single doors on each side, having only one staircase between levels). Even if it was only a few cars a month, if it could be sustained for years it would go a long way towards updating the fleet. (I hope the same happens with the Viewliner II line, continue to churn out additional cars (including Viewliner coaches) for years to begin replacement of the single level fleet.)


Well, if the $2.5bn/year HSR plan hadn't been scrapped, there'd be a reasonably steady source of money for orders (200 cars every 3-4 years would probably support a small industry).


----------



## NE933

bmorechris said:


> I hope the same happens with the Viewliner II line, continue to churn out additional cars (including Viewliner coaches) for years to begin replacement of the single level fleet.


Amtrak will likely wait a little with more Viewliners, not only account for the annual clown A.H. fighting in Congress, but also to see how the first batch of cars turns out. Because the Viewliner project was forced into moribund status for over two decades, what is coming out from CAF are de facto prototypes. I would want to see CAF's product and how it performs before exercising the options for more; of course, not wait forever either.


----------



## bmorechris

NE933 said:


> Amtrak will likely wait a little with more Viewliners, not only account for the annual clown A.H. fighting in Congress, but also to see how the first batch of cars turns out. Because the Viewliner project was forced into moribund status for over two decades, what is coming out from CAF are de facto prototypes. I would want to see CAF's product and how it performs before exercising the options for more; of course, not wait forever either.


Agree they should wait and assess the performance of the new cars, correct any deficiencies, and then go from there. I don't know off the top of my head nor can find the info right now, but would assume delivery for the cars would take place over 2-3 years, so by the second half of the delivery schedule they should at least have some idea about how the cars are performing.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

AlanB said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not understand, how does that prevent Horizons from being used on the NEC?
> 
> 
> 
> On the NEC you can have 9 to 10 car long trains. There are only 2 conductors. There are lots of stops along the way. If the conductors can't hit 1 button to open all the doors at the same time, it's going to be a very big problem. A problem for the riders who want off, a problem for the conductors trying to fight their way through the crowds to open the doors, and a problem for the dispatchers when the train takes 5 to 10 minutes longer per stop to load & unload.
> 
> Out in the midwest the Horizon's work because most stops don't need all doors to be opened, except when you get to Chicago. One can get away with the conductors only opening a couple of doors. Can't do that on the NEC.
Click to expand...

Looks like they will go to the FEC, then.


----------



## jis

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Looks like they will go to the FEC, then.


Huh?


----------



## Paulus

Swadian Hardcore said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not understand, how does that prevent Horizons from being used on the NEC?
> 
> 
> 
> On the NEC you can have 9 to 10 car long trains. There are only 2 conductors. There are lots of stops along the way. If the conductors can't hit 1 button to open all the doors at the same time, it's going to be a very big problem. A problem for the riders who want off, a problem for the conductors trying to fight their way through the crowds to open the doors, and a problem for the dispatchers when the train takes 5 to 10 minutes longer per stop to load & unload.
> 
> Out in the midwest the Horizon's work because most stops don't need all doors to be opened, except when you get to Chicago. One can get away with the conductors only opening a couple of doors. Can't do that on the NEC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like they will go to the FEC, then.
Click to expand...

FEC isn't going to want them at all.


----------



## MikefromCrete

Swadian Hardcore said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not understand, how does that prevent Horizons from being used on the NEC?
> 
> 
> 
> On the NEC you can have 9 to 10 car long trains. There are only 2 conductors. There are lots of stops along the way. If the conductors can't hit 1 button to open all the doors at the same time, it's going to be a very big problem. A problem for the riders who want off, a problem for the conductors trying to fight their way through the crowds to open the doors, and a problem for the dispatchers when the train takes 5 to 10 minutes longer per stop to load & unload.
> 
> Out in the midwest the Horizon's work because most stops don't need all doors to be opened, except when you get to Chicago. One can get away with the conductors only opening a couple of doors. Can't do that on the NEC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like they will go to the FEC, then.
Click to expand...

What? If anything, FEC might be interested in the Wisconsin Talgos, but I don't think they would want to start up their high speed service with a bunch of upgraded commuter cars.


----------



## afigg

MikefromCrete said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like they will go to the FEC, then.
> 
> 
> 
> What? If anything, FEC might be interested in the Wisconsin Talgos, but I don't think they would want to start up their high speed service with a bunch of upgraded commuter cars.
Click to expand...

A source of confusion when referring to the FEC is whether the reference is to the FECI plan for a Miami-Orlando corridor or the state of Florida plans for a Miami to Jacksonville service over the FEC.

The FECI would have little interest in the Horizons for their planned Miami-Orlando service. They want to sell tickets to customers traveling between luxury cruise ships and Orlando resorts. They will want new modern equipment. On the other hand, if Amtrak runs a Miami-Jacksonville corridor train for the state of Florida, Amtrak might offer Horizons for the trainsets while Florida decides whether to order new rolling stock. The question for Swadian is which one was he referring to?


----------



## Nathanael

bmorechris said:


> NE933 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak will likely wait a little with more Viewliners, not only account for the annual clown A.H. fighting in Congress, but also to see how the first batch of cars turns out. Because the Viewliner project was forced into moribund status for over two decades, what is coming out from CAF are de facto prototypes. I would want to see CAF's product and how it performs before exercising the options for more; of course, not wait forever either.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree they should wait and assess the performance of the new cars, correct any deficiencies, and then go from there. I don't know off the top of my head nor can find the info right now, but would assume delivery for the cars would take place over 2-3 years, so by the second half of the delivery schedule they should at least have some idea about how the cars are performing.
Click to expand...

Nope. The new Viewliners will go into service over the course of less than 15 months according to the fleet plan. (The delivery rate is probably slightly longer, maybe 18 months, because the first few cars will get a lot of testing before use.) Basically, if Amtrak wants to exercise its options on this order, it has a fairly narrow decision window; shortly after the first cars are in service they'll have to decide.

That won't happen until late next year though.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

afigg said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like they will go to the FEC, then.
> 
> 
> 
> What? If anything, FEC might be interested in the Wisconsin Talgos, but I don't think they would want to start up their high speed service with a bunch of upgraded commuter cars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A source of confusion when referring to the FEC is whether the reference is to the FECI plan for a Miami-Orlando corridor or the state of Florida plans for a Miami to Jacksonville service over the FEC.
> 
> The FECI would have little interest in the Horizons for their planned Miami-Orlando service. They want to sell tickets to customers traveling between luxury cruise ships and Orlando resorts. They will want new modern equipment. On the other hand, if Amtrak runs a Miami-Jacksonville corridor train for the state of Florida, Amtrak might offer Horizons for the trainsets while Florida decides whether to order new rolling stock. The question for Swadian is which one was he referring to?
Click to expand...

Sorry about the confusion! I was talking about proposed Amtrak service JAX-MIA on the FEC.


----------



## MikefromCrete

Swadian Hardcore said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like they will go to the FEC, then.
> 
> 
> 
> What? If anything, FEC might be interested in the Wisconsin Talgos, but I don't think they would want to start up their high speed service with a bunch of upgraded commuter cars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A source of confusion when referring to the FEC is whether the reference is to the FECI plan for a Miami-Orlando corridor or the state of Florida plans for a Miami to Jacksonville service over the FEC.
> 
> The FECI would have little interest in the Horizons for their planned Miami-Orlando service. They want to sell tickets to customers traveling between luxury cruise ships and Orlando resorts. They will want new modern equipment. On the other hand, if Amtrak runs a Miami-Jacksonville corridor train for the state of Florida, Amtrak might offer Horizons for the trainsets while Florida decides whether to order new rolling stock. The question for Swadian is which one was he referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry about the confusion! I was talking about proposed Amtrak service JAX-MIA on the FEC.
Click to expand...

Well that makes sense. I had forgotten about the proposed Amtrak service JAX-MIA. The Horizons would be good on that run since they would never freeze up.


----------



## afigg

Well, it is official in that the contract to Nippon-Sharyo and Sumitomo has been awarded. They have passed the audit and review phase, so the $352 million contract is a done deal.

Progressive Railroading news: Illinois Gov. Quinn announces $352 million rail-car contract for high-speed lines

Now it will be a long wait until 2015 before the first cars are delivered. In the meantime, given the amount of federal funds left over from the 130 car order, we will probably hear about additional cars being ordered as options to the base 130 car contract.


----------



## MARC Rider

Anderson said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not understand, how does that prevent Horizons from being used on the NEC?
> 
> 
> 
> On the NEC you can have 9 to 10 car long trains. There are only 2 conductors. There are lots of stops along the way. If the conductors can't hit 1 button to open all the doors at the same time, it's going to be a very big problem. A problem for the riders who want off, a problem for the conductors trying to fight their way through the crowds to open the doors, and a problem for the dispatchers when the train takes 5 to 10 minutes longer per stop to load & unload.
> 
> Out in the midwest the Horizon's work because most stops don't need all doors to be opened, except when you get to Chicago. One can get away with the conductors only opening a couple of doors. Can't do that on the NEC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is something I've only learned recently (the problem with the Horizons). With that said, I _could_ see Horizons put on a few of the oddball trains in the region (such as 66/67, which is both shorter than your average Regional and not in any big hurry due to the need to arrive at WAS and BOS at decent times or the NHV-SPG Shuttle) or on some routes attached to the NEC (such as the NYP-ALB Empire trains or the Downeaster) that run shorter consists.
Click to expand...


I've seen Horizons on the Vermonter in the winter.I hear it was because they have swing-out doors can that can be opened when the icy snow freezes up the electric doors on the Amfleets. But then, they run excluvely Amfleets in upstate New York where there's as much snow as there is in Vermont.


----------



## afigg

There was an official contract signing ceremony at the Nippom-Sharyo plant with a bunch of VIPS in attendance.. Secretary LaHood posited a Fast Lane blog about it about the cars coming in 36% below the $550 million set aside by the FRA. Figure some of the $198 million left over gets used for management and oversight.

But if there is, say, $180 million left over, how would you allocate it? I figure buy some more corridor bi-levels, but remember the stimulus funds have to be fully spent by September 2017, Amtrak has a lot of equipment needs. I wonder if the FRA could re-allocate some of the remaining funds towards a purchase of single level cars because CAF should complete delivery of the Viewliner II order by 2015?


----------



## Paulus

Simply buy more cars for CA and Midwest.


----------



## PerRock

This press release seemed to have gotten missed. and it's pretty big one, as it contains a nice render of the cars. From Nippon-Sharyo:



> *Nippon Sharyo and Sumitomo Corporation receive the Contract Award for 130 Bi-Level Passenger Cars from Caltrans and IDOT*
> 
> *November 6, 2012 *
> 
> On November 6th, 2012, The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) awarded the contract for 130 High-Speed Bi-Level Passenger Railcars to be built by Nippon Sharyo and the prime contractor Sumitomo Corporation of America (SCOA). The contract includes a base order of 130 railcars for $352 million along with an option to purchase an additional 300 railcars for $898 million, bringing the contract total to $1.25 billion.









peter


----------



## Anderson

Interesting design. I do like the window design up top, though downstairs looks odd (as there are two sets of doors and I'm used to seeing bilevels with just a single set). Also just wondering, but is that a cab car being depicted on the end there? It looks like it.


----------



## trainman74

Anderson said:


> I do like the window design up top, though downstairs looks odd (as there are two sets of doors and I'm used to seeing bilevels with just a single set). Also just wondering, but is that a cab car being depicted on the end there? It looks like it.


You need to spend more time in California, home of the 2-door bilevel!

Yes, I'm sure that's supposed to be a cab car.


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> Interesting design. I do like the window design up top, though downstairs looks odd (as there are two sets of doors and I'm used to seeing bilevels with just a single set). Also just wondering, but is that a cab car being depicted on the end there? It looks like it.


It is a cab car, and California Cars all have two doors per side.


----------



## Ryan

Yeah, the headlights, horn and window wiper are a dead giveaway.


----------



## afigg

PerRock said:


> This press release seemed to have gotten missed. and it's pretty big one, as it contains a nice render of the cars. From Nippon-Sharyo:


Thanks for finding. Should have looked for the N-S press release when the contract was signed. For those interested, the webpage with the N-S press release and render image is here.

What we get from the N-S press release is the total cost of the 300 car option is $898 million or $3 million per car. A lot less than the $4.5 million, albeit loaded with overhead, spare parts. placeholder price for bi-levels stated in the Fleet Strategy plans.

If Amtrak were to order 150 or 200 coach cars with seats configured for LD trains as part of a Superliner I replacement order via the option, that would cost from $450 to $600 million. Amtrak would have to place a separate Superliner I replacement order for sleeper, diner, sightseer lounge, trans-dorm cars based on the the bi-level corridor car frame.


----------



## Texan Eagle

afigg said:


> PerRock said:
> 
> 
> 
> This press release seemed to have gotten missed. and it's pretty big one, as it contains a nice render of the cars. From Nippon-Sharyo:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for finding. Should have looked for the N-S press release when the contract was signed. For those interested, the webpage with the N-S press release and render image is here.
Click to expand...

Are these cars for corridor services? Looks like existing Caltrain Gallery cars (that were also manufactured by Nippon Sharyo) but with two doors instead of one.


----------



## PerRock

They're primarily for Midwest Corridor services (Like the Wolverine) and a few are going to Cali.

peter


----------



## afigg

Texan Eagle said:


> Are these cars for corridor services? Looks like existing Caltrain Gallery cars (that were also manufactured by Nippon Sharyo) but with two doors instead of one.


Yes. These are called the bi-level corridor cars. Of the current 130 car order, 42 will be going to California and 88 will be used on the Illinois, Michigan, Missouri corridor trains.


----------



## George Harris

Ryan said:


> Yeah, the headlights, horn and window wiper are a dead giveaway.


On the current California bi-levels, the horn is mounted on the roof, dead center, unlike the low mounting shown here. I would question whether this low mounting would provide sufficient sound projection. The roof mounting does make for an overall height of right at 17 feet zero inches, since the roof height is 16'-2".


----------



## jis

Texan Eagle said:


> Are these cars for corridor services? Looks like existing Caltrain Gallery cars (that were also manufactured by Nippon Sharyo) but with two doors instead of one.


These are not Gallery Cars. They are bi-levels like the Amtrak California Cars, And yes, they are meant to be used in Corridor trains and not LD trains.


----------



## PerRock

George Harris said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the headlights, horn and window wiper are a dead giveaway.
> 
> 
> 
> On the current California bi-levels, the horn is mounted on the roof, dead center, unlike the low mounting shown here. I would question whether this low mounting would provide sufficient sound projection. The roof mounting does make for an overall height of right at 17 feet zero inches, since the roof height is 16'-2".
Click to expand...

Actually that isn't quite true. There are 3 different California Cab Car designs out there. Some have the horns on the roofs others, have them embedded down below like the NS-render.


----------



## Anderson

Ryan said:


> Yeah, the headlights, horn and window wiper are a dead giveaway.


The wiper and headlights I got. I didn't know if the horn was some sort of spare electrical hookup.


----------



## Amtrak Cajun

Pretty nice image rendering.


----------



## MattW

Not sure I like the angled appearance too much. When leading it probably won't be too bad, but if they ever had to put another car off the end of the cab car, it wouldn't look that great in my opinion unless the other car were a cab car, and even that would look a little funny. Don't get me wrong, I'm firmly in the function over form camp, but there is an advantage to having a flat cab car. Then again, I also think the boxy Metra/South Shore new Highliners are some of the best looking modern trains around...


----------



## Ryan

PerRock said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the headlights, horn and window wiper are a dead giveaway.
> 
> 
> 
> On the current California bi-levels, the horn is mounted on the roof, dead center, unlike the low mounting shown here. I would question whether this low mounting would provide sufficient sound projection. The roof mounting does make for an overall height of right at 17 feet zero inches, since the roof height is 16'-2".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that isn't quite true. There are 3 different California Cab Car designs out there. Some have the horns on the roofs others, have them embedded down below like the NS-render.
Click to expand...

Correct!


----------



## X

PerRock said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the headlights, horn and window wiper are a dead giveaway.
> 
> 
> 
> On the current California bi-levels, the horn is mounted on the roof, dead center, unlike the low mounting shown here. I would question whether this low mounting would provide sufficient sound projection. The roof mounting does make for an overall height of right at 17 feet zero inches, since the roof height is 16'-2".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that isn't quite true. There are 3 different California Cab Car designs out there. Some have the horns on the roofs others, have them embedded down below like the NS-render.
Click to expand...

There's only two types, California cars and Surfliner cars, Cal cars have the horn on the roof, Surfliners have it at ear level as pictured.


----------



## PerRock

There have been three batches made. First batch (6000 series) are made by Alstom, have a roof mounted horn, and are in the AmCal paint. The second and third batches (8000 series) are made by Bombardier, have the embedded horn, the first set of 8000s are in AmCal, the last set in Surfliner & AmCal.

Peter

Photo comparison:

http://www.trainweb.org/chris/photos/cze13.jpg

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2295/5827064779_75c8b79462_z.jpg

http://acm.jhu.edu/~sthurmovik/Railpics/12-06-13_CAPITOL_CORRIDOR/Amt_6962-Oakland.jpg


----------



## Paulus

MattW said:


> Not sure I like the angled appearance too much. When leading it probably won't be too bad, but if they ever had to put another car off the end of the cab car, it wouldn't look that great in my opinion unless the other car were a cab car, and even that would look a little funny. Don't get me wrong, I'm firmly in the function over form camp, but there is an advantage to having a flat cab car. Then again, I also think the boxy Metra/South Shore new Highliners are some of the best looking modern trains around...


I suspect that in operation of the current California Cars, they've seen no reason to put another car behind the cab car. Metrolink in SoCal also has rounded their new cab cars (and in my opinion, it's a better looking design than this wedge).


----------



## Trogdor

Paulus said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure I like the angled appearance too much. When leading it probably won't be too bad, but if they ever had to put another car off the end of the cab car, it wouldn't look that great in my opinion unless the other car were a cab car, and even that would look a little funny. Don't get me wrong, I'm firmly in the function over form camp, but there is an advantage to having a flat cab car. Then again, I also think the boxy Metra/South Shore new Highliners are some of the best looking modern trains around...
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that in operation of the current California Cars, they've seen no reason to put another car behind the cab car. Metrolink in SoCal also has rounded their new cab cars (and in my opinion, it's a better looking design than this wedge).
Click to expand...

There's a key difference between the two cab designs. The Metrolink design does not allow any pass through from the cab car to another car. The N-S cab cars, even with the slightly angled cab ends (assuming they ultimately get built that way, and they're not just artistic license of who ever made the image for the press release) will still allow pass-through to the next car.

There are numerous occasions where cab cars get coupled to additional coaches. The Del Mar season is one example.


----------



## BCL

PerRock said:


> There have been three batches made. First batch (6000 series) are made by Alstom, have a roof mounted horn, and are in the AmCal paint. The second and third batches (8000 series) are made by Bombardier, have the embedded horn, the first set of 8000s are in AmCal, the last set in Surfliner & AmCal.
> 
> Peter
> 
> Photo comparison:
> 
> http://www.trainweb....hotos/cze13.jpg
> 
> http://farm3.staticf...5c8b79462_z.jpg
> 
> http://acm.jhu.edu/~...962-Oakland.jpg


I thought the 8000 series cars were made by Morrison Knudsen and rebuilt by Siemens. I've been on them, and I could have sworn I saw a Morrison Knudsen plate near the door.


----------



## X

BCL said:


> PerRock said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been three batches made. First batch (6000 series) are made by Alstom, have a roof mounted horn, and are in the AmCal paint. The second and third batches (8000 series) are made by Bombardier, have the embedded horn, the first set of 8000s are in AmCal, the last set in Surfliner & AmCal.
> 
> Peter
> 
> Photo comparison:
> 
> http://www.trainweb....hotos/cze13.jpg
> 
> http://farm3.staticf...5c8b79462_z.jpg
> 
> http://acm.jhu.edu/~...962-Oakland.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the 8000 series cars were made by Morrison Knudsen and rebuilt by Siemens. I've been on them, and I could have sworn I saw a Morrison Knudsen plate near the door.
Click to expand...

Correct.

M-K built the 8000 series California Cars and went bankrupt halfway though, forcing the bonding company to finish the order as Amerail. Alstom then bought Amerail and later built the 6000 series Surfliner cars. The Surfliner cars are divided into three groups, 6xxx cars for Amtrak _Pacific Surfliners_ pool, 6x5x cars for Caltrans contribution to the _Pac Surfs_ pool, and 6x6x cars for Caltrans to join the California cars in the _Capitol Corridor_ / _San Joaquins_ pool.

California cars have the horn on top, Surfliners down low.

http://on-track-on-l...surfnames.shtml

http://on-track-on-l...-newsurfs.shtml


----------



## George Harris

X said:


> PerRock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the headlights, horn and window wiper are a dead giveaway.
> 
> 
> 
> On the current California bi-levels, the horn is mounted on the roof, dead center, unlike the low mounting shown here. I would question whether this low mounting would provide sufficient sound projection. The roof mounting does make for an overall height of right at 17 feet zero inches, since the roof height is 16'-2".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that isn't quite true. There are 3 different California Cab Car designs out there. Some have the horns on the roofs others, have them embedded down below like the NS-render.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's only two types, California cars and Surfliner cars, Cal cars have the horn on the roof, Surfliners have it at ear level as pictured.
Click to expand...

Duly noted. Thank you. All the ones I have seen and taken note of have been on runs between Emeryville and Fresno and have had the center roof mounted horn.


----------



## cirdan

Trogdor said:


> There's a key difference between the two cab designs. The Metrolink design does not allow any pass through from the cab car to another car. The N-S cab cars, even with the slightly angled cab ends (assuming they ultimately get built that way, and they're not just artistic license of who ever made the image for the press release) will still allow pass-through to the next car.
> 
> There are numerous occasions where cab cars get coupled to additional coaches. The Del Mar season is one example.


Cab cars with pass-through/diaphragms are rarely (if ever) good-looking.

(maybe the danish and Dutch example constitute an exception here, but that's also a matter of taste)

But they are extremely useful as they allow cab cars to be used as intermediate cars if the need arises.

Thus function triumphs over form.


----------



## Ryan

MARC's cab cars look almost undistinguishable from the regular trailer cars.


----------



## X

George Harris said:


> X said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PerRock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the headlights, horn and window wiper are a dead giveaway.
> 
> 
> 
> On the current California bi-levels, the horn is mounted on the roof, dead center, unlike the low mounting shown here. I would question whether this low mounting would provide sufficient sound projection. The roof mounting does make for an overall height of right at 17 feet zero inches, since the roof height is 16'-2".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that isn't quite true. There are 3 different California Cab Car designs out there. Some have the horns on the roofs others, have them embedded down below like the NS-render.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's only two types, California cars and Surfliner cars, Cal cars have the horn on the roof, Surfliners have it at ear level as pictured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duly noted. Thank you. All the ones I have seen and taken note of have been on runs between Emeryville and Fresno and have had the center roof mounted horn.
Click to expand...

Your welcome.

The 5 Surfliner Cab / Baggage cars in the NorCal pool have generally been kept on the _Capitol Corridors_ when possible in recent years, due to their greater bicycle carrying capacity. This will change when the conversion of California Cab cars into Surfliner style Cab / Baggage cars is complete, as both types will then be inter-changable.


----------



## roadman3313

Bike capacity is a hot button issue on the Capitol Corridor. Just overheard a passenger debating with the conductor the other day about the bike capacity policies. The new "double stop" policy at Berkeley was meant to try to help the over crowding of bicycles as an interim measure so hopefully the new cars will have Bike Capacity included as well as the luggage racks so they can be interchangable between the SJ and CC.


----------



## Paulus

I wonder if California will refit some of the older cars as bike cars, like Metrolink has (the lower level becomes all bicycle accomodation).


----------



## afigg

A search did not turn up a more recent thread specifically on the Nippon-Sharyo bi-level car order, so I guess I will resurrect this one with news I came across on the FRA eLibary webpage. There was a ribbon-cutting ceremony at a new Shop 3 at the Rochelle plant on Wednesday, July 30 with the head of the FRA and the Governor of Illinois present. I have not yet found a newspaper article with much info or photos on the event beyond the press releases, so I will just post links to the press releases. The trade press should have reports on the event soon.

The major news beyond that the production plant is gearing up is that both the FRA and Governor's press release mention the placing an option order for 45 additional cars which make it sound as if the 45 cars option is close to a done deal. 34 cars are to go to the Midwest and 11 to CA. So the total order will be for 175 corridor bi-level cars which will provide a pretty big boost in seat capacity for the Midwest and CA corridors.

FRA Administrator Joe Szabo prepared remarks. (FRA eLIbary page)

Illinois press release: Governor Quinn and Company Officials Open Nippon Sharyo Expansion in Rochelle

Quote from the Illinois press release:



> Caltrans and IDOT will soon finalize an additional option order with Nippon Sharyo that will enable Illinois to add another 34 cars to its fleet, for a total of 122 cars coming to the Midwest. Caltrans will buy an additional 11 cars, bringing their allocation to 53. This procurement will result in 175 new railcars being produced at Nippon Sharyo.
> 
> The 122 Midwestern railcars will allow all existing Midwestern routes to be equipped with new railcars, including service to St. Louis, Milwaukee, Carbondale, Quincy, Chicago-Pontiac, Chicago-Grand Rapids, Chicago-Port Huron and St. Louis-Kansas City. In addition, the new Moline and Rockford corridors will also be outfitted with new equipment.


----------



## neroden

That is major news. Let's think about this for a minute. The previous arrangement was:

- 42 California

- 88 Midwest

With the option, this becomes:

- 53 California

- 122 Midwest

Midwest numbers were, previously, kind of tight for equipping the IL, MO, and MI lines with three-car trains, with not much in the way of spares. Calfornia numbers were very tight and mostly replaced the existing leased and Comet cars.

But now! My goodness. Let me count the consists:

- 2 Missouri River Runner

- 2 Pere Marquette

- 2 Blue Water

- 3 Wolverine

- 2 Illini/Saluki

- 4 Lincoln Service

- 2 Quincy

- 2 Quad Cities

- 2 Rockford (/Dubuque)

- 2 Hiawatha (since the press release explicitly mentions Milwaukee service)

- 2 Hoosier State (since the press release says 'all' Midwestern routes; maybe Indiana will lease 'em)

====

25 consists

* 3 cars / consist

----

75 cars

+ 20% for "shop count"

----

90

122 means a lot of extra cars. Even if every consist is immediately beefed up to 4 cars (which seems highly unlikely in the near term), the total needed after shop count would still only be 120.

Illinois is going to have enough cars to lease to its neighbors for a few years.

I now begin to believe the claims that Michigan is planning extra frequencies soon on both the Pere Marquette and the Wolverines. I suspect the sticking point on that will be Porter to Chicago -- here's hoping the passenger route South of the Lake gets built ASAP. And if UP agrees we may get those additional St. Louis-Chicago frequencies fairly soon too. There will probably be enough cars to support a few additional services such as MSP-Chicago or Iowa City, should those be funded.

Meanwhile, in California the high number of cars also seems to allow for some expansion; something like 35-42 cars will be needed to replace the Amfleets, Comets, and leased Superliners, but the extra cars beyond that should allow for the formation of at least one additional consist, maybe two.

With so many cars, we should expect to see all the Superliners return to long-distance service. We should also expect to see all the Amfleets return to the East Coast. The entire Horizon fleet will be redundant in the Midwest; it really has to go to the East Coast, as I can't see where else it would go. I suppose Amtrak had better start retrofitting the Horizons for NEC service, or to beef up the single-level LD trains, or something. They need retrofits for either role.


----------



## MisterUptempo

Just a small note. I was on IDOT's HSR page today, and ran across this presentation given to the Arlington Heights Rotary Club-

http://www.idothsr.org/pdf/arlingtonheights_rotaryclub_presentation_071514_final.pdf

If you go to page 15 of the presentation it states that there will be six new sets of equipment for Chicago to St. Louis, not four.

So, that might change the calculus of your railcar assignments. By the way, that quote appears on at least three presentations IDOT has made in the last two weeks. The page also includes another rendering of the Siemens Charger Locomotive and what might (MIGHT) be a shot of a new bi-level being assembled. It could also be a Metra Electric Highliner.


----------



## MikefromCrete

MisterUptempo said:


> Just a small note. I was on IDOT's HSR page today, and ran across this presentation given to the Arlington Heights Rotary Club-
> 
> http://www.idothsr.org/pdf/arlingtonheights_rotaryclub_presentation_071514_final.pdf
> 
> If you go to page 15 of the presentation it states that there will be six new sets of equipment for Chicago to St. Louis, not four.
> 
> So, that might change the calculus of your railcar assignments. By the way, that quote appears on at least three presentations IDOT has made in the last two weeks. The page also includes another rendering of the Siemens Charger Locomotive and what might (MIGHT) be a shot of a new bi-level being assembled. It could also be a Metra Electric Highliner.


That's not a Highliner, since access from car to car on the Highliner is on the lower level and there's no equipment area on the lower level, so it might be a Midwest/California bilevel.


----------



## Paulus

neroden said:


> Meanwhile, in California the high number of cars also seems to allow for some expansion; something like 35-42 cars will be needed to replace the Amfleets, Comets, and leased Superliners, but the extra cars beyond that should allow for the formation of at least one additional consist, maybe two.


Nope. Need to look at car types too. California is getting 5 cafe cars and three cabbages, only one of each is for new capacity rather than replacing Amtrak owned equipment (almost certainly for an already planned service expansion on the San Joaquins). Surfliner is getting 10 coaches for new capacity, they'll simply be adding a car to each of the 9 existing consists. And be slow as all get out accelerating with a single F59PHI hauling 7 Surfliners.


----------



## afigg

MisterUptempo said:


> Just a small note. I was on IDOT's HSR page today, and ran across this presentation given to the Arlington Heights Rotary Club-
> 
> http://www.idothsr.org/pdf/arlingtonheights_rotaryclub_presentation_071514_final.pdf
> 
> If you go to page 15 of the presentation it states that there will be six new sets of equipment for Chicago to St. Louis, not four.
> 
> So, that might change the calculus of your railcar assignments. By the way, that quote appears on at least three presentations IDOT has made in the last two weeks. The page also includes another rendering of the Siemens Charger Locomotive and what might (MIGHT) be a shot of a new bi-level being assembled. It could also be a Metra Electric Highliner.


Good find on the hot off the press IDOT presentation.

The HSIPR grant award for the Chicago - St Louis corridor included rolling stock for 6 trainsets including diesel locomotives, so that is how the formal order allocation was structured. The reality is that all of the funding for the Midwest corridor bi-levels is federal money from multiple stimulus and FY2010 HSIPR grants, but the 88 + 34 cars will effectively be going to a joint state Midwest equipment pool. The CHI-STL corridor is stuck at 4 daily frequencies unless UP relents and allows another daily train or more funds are found for double tracking more of the corridor, so the Lincoln service will need only 4 consists plus the equivalent of a spare consist. If CHI-STL trip times are reduced to ~4.5 hours, 4 consists for 4 daily frequencies is not the most efficient use of equipment, but they may stay with that until more track improvements are done.

The photo on page 15 of the IDOT presentation shows a bi-level shell with a high door, so it could indeed be a prototype test frame or a first production article shell for the corridor bi-levels.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Personally, (wait for it) I prefer my Sharyos to be Kinki.


----------



## afigg

neroden said:


> Illinois is going to have enough cars to lease to its neighbors for a few years.
> 
> I now begin to believe the claims that Michigan is planning extra frequencies soon on both the Pere Marquette and the Wolverines. I suspect the sticking point on that will be Porter to Chicago -- here's hoping the passenger route South of the Lake gets built ASAP. And if UP agrees we may get those additional St. Louis-Chicago frequencies fairly soon too. There will probably be enough cars to support a few additional services such as MSP-Chicago or Iowa City, should those be funded.
> 
> Meanwhile, in California the high number of cars also seems to allow for some expansion; something like 35-42 cars will be needed to replace the Amfleets, Comets, and leased Superliners, but the extra cars beyond that should allow for the formation of at least one additional consist, maybe two.


As I mentioned above, the corridor bi-levels brought for the Midwest are funded entirely with federal money. Illinois DOT is the lead agency representing the 3 Midwest states (IL, MI, MO), so I doubt that the 88 + 34 cars will be "owned" by IL. I expect they will be owned by a joint Midwest multi-state authority set up to own ad provide the bi-level and Next Gen diesel locomotive fleet. If service to Milwaukee is covered by the 34 additional cars, then the FRA may have taken pity on Wisconsin and allowed them to join in, so the Horizons can be entirely removed from Midwest corridor service to have more reliable equipment in winter weather. Of course, this does not include the Hoosier State, but it appears that the Hoosier State is going to be dropped or will use other equipment.
As for the South of the Lake route, that is likely to be a billion dollar plus project. Until the federal faucet is turned on again for intercity passenger rail projects, I expect it will languish. The TIGER grant program is not large enough to do much for a new South of the Lake route.

CA is providing $22.8 million in state funds towards the purchase cost of the 42 cars in the baseline order, so the state has an ownership stake in the new bi-levels intended for CA. Perhaps the 11 additional cars are intended to support the return of the Coast Daylight, but that may be optimistic.


----------



## PRR 60

afigg said:


> ...
> 
> CA is providing $22.8 million in state funds towards the purchase cost of the 42 cars in the baseline order, so the state has an ownership stake in the new bi-levels intended for CA. Perhaps the 11 additional cars are intended to support the return of the Coast Daylight, but that may be optimistic.


As far as I know, all the involved states will have ownership of their cars regardless of whether the cars were procured with federal grants. These will not be Amtrak cars, and Amtrak will not have control over the assignment of cars among the various state services (a power Amtrak wanted to be granted). California's direct contribution must be for the procurement of cars over and above those paid by the feds.


----------



## jis

With a few corrections and additional info....



neroden said:


> But now! My goodness. Let me count the consists:
> 
> - 2 Missouri River Runner
> 
> - 2 Pere Marquette
> 
> - 1 Blue Water (not 2 as previously stated)
> 
> - 3 Wolverine
> 
> - 2 Illini/Saluki
> 
> - 6 Lincoln Service (apparently 6 instead of 4 per IDOT presentation)
> 
> - 2 Quincy
> 
> - 2 Quad Cities
> 
> - 2 Rockford (/Dubuque)
> 
> - 2 Hiawatha (since the press release explicitly mentions Milwaukee service)
> 
> - 2 Hoosier State (since the press release says 'all' Midwestern routes; maybe Indiana will lease 'em)
> 
> ====
> 
> 26 consists
> 
> * 3 cars / consist
> 
> ----
> 
> 78 cars
> 
> + 20% for "shop count"
> 
> ----
> 
> 94
> 
> 122 means a lot of extra cars. Even if every consist is immediately beefed up to 4 cars (which seems highly unlikely in the near term), the total needed after shop count would still only be 120.


With 4 cars + shop/protect it will account for all 122 cars. Of course there will be some extras if as seems likely now, Indiana simply cans the Hoosier State.


> Illinois is going to have enough cars to lease to its neighbors for a few years.


true


> I now begin to believe the claims that Michigan is planning extra frequencies soon on both the Pere Marquette and the Wolverines. I suspect the sticking point on that will be Porter to Chicago -- here's hoping the passenger route South of the Lake gets built ASAP. And if UP agrees we may get those additional St. Louis-Chicago frequencies fairly soon too. There will probably be enough cars to support a few additional services such as MSP-Chicago or Iowa City, should those be funded.


As long as trains are not lengthened, yes.


> Meanwhile, in California the high number of cars also seems to allow for some expansion; something like 35-42 cars will be needed to replace the Amfleets, Comets, and leased Superliners, but the extra cars beyond that should allow for the formation of at least one additional consist, maybe two.


Depending on how quickly ridership grows, California may choose to keep the Comet consists around to pinch hit. Afterall no one else is dying to take them.


> With so many cars, we should expect to see all the Superliners return to long-distance service. We should also expect to see all the Amfleets return to the East Coast. The entire Horizon fleet will be redundant in the Midwest; it really has to go to the East Coast, as I can't see where else it would go. I suppose Amtrak had better start retrofitting the Horizons for NEC service, or to beef up the single-level LD trains, or something. They need retrofits for either role.


NEC could use all those Amfleets for sure. My guess is that at least a significant part of the Horizon fleet will get deployed in the LD BU, initially even with no modifications for use on LD trains for short turn segment passengers. That will release seats in Amfleet IIs for longer turn passengers and overall bring some relief to overcrowding. Beneficiaries will be trains like the Meteor and LSL, and perhaps even the Cardinal. Some of those may also get deployed as is on middle distance trains like the Pennsylvanian/Palmetto, Vermonter and such off corridor trains which do not necessarily require each car to open while on the NEC.


----------



## VentureForth

Green Maned Lion said:


> Personally, (wait for it) I prefer my Sharyos to be Kinki.


I waited for it.

Hee hee.

FWIW, and to those who may wonder why such a name... Kinki in Japanese means metal works.

In other comments....I have been very impressed with the way Illinois has taken the lead in Transportation. Their ability to source new locomotives and passenger cars seem to put Amtrak to shame.


----------



## jis

VentureForth said:


> In other comments....I have been very impressed with the way Illinois has taken the lead in Transportation. Their ability to source new locomotives and passenger cars seem to put Amtrak to shame.


You mean they are able to shake the federal dollar tree better than anyone else when their guy is in the White House? They'd have to be truly incompetent if they were unable to do that, no? Call me cynical, but I don't see what is there to be impressed about. If it had not happened that would be a reason to be depressed about.


----------



## Eric S

Is the expectation that trainsets for all services will be the same size (all 4 cars), or would some of the higher ridership services have 4-6 cars while the lower ridership services might have 3-4 cars?

I can't recall from the various awards of funding whether specific services had specific numbers of cars allocated to them.


----------



## jis

The assumption seems to be that initially they will start with 3 cars, and then grow some to 4 cars over time. But that is not based on any inside info AFAICT.


----------



## MikefromCrete

jis said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other comments....I have been very impressed with the way Illinois has taken the lead in Transportation. Their ability to source new locomotives and passenger cars seem to put Amtrak to shame.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they are able to shake the federal dollar tree better than anyone else when their guy is in the White House? They'd have to be truly incompetent if they were unable to do that, no? Call me cynical, but I don't see what is there to be impressed about. If it had not happened that would be a reason to be depressed about.
Click to expand...

Illinois has long been involved with intercity service, dating back to the early days of Amtrak when the Illinois Zephyr became one of the first, if not the first "403b" trains. This has happened under both Democratic and Republican presidents and Democratic and Republican governors. Illinois sponsors four daily roundtrips on the St. Louis corridor, two roundtrips on the Qunicy line, two roundtrips on the Carbondale route and, in cooperation with Wisconsin, seven daily roundtrips to Milwaukee. In addition, service to the Quad Cities and Rockford (and hopefully eventually Dubuque) are on track in the next few years. So having the President, secretary of transportation (until recently) and head of the FRA from Illinois don't hurt, but Illinois' rail leadership had been under way for a long time. Work on the Chicago-St. Louis 110 mph upgrade seems to have been going on forever, but that should be completed within the next few years. Again, this has been a bipartisan effort. Republican legislators love having trains serving their downstate districts. And lets not forget the lobbying efforts of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association. They have done a great job in keeping passenger rail in front of the legislators.


----------



## afigg

PRR 60 said:


> As far as I know, all the involved states will have ownership of their cars regardless of whether the cars were procured with federal grants. These will not be Amtrak cars, and Amtrak will not have control over the assignment of cars among the various state services (a power Amtrak wanted to be granted). California's direct contribution must be for the procurement of cars over and above those paid by the feds.


The California state funds have been in the mix for the purchase of the 42 cars for CA from the start of the bid process. It was part of the funding package. Regardless, yes, CA will end up owning the 42 + 11 bi-levels going to CA. Since CalTrans has money to spend, would not be surprised if in the next 2-3 years, CA orders more cars from the Nippon-Sharyo option for service expansions.
As for the Midwest states, the purchase of 34 additional cars, however the cars are allocated, should be sufficient to meet the near term growth needs of all 3 or 4 states. With 88 cars, MI and IL might have fought over adding cars to the Wolverine service versus the Lincoln service as both services grow in ridership. With the states owning the equipment and providing the subsidies, Amtrak won't be calling the shots.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

VentureForth said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, (wait for it) I prefer my Sharyos to be Kinki.
> 
> 
> 
> I waited for it.
> Hee hee.
> 
> FWIW, and to those who may wonder why such a name... Kinki in Japanese means metal works.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I just watched Rocky & Bullwinkle. I get like this when I do that.


----------



## jis

I think Illinois, Michigan and California are shining examples (in addition to a whole host of other states like Virginia, North Carolina, Vermont, Maine etc.) of what can happen in a level playing field provided by PRIIA Section 209. OTOH, Wisconsin, and Indiana are prime examples of what can happen when freedom is given to those that for whatever reason don't want it. The whole idea is to try to get broader effective participation and collective contribution of resources, ideas and talents to enhance growth, where such can be achieved without waiting for a central monolithic organization to get around to it, if and when they please.

Of course this had started happening to some extent based on ad hoc arrangements before PRIIA. But PRIIA created an across the board legitimacy for such.

Now only if somehow we can get Amtrak to focus on PRIIA Section 208 and get cracking on the LD enhancement work with more energy. The LD BU needs to have a fire lit under them, and it is unfortunate that Congress did not see it fit to fund it adequately.

Actually as a result of PRIAA Section 212 Amtrak will not be calling the shots as unilaterally as it did on the NEC either. They will have to pay quite a lot of attention to the Commission, since the funding mix will change as a result of the Commissions work, and Amtrak will become more beholden to the states for the day to day operating and maintenance funding of the NEC. In short, become more sensitive to the desires of the customers than has been the case hitherto.


----------



## afigg

neroden said:


> That is major news. Let's think about this for a minute. The previous arrangement was:
> 
> - 42 California
> 
> - 88 Midwest
> 
> With the option, this becomes:
> 
> - 53 California
> 
> - 122 Midwest
> 
> Midwest numbers were, previously, kind of tight for equipping the IL, MO, and MI lines with three-car trains, with not much in the way of spares. Calfornia numbers were very tight and mostly replaced the existing leased and Comet cars.
> 
> But now! My goodness. Let me count the consists:


The baseline order of 88 cars for the Midwest is broken down as: 46 coach cars, 21 cafe-business cars, 21 cab-baggage cars. If every train gets a cab-baggage and a cafe-business car that works out to 21 total consists with 2 coach cars each plus 4 spares or four 5 car trains. We do not know the breakdown of the 34 additional cars, but it is logical that it would be in roughly the same proportion, possibly tilted to more coach cars, as the Hiawatha service might not want cafe-business cars. And not all trains may need cab cars.
One exercise is to figure out roughly how much of an increase in seat capacity 122 bi-level cars will mean for the Midwest corridor services over the mix of Horizons, Amfleets, some Superliners it has now.

There are 94 Horizon cars total with 78 coach cars with 68 seats each and 10 club-cafe cars with 14 BC seats. 3 of the Horizon cafe cars are leased to CA for the Comet trainsets, so those don't count. Amfleet Is have 72 seats each and there are ?how many? running on the Lincoln service. Then there are Superliners used for some of the Michigan services on a seasonal basis?

If we use the seat capacity for the Surfliners as the likely numbers for the new bi-levels, the Surfliners generally have 90 seats for coach cars, 74 seats for BC cars, 82/78 seats for cab-coach-baggage cars. (according to On-track On-Line). Without the breakdown on the total 122 car order, it will be guess estimates at best on total number of seats. But a 4 bi-level car consist with 1 BC-cafe car, 2 coach cars, 1 cab-baggage car could have 74 BC seats plus 242 coach seats. So that replaces a 5 car Horizon consist?


----------



## Eric S

If the 34 additional cars will (in part) replace the 6-car Amfleet/Horizon trainsets that the Hiawatha uses, that would suggest two 5-car sets for that service.

Separately, I had never really given any thought to the idea that BC seating may increase from 14 seats on Amfleet/Horizon cars to around 74 seats on the bilevel cars. It will be interesting to see how that (potential) substantial increase in available BC seats affects BC fares, revenues, and demand. In my experience, on the Lincoln and Wolverine services BC has been completely or nearly full every trip I've sat there.


----------



## jis

Fortunately the Hiawatha service requires just two consists, so it is just a matter of allocating 2 more Coaches to it to get it upto 5 cars, from the base of 4 is that is the case. That should be doable within the scheme that norden put together.


----------



## neroden

afigg said:


> The baseline order of 88 cars for the Midwest is broken down as: 46 coach cars, 21 cafe-business cars, 21 cab-baggage cars. If every train gets a cab-baggage and a cafe-business car that works out to 21 total consists with 2 coach cars each plus 4 spares or four 5 car trains.


That sounds correct, because that's the right number of consists for everything except the Hiawatha and Hoosier State. Helpful information: it means that they were basically planning 4-car consists for everything.


> We do not know the breakdown of the 34 additional cars, but it is logical that it would be in roughly the same proportion, possibly tilted to more coach cars, as the Hiawatha service might not want cafe-business cars. And not all trains may need cab cars.


I will now guess that there are 2 consists for the Hiawathas (given that Milwaukee was explicitly mentioned in the IDOT press release), probably 5 cars each. That's 94 regular-service cars, which calls for about 20 spares (5 cabs, 5 cafe-business, 10 coach), for a total of 114.
The additional 8 should allow for roughly two more short (3-car) trainsets; this would be enough for the Hoosier State, or for a second Pere Marquette frequency or something else; or it could just be to lengthen trains. In any case, the single-level equipment is about to disappear from the Midwest (with the exception of the Lake Shore Limited and Cardinal).


----------



## MisterUptempo

jis said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other comments....I have been very impressed with the way Illinois has taken the lead in Transportation. Their ability to source new locomotives and passenger cars seem to put Amtrak to shame.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they are able to shake the federal dollar tree better than anyone else when their guy is in the White House? They'd have to be truly incompetent if they were unable to do that, no? Call me cynical, but I don't see what is there to be impressed about. If it had not happened that would be a reason to be depressed about.
Click to expand...

Let's also remember that Illinois had the foresight to have completed plans at the ready, so they'd be in the front of the line when the Feds were giving out money to "shovel-ready" projects. They are using the same playbook with the Tier II CHI-JOL, Springfield 10th Street Corridor and Flyover, and the Granite City to St. Louis EIS's.

If Wisconsin, Ohio, and Iowa didn't have governments that were openly hostile to passenger rail, we'd also be talking about the new Milwaukee-Madison route,the Ohio 3C route, and the extension of the Quad Cities route to Iowa City and beyond, instead of just the improvements on Illinois and Michigan routes.


----------



## afigg

Eric S said:


> If the 34 additional cars will (in part) replace the 6-car Amfleet/Horizon trainsets that the Hiawatha uses, that would suggest two 5-car sets for that service.
> 
> Separately, I had never really given any thought to the idea that BC seating may increase from 14 seats on Amfleet/Horizon cars to around 74 seats on the bilevel cars. It will be interesting to see how that (potential) substantial increase in available BC seats affects BC fares, revenues, and demand. In my experience, on the Lincoln and Wolverine services BC has been completely or nearly full every trip I've sat there.


If WI does not want BC-cafe cars for the Hiawatha, the consist could be 4 coach cars (90 seats each) and a cab-baggage car with 78 seats replacing the NCPU. Which would provide an increase in seating capacity to 438 with a shorter consist of 5 cars total compared to 6 + the NCPU. In general, the Midwest trains should see better acceleration with the shorter consists.
As for the expansion in BC capacity, that could get more actual business travelers to take the trains. New modern shiny equipment, dedicated BC cars, more reliable service could make taking the train routine for business trips to Chicago or from Chicago. The success of the Acela for business travel on the NEC has shown that new equipment with BC seating can pay off handsomely.


----------



## rickycourtney

Sorry. Y'all lost me.

Where did we hear that the Hiawatha is getting the extra bi levels?

Did Wisconsin exercise some of the options on the multi-state order? Or are we just playing hypotheticals?

If we're playing hypotheticals, another state I'd love to see jump on this order is Oklahoma.

They already use Superliners on the Heartland Flyer (2 coaches, a snack coach and an NPCU.)

The service could really be upgraded if they bought into this order. I'm thinking a coach/cafe, 2 coaches and a cab/coach/baggage would do the trick. The higher density layout could mean a lot more seats (more ticket revenue) the cafe with its real lounge seats would allow for better service (which hopefully translates into higher sales) and trainlined automatic doors should make for shorter dwell times.

It would be expensive, but this is the best time for states to buy new equipment. Thanks to this multi-state order the cars are about as cheap as they will ever be.


----------



## MikefromCrete

I think the Hiawathas are still hypothetical, based on a statement in a press release, which could have been a mistake or oversight. Of course, it could mean only be one set of Hiawathas will get the bilevels, since they are a joint Illinois-Wisconsin service. I suppose we won't know until the cars are actually rolled out and put in service. Don't count on Oklahoma getting any since they have never been part of the Midwest pact.


----------



## afigg

rickycourtney said:


> Sorry. Y'all lost me.
> 
> Where did we hear that the Hiawatha is getting the extra bi levels?
> 
> Did Wisconsin exercise some of the options on the multi-state order? Or are we just playing hypotheticals?
> 
> If we're playing hypotheticals, another state I'd love to see jump on this order is Oklahoma.
> 
> .....


If you read back in this thread to July 31, I posted a link to a press release from IL Gov. Quinn about a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a Shop 3 at the Nippon-Sharyo plant at Rochelle. Perhaps it is an error, but the press release listed Milwaukee as one of the cities to be served by the additional order of bi-level cars. If they are ordering 34 additional cars for the Midwest, the numbers make sense if they are also planning to provide new cars to the Hiawatha service.

Because the bid price from Nippon-Sharyo came in well under the funds allocated for the 130 car bi-level order, I expect that the leftover funds are being used by the FRA to pay for the 34 extra cars for the Midwest and 11 extra cars for CA. By replacing the Horizons on the Hiawatha service, the corridor bi-levels will replace all of the Horizons and Amfleet Is, so the Chicago hub will have a uniform new fleet for the corridor services which should reduce maintenance costs and, provided Nippon-Sahryo delivers a good product, improve reliability for winter operations. The Hoosier State will either switch to equipment provided by a private vendor or be terminated this fall when the 1 year state support contract deal runs out and a new deal can't be put together.

As for the Heartland Flyer, I don't know if OK and TX have ever been part of the corridor bi-level specification and bid process in any way. The contract with Nippon-Sharyo has options for 300 additional cars, so OK and TX can buy new bi-levels if they can line up the funds.


----------



## StanJazz

What would be funny if instead of Wisconsin paying Amtrak for the use of the Horizons it ends up paying Illinois for the use of the bi-levels owned by Illinois.

Stan


----------



## neroden

StanJazz said:


> What would be funny if instead of Wisconsin paying Amtrak for the use of the Horizons it ends up paying Illinois for the use of the bi-levels owned by Illinois.


I'm sure Illinois government officials would enjoy that. And it's fairly likely. Illinois does pay for part of the Hiawatha subsidy; I forget whether it was 1/4 or 1/3. As a result, Illinois can probably say "We want to use the new equipment" and Wisconsin will probably go along.


----------



## iggy

Depending on time of day and year = more capacity for Business Class on Lincoln Service is long overdue. I've written about this many times over the years. There are of course times when BC is empty leaving St Louis or heading to that city. The complete opposite can occur = where BC is jammed packed leaving that city. High customer demand in Springfield and Normal. I've seen several trips were those who wanted to book BC had to book coach instead do to limited availability.

Earlier this year I provided video of Joseph Shacter director of public and intermodal transportation for IDOT at Midwest High Speed Rail Association 2014 Spring Meeting discussing Nippon-Sharyo Rochelle IL manufacturing plant, new rolling stock and track upgrades.


----------



## rrdude

Oh well informed AU members; Is the carbody of these new Midwest bilevels Stainless?


----------



## afigg

rrdude said:


> Oh well informed AU members; Is the carbody of these new Midwest bilevels Stainless?


Yes. The PRIIA specification for the corridor bi-level cars requires that the carshell and other primary structural components be made of stainless steel.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

FRA head Joe Szabo also noted that with

the additional cars ordered, Nippon Sharyo

will be producing thru 2018. That's good.

I know the option keeps a fixed price for

another six years worth of production (wow!)

but I don't like any interruptions on the

assembly line.

I want the same crew working day after

day, year after year. Don't want people

layed off and then some replaced by

newbies when production ramps up

again. Get better quality that way.


----------



## NE933

So the next big question: is Nippon_Sharyo the likely builder for the Superliner IIIs? Or/and the Amfleet replacements for the NEC?


----------



## Eric S

neroden said:


> StanJazz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would be funny if instead of Wisconsin paying Amtrak for the use of the Horizons it ends up paying Illinois for the use of the bi-levels owned by Illinois.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Illinois government officials would enjoy that. And it's fairly likely. Illinois does pay for part of the Hiawatha subsidy; I forget whether it was 1/4 or 1/3. As a result, Illinois can probably say "We want to use the new equipment" and Wisconsin will probably go along.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the IL/WI split is 25/75.


----------



## MikefromCrete

NE933 said:


> So the next big question: is Nippon_Sharyo the likely builder for the Superliner IIIs? Or/and the Amfleet replacements for the NEC?


They're in a good position to bid for any such projects. They have been producing Highliners on a steady basis for Metra, certainly doing a a better job that CAF is doing with the Vieweliner II's.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

NE933 said:


> So the next big question: is Nippon_Sharyo the likely builder for the Superliner IIIs? Or/and the Amfleet replacements for the NEC?


If Congress in its wisdom can find a way to fund multiyear

equipment purchases, to get the savings from a big order,

then the field will be wide open.

If Congress in its customary way makes it impossible to buy

equipment cheaply by the hundreds, to replace all the Amfleets

and Superliners, then Amtrak will be forced to buy in small

batches, say, up to 130 new cars at a time.

In that case, I'd expect Nippon-Sharyo with an open assembly

line making bi-level cars would have an edge to make a batch

of Superliner replacements. And CAF could have a similar

advantage to build 130 or so Viewliner coaches.


----------



## Ryan

MikefromCrete said:


> NE933 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the next big question: is Nippon_Sharyo the likely builder for the Superliner IIIs? Or/and the Amfleet replacements for the NEC?
> 
> 
> 
> They're in a good position to bid for any such projects. They have been producing Highliners on a steady basis for Metra, certainly doing a a better job that CAF is doing with the Vieweliner II's.
Click to expand...

That statement seems a little premature.


----------



## rickycourtney

neroden said:


> StanJazz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would be funny if instead of Wisconsin paying Amtrak for the use of the Horizons it ends up paying Illinois for the use of the bi-levels owned by Illinois.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Illinois government officials would enjoy that. And it's fairly likely. Illinois does pay for part of the Hiawatha subsidy; I forget whether it was 1/4 or 1/3. As a result, Illinois can probably say "We want to use the new equipment" and Wisconsin will probably go along.
Click to expand...

No clue how much Amtrak is charging these days to "rent" 2 Horizon trainsets... but if Illinois allows the Hiawatha to use their bi-level equipment to be used on this route for free... that could go a long way to covering their portion of the subsidy.


----------



## rickycourtney

WoodyinNYC said:


> NE933 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the next big question: is Nippon_Sharyo the likely builder for the Superliner IIIs? Or/and the Amfleet replacements for the NEC?
> 
> 
> 
> If Congress in its wisdom can find a way to fund multiyearequipment purchases, to get the savings from a big order,
> 
> then the field will be wide open.
> 
> If Congress in its customary way makes it impossible to buy
> 
> equipment cheaply by the hundreds, to replace all the Amfleets
> 
> and Superliners, then Amtrak will be forced to buy in small
> 
> batches, say, up to 130 new cars at a time.
> 
> In that case, I'd expect Nippon-Sharyo with an open assembly
> 
> line making bi-level cars would have an edge to make a batch
> 
> of Superliner replacements. And CAF could have a similar
> 
> advantage to build 130 or so Viewliner coaches.
Click to expand...

I agree. If it's a small order it might be able to be "tacked on" as an option to this order.

But even if Amtrak put the Superliner III out to bid Nippon-Sharyo would have a big advantage. Remember the Superliner was used as the design baseline for these cars... so it shouldn't require much retooling to convert the factory from a intercity car assembly line to a Superliner III assembly line.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

rickycourtney said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NE933 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the next big question: is Nippon_Sharyo the likely builder for the Superliner IIIs? Or/and the Amfleet replacements for the NEC?
> 
> 
> 
> If Congress in its wisdom can find a way to fund multiyearequipment purchases, to get the savings from a big order,
> 
> then the field will be wide open.
> 
> If Congress in its customary way makes it impossible to buy
> 
> equipment cheaply by the hundreds, to replace all the Amfleets
> 
> and Superliners, then Amtrak will be forced to buy in small
> 
> batches, say, up to 130 new cars at a time.
> 
> In that case, I'd expect Nippon-Sharyo with an open assembly
> 
> line making bi-level cars would have an edge to make a batch
> 
> of Superliner replacements. And CAF could have a similar
> 
> advantage to build 130 or so Viewliner coaches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. If it's a small order it might be able to be "tacked on" as an option to this order.
> 
> But even if Amtrak put the Superliner III out to bid Nippon-Sharyo would have a big advantage. Remember the Superliner was used as the design baseline for these cars... so it shouldn't require much retooling to convert the factory from a intercity car assembly line to a Superliner III assembly line.
Click to expand...

I think that either an order for hundreds of coaches or

an order for a batch of 130 would probably have to be

put out to bids. Lots of rules and regs regarding public

contracts. To me both Nippon-Sharyo and CAF have

a head start, respectively, due to their current work.

But there's other potential bidders, and one could be

hungry enough to bid low enough to grab this work.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Amtrak doesn't need to follow those rules because they are technically a private corporation.

Beyond that, you can tailor a bid to favor a particular product. For years, for instance, my town specified that vehicles submitted for consideration in police bids must have a 4.6 SOHC V8, and a live rear axle located by a watts linkage. Anyone could bid, of course, but only Ford made such a product.

And further beyond that, if N-S were to have that contract RFPed fairly, since they were already building an extensively similar vehicle they could easily set forth a lower bid than other companies could profitably entertain.


----------



## Paulus

Green Maned Lion said:


> Amtrak doesn't need to follow those rules because they are technically a private corporation.
> 
> Beyond that, you can tailor a bid to favor a particular product. For years, for instance, my town specified that vehicles submitted for consideration in police bids must have a 4.6 SOHC V8, and a live rear axle located by a watts linkage. Anyone could bid, of course, but only Ford made such a product.
> 
> And further beyond that, if N-S were to have that contract RFPed fairly, since they were already building an extensively similar vehicle they could easily set forth a lower bid than other companies could profitably entertain.


Most states do make it illegal to structure a bid in such a manner.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

That would be stupid, since for the most part intelligent municipalities would want to return to the product they were comfortable using and had infrastructure to handle.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Green Maned Lion said:


> Amtrak doesn't need to follow those rules because they are technically a private corporation.
> 
> . . .


Tell a Congresscritter that Amtrak is a private corporation

that doesn't have to put large orders out for bid. That would

not be a politically popular position for Amtrak to take or

for any Congresscritter to support.

I seem to recall that the 130-car order that ended up with CAF 

may have seemed tailored to one or few bidders. But the electric 

locomotives for the East Coast trains, the diesels for the Midwest 

corridor trains, and the corridor bi-levels that Nippon-Saryo

is building, all were put to bid. 

So, yeah, I'd expect the usual thing to be done again as it usually is. 

Any orders for hundreds of coaches WILL be put out to bid.

As I said, I expect that both CAF and Nippon-Sharyo would

have a head start because of their current programs, but,

with other hungry bidders, you never know.


----------



## jis

Green Maned Lion said:


> Amtrak doesn't need to follow those rules because they are technically a private corporation.


Wait a minute! In the current appeal being handled by the SCOTUS I thought Amtrak was arguing that they are *not* a prvat corporation and therefore should be able to set the rules for performance and collect fines from other private corporations?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

What I've seen over the years is Amtrak operates as whichever suits it's purpose at that moment.


----------



## afigg

rickycourtney said:


> I agree. If it's a small order it might be able to be "tacked on" as an option to this order.
> 
> But even if Amtrak put the Superliner III out to bid Nippon-Sharyo would have a big advantage. Remember the Superliner was used as the design baseline for these cars... so it shouldn't require much retooling to convert the factory from a intercity car assembly line to a Superliner III assembly line.


The design predecessor for the corridor bi-levels is the Surfliner, not the Superliner. The Nippon-Sharyo cars will have 2 doors on each side and I expect numerous internal changes from a Superliner II design. Amtrak can use the coach and BC-cafe car designs with different seating for LD coach cars. But sleeper, diner, sightseer lounge, and dorm cars would require a lot of design work and changes from what Nippon-Sharyo is building. N-S would have an advantage in that they will have a new production facility tooled to build bi-level cars that have a lot in common with Superliners, but building sleeper cars or diners will not be a small or modest design and manufacturing change.
Since funding to build replacement Superliners will be mostly government money, in one form or another, Amtrak will put out any RFP for Superliner or Amfleet replacements as an open bid. Period.


----------



## Paulus

Green Maned Lion said:


> That would be stupid, since for the most part intelligent municipalities would want to return to the product they were comfortable using and had infrastructure to handle.


And for the most part the public interest is in the best bang for the buck and writing an RFP in such a manner to eliminate all chances of a competitive bid do not serve that.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Then again RFPs tend to greatly increase the price of things since most of these companies collude.


----------



## Paulus

Green Maned Lion said:


> Then again RFPs tend to greatly increase the price of things since most of these companies collude.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Paulus, I can't be assed to provide a citation. If the concept intrigues you find it yourself. If it does not then live in the uncertain and incorrect knowledge that by throwing my friend Randall's web comic in my face you have proven something.


----------



## neutralist

Green Maned Lion said:


> What I've seen over the years is Amtrak operates as whichever suits it's purpose at that moment.


If you are looking for a similar entity, look no further than the U.S. Postal Service.


----------



## neutralist

MisterUptempo said:


> If Wisconsin, Ohio, and Iowa didn't have governments that were openly hostile to passenger rail, we'd also be talking about the new Milwaukee-Madison route,the Ohio 3C route, and the extension of the Quad Cities route to Iowa City and beyond, instead of just the improvements on Illinois and Michigan routes.


I believe plans were underway to restore the _Black Hawk _or _The Badger _which includes a terminus at Madison via Elgin, Rockford, South Beloit and Janesville.

But it will be nice if the tracks between Fox Lake and Walworth gets used, providing train access to major vacation spots i.e. Lake Geneva.


----------



## rickycourtney

neutralist said:


> MisterUptempo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Wisconsin, Ohio, and Iowa didn't have governments that were openly hostile to passenger rail, we'd also be talking about the new Milwaukee-Madison route,the Ohio 3C route, and the extension of the Quad Cities route to Iowa City and beyond, instead of just the improvements on Illinois and Michigan routes.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe plans were underway to restore the _Black Hawk _or _The Badger _which includes a terminus at Madison via Elgin, Rockford, South Beloit and Janesville.
> 
> But it will be nice if the tracks between Fox Lake and Walworth gets used, providing train access to major vacation spots i.e. Lake Geneva.
Click to expand...

The plan was to restore the _Black Hawk_ between Chicago and Rockford in 2015 and extend it to Dubuque at some point in the future.


----------



## Steve4031

The plans for restoring the badger route comes from a private venture iirc.


----------



## MisterUptempo

neutralist said:


> MisterUptempo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Wisconsin, Ohio, and Iowa didn't have governments that were openly hostile to passenger rail, we'd also be talking about the new Milwaukee-Madison route,the Ohio 3C route, and the extension of the Quad Cities route to Iowa City and beyond, instead of just the improvements on Illinois and Michigan routes.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe plans were underway to restore the _Black Hawk _or _The Badger _which includes a terminus at Madison via Elgin, Rockford, South Beloit and Janesville.
> 
> But it will be nice if the tracks between Fox Lake and Walworth gets used, providing train access to major vacation spots i.e. Lake Geneva.
Click to expand...

The possibility of service between Chicago and Madison might happen one day, in spite of Scott Walker, not because of him.

All Aboard Wisconsin, a rail advocacy group, has proposed the route, as opposed to IDOT or WisDOT. The group chartered an Iowa Pacific train in June, inviting decision makers and members of the media aboard, on a trip from Chicago to Madison to Prairie du Chien, to advocate for the service.

No formal report has been put forth, merely a general idea as to a route, and a suggestion of the possibility of utilizing a private operator to run the train.


----------



## Anderson

Just out of curiosity...was the expansion of the order still done with the original $551m?


----------



## afigg

Anderson said:


> Just out of curiosity...was the expansion of the order still done with the original $551m?


That is my interpretation. The statements so far as just that the FRA and the states are in negotiation for the 45 additional cars, not on where the funds are coming from. But the Nippon-Sharyo bid came in low enough that the FRA should have enough remaining funds to cover the 45 cars minus overhead, project management, retaining some contingency funds, perhaps training & support costs and so on.

There is a story today that may be related to the plans for ordering the additional cars where Gov. Quinn and Senator Durbin are asking Amtrak to look at adding another train to the Chicago to Carbondale corridor. Durbin, Quinn ask Amtrak to consider adding trains,


----------



## neroden

afigg said:


> There is a story today that may be related to the plans for ordering the additional cars where Gov. Quinn and Senator Durbin are asking Amtrak to look at adding another train to the Chicago to Carbondale corridor. Durbin, Quinn ask Amtrak to consider adding trains,


Amtrak will be happy to add trains; the problem is convincing CN to add trains. I think Durbin understands this already, but I hope he and Amtrak explain it to Quinn.


----------



## afigg

neroden said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a story today that may be related to the plans for ordering the additional cars where Gov. Quinn and Senator Durbin are asking Amtrak to look at adding another train to the Chicago to Carbondale corridor. Durbin, Quinn ask Amtrak to consider adding trains,
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak will be happy to add trains; the problem is convincing CN to add trains. I think Durbin understands this already, but I hope he and Amtrak explain it to Quinn.
Click to expand...

Gov. Quinn may be fully aware of the issue with CN as well. They likely know that CN is probably going to demand funds for track upgrades, but by asking Amtrak to conduct the feasibility study on adding a 3rd daily corridor train, Amtrak and IL DOT can generate cost estimates. So if the downstate politicians want another train, IL DOT will have a handle on how much it will cost. The study may also conclude that adding another train that does backup moves to get to the Carbondale route will interfere too much and that the Grand Crossing project should be completed before adding another daily train.

It is possible that the request for the study is being done in part so as to provide an additional justification for the Grand Crossing project; the project is not just for 3 daily trains, but also for a future 4th one plus the Cardinal. The Grand Crossing project is supposed to complete the EIS and get a Record of Decision approval in 2015, so a request to start a feasibility study this year could be related to that.


----------



## MikefromCrete

Quinn is very aware of CN and its antics. The proposed Galena-Dubuque service has been cut back to Rockford for the time being due to CN's demands for all kinds of improvements to its route. The UP (!) was much more cooperative and the Rockford train will run over Metra Milwaukee West (to Elgin area) and then UP.


----------



## MikefromCrete

Trains News Wire has just reported that the Midwest Coalition and California will order 45 more double-deck cars from Nippon Shayro. Illinois, Michigan and Missouri will get 34 additional cars and California 11. No word on what types of cars - coaches, business, cafe, cab cars - will be added to the initial order. FRA must still approve the use of leftover funds from initial order.

Also, Amtrak has changed its order of Viewliner II's from CAF. Amtrak now wants 15 more full baggage cars 15 less baggage dorms, leaving only 10 baggage-dorms. Since 17 sets of trains are needed to operate the Eastern long-distance fleet this means that not all trains will get baggage-dorms.


----------



## jis

Preferably, the discussion of Viewliner II order, production, usage and testing issues should take place in the Viewliner II thread rather than on the midwest Corridor Bilevels thread.

I have posted the info on that thread, the last page (46th page) of which is at:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/45804-viewliner-ii-production-status-photos/page-46


----------



## WoodyinNYC

MikefromCrete said:


> Trains News Wire has just reported that . . .
> 
> Also, Amtrak has changed its order of Viewliner II's from CAF. Amtrak now wants 15 more full baggage cars 15 less baggage dorms, leaving only 10 baggage-dorms. Since 17 sets of trains are needed to operate the Eastern long-distance fleet this means that not all trains will get baggage-dorms.


Not what optimists wanted to hear.

Probably full baggage cars are cheaper than bag-dorms,

so is this a way to save a little money on this order?

Also means non-revenue baggage cars will supplant

the bag-dorms that were about "half" revenue cars.

So we'll see much less sleeper space, roughly 7 or 8 

sleepers equivalent, with reductions in future revenue.

Seems ever less likely that the order will be changed

to include the 70-car option to expand the fleet and be 

ready and able to expand the number of trains.

Maybe hacking away at the budgets for sleeper service

including dining cars, made Amtrak less convinced

that the more expensive service actually makes much

of an operating profit after all.


----------



## neroden

MikefromCrete said:


> The UP (!) was much more cooperative


UP's actually been really good in the last couple of years. I'm wondering if John Koraleski has made a change, since, frankly, he only took over the company a couple of years ago.


----------



## afigg

MikefromCrete said:


> Trains News Wire has just reported that the Midwest Coalition and California will order 45 more double-deck cars from Nippon Shayro. Illinois, Michigan and Missouri will get 34 additional cars and California 11. No word on what types of cars - coaches, business, cafe, cab cars - will be added to the initial order. FRA must still approve the use of leftover funds from initial order.


The Trains Magazine news wire story has a photo of the interior of a cafe car portion of a mock-up shell car. From the news wire story, the states are still determining the mix and allocation of the car types, so they are probably are negotiating with Nippon-Sharyo on the exact break-down of the additional order depending on the cost and possibly the delivery schedule. There is a September 30, 2017 deadline on the stimulus portion of the funding; fro example cab-coach-bag cars may take the longest to build and test.
As for getting the approval from the FRA, the head of the FRA has already spoken about the 45 cars as almost a done deal and they have been included in FRA presentations. So FRA approval is presumably just a formality provided there are no hold-ups in the negotiations.


----------



## PerRock

Using the trickery of web coding, is this the image you're talking about? (I can't actually read the article).






peter


----------



## Paulus

afigg said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trains News Wire has just reported that the Midwest Coalition and California will order 45 more double-deck cars from Nippon Shayro. Illinois, Michigan and Missouri will get 34 additional cars and California 11. No word on what types of cars - coaches, business, cafe, cab cars - will be added to the initial order. FRA must still approve the use of leftover funds from initial order.
> 
> 
> 
> The Trains Magazine news wire story has a photo of the interior of a cafe car portion of a mock-up shell car. From the news wire story, the states are still determining the mix and allocation of the car types, so they are probably are negotiating with Nippon-Sharyo on the exact break-down of the additional order depending on the cost and possibly the delivery schedule. There is a September 30, 2017 deadline on the stimulus portion of the funding; fro example cab-coach-bag cars may take the longest to build and test.
> As for getting the approval from the FRA, the head of the FRA has already spoken about the 45 cars as almost a done deal and they have been included in FRA presentations. So FRA approval is presumably just a formality provided there are no hold-ups in the negotiations.
Click to expand...

California is apparently planning on 45 coaches, 5 cafe-lounge, and 3 cabbages which would mean that all 11 new cars for California are coaches (base order is 34, 5, and 3).


----------



## neroden

Those are really odd numbers for California. I can't quite figure out their logic.

Current California roster:

cabs: 14 "California cars" (with seats, no baggage), 16 "Surfliners", 3 new, total 33

cafes: 14 "California cars", 12 "Surfliners", 5 new, total 31

Seating: 32 "California cars", 6 coach-bag "California cars", 23 "Surfliners", 10 business-class "Surfliners", 45 new cars, total

This is a somewhat motley assortment. I really would have expected the number of cabs to match the number of cafes in some fashion. Is California making any effort to update the California Cars to Surfliner layouts?


----------



## roadman3313

If you look at the consists as of recent some trains have two cab cars (similar to Caltrain) with one at the end and one in the middle. This serves a similar purpose as it does on Caltrain as it effectively doubles the bike capacity available. I know the California Cab Cars were recently retrofitted to increase bicycle capacity on the Capitol Corridor Route (racks fold down for additional luggage space on the San Joaquin route) Lack of bicycle racks was an issue so this has helped with the bicycle capacity issues on the Capitol Corridor.

Those have been the only changes I have seen to the California Cars. The increased bike capacity is due to the completion of the California Cab Cars (I believe they did the retrofits of the lower level into bike space when the cars went in for PTC upgrades), the assignment of all 6 Coach-Baggage 8200-series (now Coach-Bike) cars to the Capitol Corridor (swapped 6 coach cars with the San Joaquin pool as a trade), and the addition of the Comet trainset(s) to the San Joaquin fleet to free up more cab/coach/bike cars for the Capitol Corridor.

The only Surfliner layouts (unless you count the retrofitted California Cab cars) in Northern California are the "Surfliner" cars assigned to the Northern California Pool (2 Coach/Café, 5 Coaches, and 5 Cab/Bike/Baggage/Coaches).


----------



## Paulus

neroden said:


> Those are really odd numbers for California. I can't quite figure out their logic.
> 
> Current California roster:
> 
> cabs: 14 "California cars" (with seats, no baggage), 16 "Surfliners", 3 new, total 33
> 
> cafes: 14 "California cars", 12 "Surfliners", 5 new, total 31
> 
> Seating: 32 "California cars", 6 coach-bag "California cars", 23 "Surfliners", 10 business-class "Surfliners", 45 new cars, total
> 
> This is a somewhat motley assortment. I really would have expected the number of cabs to match the number of cafes in some fashion. Is California making any effort to update the California Cars to Surfliner layouts?


1 cab and 1 cafe for use as new equipment, 4 cafes and 2 cabs to replace existing equipment. The two replacement cabs and two of the cafes are going on the Surfliner, the new capacity cab and cafe, plus two replacement cafes, go to Oakland for San Joaquin and Capitol Corridor.

If there's an excess of cab cars, I would suspect it's probably for extra spare on hand reasons such as you'd see with locomotives.


----------



## neroden

Paulus said:


> 1 cab and 1 cafe for use as new equipment, 4 cafes and 2 cabs to replace existing equipment. The two replacement cabs and two of the cafes are going on the Surfliner, the new capacity cab and cafe, plus two replacement cafes, go to Oakland for San Joaquin and Capitol Corridor.


OK, this still doesn't make sense to me.

* The Pacific Surfliner has one single-level trainset, so that accounts for one replacement cab and one replacement cafe.

* I would expect two cabs and two cafes to be needed to replace the Comet Ibs on the San Joaquin.

So that doesn't add up at all; I'd expect that they'd need 3 replacement cabs and 3 replacement cafes, and that two of the cabs would have to go to Oakland...

...what are all the extra cafes replacing, anyway? As far as I know, California isn't disposing of any bilevel cafes or cabs, and the Superliners borrowed from Amtrak are all coaches. Is California displacing some of the "California Car" cafes with the upper-level food service, which are inefficiently used?



> If there's an excess of cab cars, I would suspect it's probably for extra spare on hand reasons such as you'd see with locomotives.


Well, at least that makes sense!


----------



## Paulus

Replacing Amtrak owned equipment with state owned.


----------



## jis

I wonder where Amtrak plans to deploy the equipment other than the 7 Superliners, thus released.

Looks like the following are Amtrak owned according to http://www.on-track-on-line.com/amtkrinf-pacsurfnames.shtml:

08 Business Class

15 Coaches

08 Cafe

08 Cab (the 9th car 6902, not clear what happened to it)


----------



## rickycourtney

neroden said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 cab and 1 cafe for use as new equipment, 4 cafes and 2 cabs to replace existing equipment. The two replacement cabs and two of the cafes are going on the Surfliner, the new capacity cab and cafe, plus two replacement cafes, go to Oakland for San Joaquin and Capitol Corridor.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, this still doesn't make sense to me.
> * The Pacific Surfliner has one single-level trainset, so that accounts for one replacement cab and one replacement cafe.
> 
> * I would expect two cabs and two cafes to be needed to replace the Comet Ibs on the San Joaquin.
> 
> So that doesn't add up at all; I'd expect that they'd need 3 replacement cabs and 3 replacement cafes, and that two of the cabs would have to go to Oakland...
> 
> ...what are all the extra cafes replacing, anyway? As far as I know, California isn't disposing of any bilevel cafes or cabs, and the Superliners borrowed from Amtrak are all coaches. Is California displacing some of the "California Car" cafes with the upper-level food service, which are inefficiently used?
Click to expand...

The Comet car trainsets replaced bi-level trainsets on a one-for-one basis. The cab cars for those trainsets are still around (probably being used as as extra coaches). But the 2 cafe cars we're reassigned to the Capitol Corridor to replace the 2 Superliner Snack coaches that Caltrans had been leasing. But when the San Joaquin returns to using all bi-level equipment, they will need those cafe cars back.

The full length cafe cars will likely remain on the San Joaquin for the foreseeable future. It's a long run (5-6 hours) and therefore it makes since to offer a larger dining/lounge space.


----------



## afigg

PerRock said:


> Using the trickery of web coding, is this the image you're talking about? (I can't actually read the article).


Yes, that is the photo of the cafe car mock-up interior in the Train mag news wire report. Not a particularly informative photo, but it shows that progress in being made on refining the design and configuration of the bi-levels.


----------



## rickycourtney

jis said:


> I wonder where Amtrak plans to deploy the equipment other than the 7 Superliners, thus released.
> 
> Looks like the following are Amtrak owned according to http://www.on-track-on-line.com/amtkrinf-pacsurfnames.shtml:
> 
> 08 Business Class
> 
> 15 Coaches
> 
> 08 Cafe
> 
> 08 Cab (the 9th car 6902, not clear what happened to it)


I don't expect the "Amtrak owned" Surfliner trainsets to be released back to the national system anytime soon (if ever).


----------



## jis

Are those leased from Amtrak at present, just like the 7 Superliners, but presumably on different terms?

I guess historically the San Diegans were part of the national system and that is why Amtrak owns the original bunch that was acquired in 2000 for that service? Then when California took it over, presumably some lease arrangement was put in place. That would be similar to what happened in New York State this year I suppose, as part of the conversion of the Empire Service to 209 compliance.


----------



## roadman3313

Extra cab cars are currently being used on the Capitol Corridor to add bike capacity currently. The addition of bike capacity is a priority for the Capitol Corridor as well as the increase of bike lockers at stations. I'm riding in one of the Superliner's assigned to the Capitol Corridor and it does have the café (snack space) on the lower level. 4 car trains tend to have the Surfliner Café or Superliner Coach-Snack car. 5 car trains tend to have the upstairs California Café car. San Joaquins will generally run with the 5 car sets, Capitol Corridor are a mix of 4 and 5 car sets. Both 4 and 5 car train sets should have 4 cars worth of upstairs coach seating.

The Comet cars are back to the 712/717 rotation on the San Joaquin, although the train has been delayed the last two days out of Oakland due to "late arrival of train set"d (according to the electronic display boards). This train set comes out of the yard so it appears to be an issue dispatching out of the yard to Oakland (about 10 minutes yesterday, just over 50 minutes today).


----------



## rickycourtney

jis said:


> Are those leased from Amtrak at present, just like the 7 Superliners, but presumably on different terms?
> 
> I guess historically the San Diegans were part of the national system and that is why Amtrak owns the original bunch that was acquired in 2000 for that service? Then when California took it over, presumably some lease arrangement was put in place. That would be similar to what happened in New York State this year I suppose, as part of the conversion of the Empire Service to 209 compliance.


Despite asking around for months now, I don't know the answer to that question.
California may have, at some point, picked up some level of ownership on the Surfliner cars that Amtrak purchased. But thanks to the PRIIA rules, if they don't fully own them, they would be paying Amtrak something to lease them (and I would expect the state would eventually try to buy them from Amtrak).


----------



## rickycourtney

roadman3313 said:


> Extra cab cars are currently being used on the Capitol Corridor to add bike capacity currently. The addition of bike capacity is a priority for the Capitol Corridor as well as the increase of bike lockers at stations. I'm riding in one of the Superliner's assigned to the Capitol Corridor and it does have the café (snack space) on the lower level. 4 car trains tend to have the Surfliner Café or Superliner Coach-Snack car. 5 car trains tend to have the upstairs California Café car. San Joaquins will generally run with the 5 car sets, Capitol Corridor are a mix of 4 and 5 car sets. Both 4 and 5 car train sets should have 4 cars worth of upstairs coach seating.
> 
> The Comet cars are back to the 712/717 rotation on the San Joaquin, although the train has been delayed the last two days out of Oakland due to "late arrival of train set"d (according to the electronic display boards). This train set comes out of the yard so it appears to be an issue dispatching out of the yard to Oakland (about 10 minutes yesterday, just over 50 minutes today).


My previous point still stands. One of the stated goals of the Comet car plan was to reassign two cafe cars from the San Joaquin to the Capitol Corridor so that the lease on the snack coaches could be terminated. Not sure why it hasn't been done yet.
I'm very curious to see how the delivery of these new cars will work. I assume that California will get the first cars since the shops in Los Angeles and Oakland are more experienced than Chicago when it comes to working with cars like these.

There's also a bit of a pissing match between Southern and Northern California about who gets their cars first. The folks that run the San Joaquin are asking the state to make it a top priority to restore all bi-level trainsets to the route. Of course the Pacific Surfliner has had single-level equipment longer.


----------



## afigg

rickycourtney said:


> I'm very curious to see how the delivery of these new cars will work. I assume that California will get the first cars since the shops in Los Angeles and Oakland are more experienced than Chicago when it comes to working with cars like these.


However the manufacturing plant is in Illinois, so initial testing in Chicago would be closer to the plant and allow the cars to easily be sent back for fixes and design changes. I expect the states and the FRA have worked out the deployment sequence and plans for the test cars and first batch of deliverable cars to the states. Then again, maybe not.


----------



## jis

rickycourtney said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are those leased from Amtrak at present, just like the 7 Superliners, but presumably on different terms?
> 
> I guess historically the San Diegans were part of the national system and that is why Amtrak owns the original bunch that was acquired in 2000 for that service? Then when California took it over, presumably some lease arrangement was put in place. That would be similar to what happened in New York State this year I suppose, as part of the conversion of the Empire Service to 209 compliance.
> 
> 
> 
> Despite asking around for months now, I don't know the answer to that question.
> California may have, at some point, picked up some level of ownership on the Surfliner cars that Amtrak purchased. But thanks to the PRIIA rules, if they don't fully own them, they would be paying Amtrak something to lease them (and I would expect the state would eventually try to buy them from Amtrak).
Click to expand...

So the bottom line is that other than the replacement for the 7 Superliners, any additional cars are all additional capacity to displace single levels and then just additional capacity. The Amtrak owned Surfliner equipment is not being replaces as Paulus suggested a few posts back?


----------



## Paulus

Second to last page here gives types and distribution for CA as currently planned, at least as of May.


----------



## jis

Interesting.... Still not clear though that any of the Amtrak owned Surfliner equipment will be replaced. Kind of hard to figure that out without spending considerably more time on it. Thanks for the details anyway.


----------



## crew

afigg said:


> rickycourtney said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm very curious to see how the delivery of these new cars will work. I assume that California will get the first cars since the shops in Los Angeles and Oakland are more experienced than Chicago when it comes to working with cars like these.
> 
> 
> 
> However the manufacturing plant is in Illinois, so initial testing in Chicago would be closer to the plant and allow the cars to easily be sent back for fixes and design changes. I expect the states and the FRA have worked out the deployment sequence and plans for the test cars and first batch of deliverable cars to the states. Then again, maybe not.
Click to expand...

I have never understood the need to "reinvent the wheel", or act as if they are, every time some new cars are ordered, ESPECIALLY when their design is based on that of existing, proven equipment!


----------



## jis

Someone who is not an Engineer (not of the train driving kind but the building kind) by training, will never understand the need for testing and commissioning of artifacts no matter how well known the design that it is based on is. It is actually quite astounding how many things can go wrong in how many unexpected ways even with the best laid out design and plan.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Paulus said:


> Second to last page here gives types and distribution for CA as currently planned, at least as of May.


Figures in this report suggest that California could be the last to get the new cars.

Final delivery scheduled for June 2018. Oops. Stimulus projects must be completed

by Sept 2017 iirc. The Midwestern states are getting almost all their money from

Stimulus funds (with only a sliver from HSIPR funds, which have a flexible deadline).

They will be up against a hard deadline. California is using more HSIPR funds

AND state Prop 1B bond money, so Cali can keep spending after Stimulus funding

goes the way of Cincerella's coach.

Here's a handy timeline from that report (Thanks, Paulus):

Final design review, April 2014

Completion of first car shell, Dec 2014.

Assembly of first pilot car, July 2015.

Pilot car testing, July 2015-Jan 2016

Pilot train acceptance, May 2016.

The plan is to build them at the rate of 6 per month.

(Deadline to spend stimulus funds, Sept 2017.)

Final delivery, June 2018.

(This date is before adding in the pending option order,

with 45 more cars at 6 per month, add another half year,

early 2019 before all the older Amtrak cars will be

released to serve back East.)


----------



## rickycourtney

jis said:


> Interesting.... Still not clear though that any of the Amtrak owned Surfliner equipment will be replaced. Kind of hard to figure that out without spending considerably more time on it. Thanks for the details anyway.


It won't be. The equipment going away will be the single level trainsets and the extra Superliner cars being leased from Amtrak's national fleet.


----------



## rickycourtney

WoodyinNYC said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second to last page here gives types and distribution for CA as currently planned, at least as of May.
> 
> 
> 
> Figures in this report suggest that California could be the last to get the new cars.Final delivery scheduled for June 2018. Oops. Stimulus projects must be completed
> 
> by Sept 2017 iirc. The Midwestern states are getting almost all their money from
> 
> Stimulus funds (with only a sliver from HSIPR funds, which have a flexible deadline).
> 
> They will be up against a hard deadline. California is using more HSIPR funds
> 
> AND state Prop 1B bond money, so Cali can keep spending after Stimulus funding
> 
> goes the way of Cincerella's coach.
> 
> Here's a handy timeline from that report (Thanks, Paulus):
> 
> Final design review, April 2014
> 
> Completion of first car shell, Dec 2014.
> 
> Assembly of first pilot car, July 2015.
> 
> Pilot car testing, July 2015-Jan 2016
> 
> Pilot train acceptance, May 2016.
> 
> The plan is to build them at the rate of 6 per month.
> 
> (Deadline to spend stimulus funds, Sept 2017.)
> 
> Final delivery, June 2018.
> 
> (This date is before adding in the pending option order,
> 
> with 45 more cars at 6 per month, add another half year,
> 
> early 2019 before all the older Amtrak cars will be
> 
> released to serve back East.)
Click to expand...

This is logical, but a real bummer for California.


----------



## jis

How much of this order is paid for by stimulus funds and how much by other funds?


----------



## neroden

rickycourtney said:


> The Comet car trainsets replaced bi-level trainsets on a one-for-one basis. The cab cars for those trainsets are still around (probably being used as as extra coaches). But the 2 cafe cars we're reassigned to the Capitol Corridor to replace the 2 Superliner Snack coaches that Caltrans had been leasing.


Aha. This is the missing piece of information. Thanks. I didn't know Caltrans was leasing any Superliners in food-service configurations, even partial food-service configurations.
Actually, I didn't know there WERE any Superliners in a "snack coach" configuration; are these part of the 7 wreck-rebuilt Superliners leased by California? If so, they'll have to be reconfigured prior to use on the national system, since there's no role for a "snack coach" on the western long-distance trains.


----------



## neroden

WoodyinNYC said:


> (This date is before adding in the pending option order,
> 
> with 45 more cars at 6 per month, add another half year,
> 
> early 2019 before all the older Amtrak cars will be
> 
> released to serve back East.)


Most of the option order is also for the Midwest. With almost all the Midwest money coming from stimulus funding, it's going to be a rush to get them all produced by December 2017. California's only getting 53 cars. At this point, I think we can expect ALL the Midwest cars to be delivered before ANY of the California cars are. Which is probably just as well.

Regarding something else Jis said: Putting the Horizons on overnight trains without modifying them would be a terrible idea, since some crews will be idiots and will put overnight passengers in them, and this will drive away repeat business. Amtrak needs to at least replace the unpopular lighting; that'll pay for itself in a couple of years through reduced energy/fuel costs. Perhaps the most logical thing to do would be to make minimal reconfigurations and then make the Horizons the core fleet for the "mid-length" eastern trains like the Carolinian, Pennsylvanian, Palmetto, Adirondack, Vermonter, and Maple Leaf.


----------



## neroden

rickycourtney said:


> California may have, at some point, picked up some level of ownership on the Surfliner cars that Amtrak purchased. But thanks to the PRIIA rules, if they don't fully own them, they would be paying Amtrak something to lease them (and I would expect the state would eventually try to buy them from Amtrak).


I've been watching the financial reports carefully. Amtrak's Surfliners were leased from some bank (you know, as usual), and the early buyout option or lease termination (not sure which) came up this year. Amtrak exercised almost all of its buyout options this year with a commercial line of credit. I can't be sure, but it looks from making some calculations as if Amtrak did not exercise the Surfliner buyout options along with the rest; the numbers look right if Amtrak exercise everything but the Surfliner options. This makes me suspicious that Amtrak may have instead managed to convince California to buy out the leases. This is sheer hypothesis, and I haven't managed to find any record of any purchase on the California end.


----------



## PerRock

neroden said:


> rickycourtney said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Comet car trainsets replaced bi-level trainsets on a one-for-one basis. The cab cars for those trainsets are still around (probably being used as as extra coaches). But the 2 cafe cars we're reassigned to the Capitol Corridor to replace the 2 Superliner Snack coaches that Caltrans had been leasing.
> 
> 
> 
> Aha. This is the missing piece of information. Thanks. I didn't know Caltrans was leasing any Superliners in food-service configurations, even partial food-service configurations.
> Actually, I didn't know there WERE any Superliners in a "snack coach" configuration; are these part of the 7 wreck-rebuilt Superliners leased by California? If so, they'll have to be reconfigured prior to use on the national system, since there's no role for a "snack coach" on the western long-distance trains.
Click to expand...

The Pere Marquette here in MI uses a Snack Coach Superliner, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Heartland Flyer uses one as well. They are numbered in the 35000-35010 range, although I'm uncertain if there are actually 10 out there.

peter


----------



## Paulus

neroden said:


> I've been watching the financial reports carefully. Amtrak's Surfliners were leased from some bank (you know, as usual), and the early buyout option or lease termination (not sure which) came up this year. Amtrak exercised almost all of its buyout options this year with a commercial line of credit. I can't be sure, but it looks from making some calculations as if Amtrak did not exercise the Surfliner buyout options along with the rest; the numbers look right if Amtrak exercise everything but the Surfliner options. This makes me suspicious that Amtrak may have instead managed to convince California to buy out the leases. This is sheer hypothesis, and I haven't managed to find any record of any purchase on the California end.


I haven't seen anything to say that California has; they may have left it open because of negotiations with the state over doing so however.


----------



## jis

PerRock said:


> The Pere Marquette here in MI uses a Snack Coach Superliner, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Heartland Flyer uses one as well. They are numbered in the 35000-35010 range, although I'm uncertain if there are actually 10 out there.
> 
> peter


They are numbered 35001 through 35010. Only 8 are in active service. Two are equipped for push-pull for use in the Heartland Flyer per the OTOL Amtrak Roster page. All of them are Superliner Is converted from straight Coaches.


----------



## OBS

There are at least 7 or 8 snack bar coaches. They have been around for years, as they ran on the International to Toronto as well as I worked a few on 50/51 when it was Superliner service. They are also often used in lieu of coaches similar to Superliner Coach/baggage.


----------



## Guest

jis said:


> How much of this order is paid for by stimulus funds and how much by other funds?


From the link above

(skip all the reading of the minutes, LOL, the info is on the last pages at the bottom),

IDOT for 88 cars (on behalf of Michigan and Missouri too) total $238.5 million

of which Stimulus $211.4 million

and from HSIPR $27.1 million

Caltrains total $113.8 million

of which Stimulus $54.2 million

from HSIPR $36.8 million

and from Prop 1B state funds $22.8 million

So while Cali might get less than half its cars by deadline Sept 2017,

the Midwest must get about 85% of its cars or it's Cinderella's Coach.

Not so bad for Cali after all

Not sure if any of the 45 option order waiting for sign-off is to use

Stimulus funds, but I doubt it. They've paid attention to the deadline,

after all.


----------



## Guest

Guest said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much of this order is paid for by stimulus funds and how much by other funds?
> 
> 
> 
> From the link above
> 
> (skip all the reading of the minutes, LOL, the info is on the last pages at the bottom),
> 
> IDOT for 88 cars (on behalf of Michigan and Missouri too) total $238.5 million
> 
> . . .
> 
> Caltrains total $113.8 million
> 
> . . .
> 
> . . .
> 
> Not sure if any of the 45 option order waiting for sign-off is to use
> 
> Stimulus funds, but I doubt it. They've paid attention to the deadline,
> 
> after all.
Click to expand...

Also not sure why "Administrator requires Verification code" now

afflicts my attempts to post. I'm not guest or guest_guest,

I'm Member WoodyinNYC.


----------



## Ryan

You need to log in.


----------



## VentureForth

The database was acting a bit squirly just a bit ago. Try to log in again. Maybe for some odd reason it requires the authorization code you got when you registered, but I doubt it.


----------



## afigg

Guest said:


> So while Cali might get less than half its cars by deadline Sept 2017, the Midwest must get about 85% of its cars or it's Cinderella's Coach.
> 
> Not so bad for Cali after all
> 
> Not sure if any of the 45 option order waiting for sign-off is to use Stimulus funds, but I doubt it. They've paid attention to the deadline, after all.


I think a chunk of the remaining funds to be used for the option order are indeed ARRA stimulus funds. At least for the Midwest based on a quick read of the HSIPR grant summary list the FRA last updated in 2012. The funds for the Midwest bi-level order is coming from the $1.04 billion (ARRA) for CHI-STL (the rolling stock portion), $268 million (ARRA) for Midwest Next Generation Passenger Rail Equipment Purchase, $177 million (FY10) for CHI-[not quite to] Iowa City (rolling stock portion), and perhaps the FY10 grants for Kalamazoo-Dearborn corridor. The FRA may have done or be planning to do some shuffling of funds between other ARRA grants and FY10 grants to have FY10 funds pay for the post FY2017 deliveries of the option units in the Nippon-Sharyo contract.


----------



## rickycourtney

neroden said:


> Aha. This is the missing piece of information. Thanks. I didn't know Caltrans was leasing any Superliners in food-service configurations, even partial food-service configurations.
> 
> Actually, I didn't know there WERE any Superliners in a "snack coach" configuration; are these part of the 7 wreck-rebuilt Superliners leased by California? If so, they'll have to be reconfigured prior to use on the national system, since there's no role for a "snack coach" on the western long-distance trains.


As others have mentioned, there were 10 "snack coaches" built. The crews call them "panic boxes" because they're good at both filling in for a café, lounge or a coach car... whatever is needed most. The other routes where they see active service are the Pere Marquette and the Heartland Flyer.

Here's a crummy picture of the lower-level cafe area:




I snapped this when the snack coach was being used to add capacity to the San Joaquin last thanksgiving. It's very spartan even compared to the Surfliner Café/Coach.



neroden said:


> I've been watching the financial reports carefully. Amtrak's Surfliners were leased from some bank (you know, as usual), and the early buyout option or lease termination (not sure which) came up this year. Amtrak exercised almost all of its buyout options this year with a commercial line of credit. I can't be sure, but it looks from making some calculations as if Amtrak did not exercise the Surfliner buyout options along with the rest; the numbers look right if Amtrak exercise everything but the Surfliner options. This makes me suspicious that Amtrak may have instead managed to convince California to buy out the leases. This is sheer hypothesis, and I haven't managed to find any record of any purchase on the California end.


I like your theory, it sounds plausible to me.

I suspect Amtrak would have needed to do very little convincing to get California to buy out the leases (assuming the money was available). The ownership of these cars are the one of the very few "sticks" Amtrak has when it comes to negotiations with California. If California starts to "shop around" for another operator for the Pacific Surfliner, it would've still been forced to lease this equipment back from Amtrak. I'm sure California would prefer to have all the equipment be state owned.


----------



## CHamilton

Nippon Sharyo expands US rolling stock plant




> USA: Nippon Sharyo USA has opened a third production hall at its plant in Rochelle, Illinois.
> 
> ‘We will now be able to fabricate, weld, and assemble parts for our car bodyshells right here, making Nippon Sharyo a 100% Buy America compliant rail car builder’, said Nippon Sharyo Chairman Katsuyuki Ikushima at the inauguration on July 30. ‘From start to finish our rail cars will be made in the USA for use in the USA. I hope we will become the top passenger railcar builder in North America.’


----------



## neroden

Looking at the numbers, 75.39% of the funding is stimulus (ARRA) funding. 75.39% of the cars (with the option added) would be 131.93 cars. At 6 cars per month, that's 22 months. As long as 6 cars a month are being delivered by December 2015, they should be able to do it; so I think they have a little wiggle room, but not much. Hopefully they're planning to start deliveries in October or November!


----------



## robert smith

Any concept sketches available on these cars?


----------



## rickycourtney

Here's the one and only exterior rendering... it looks just like the current California Car/Surfliner design except with a pointy front end on the cabcars to comply with new regulations on having crushable space.


----------



## Steve4031

neroden said:


> Looking at the numbers, 75.39% of the funding is stimulus (ARRA) funding. 75.39% of the cars (with the option added) would be 131.93 cars. At 6 cars per month, that's 22 months. As long as 6 cars a month are being delivered by December 2015, they should be able to do it; so I think they have a little wiggle room, but not much. Hopefully they're planning to start deliveries in October or November!


I'm confused. Are you saying they will start delivering 6 per month in December 2015?


----------



## afigg

neroden said:


> Looking at the numbers, 75.39% of the funding is stimulus (ARRA) funding. 75.39% of the cars (with the option added) would be 131.93 cars. At 6 cars per month, that's 22 months. As long as 6 cars a month are being delivered by December 2015, they should be able to do it; so I think they have a little wiggle room, but not much. Hopefully they're planning to start deliveries in October or November!


That 75% of the funding is stimulus/ARRA funding is for the baseline order of 130 cars, based on the LOSSAN board meeting viewgraph. The 45 car option may have a different funding breakdown between ARRA, FY2010, and state sources. The LOSSAN board meeting presentation (from May) has the projected final car delivery in June 2018 which I interpret as including the 45 option cars. But I expect the FRA and the state agencies have figured out the payment schedules and the risks.

The Pilot car testing is to run from July 2015 to January 2016, so it would be reasonable that the plan is to start low rate initial production in the fall of 2015, but the initial cars might not be fully fitted out until the end of 2015 or January 2016. This of course, is based on no schedule slips, and the schedule for a major production job like this for all new build almost always slips.


----------



## afigg

rickycourtney said:


> Here's the one and only exterior rendering... it looks just like the current California Car/Surfliner design except with a pointy front end on the cabcars to comply with new regulations on having crushable space.


I would regard that rendering as an early conceptual one. The N-S cars will have the same overall form factor and layout as a Surfliner, but we should expect the final product to look at least a bit different from the rendering. The base schedule has the first carshell completed by December 2014, so there might be a press event or update with photos released then.

BTW, N-S USA issued a press release back on July 30 for the ribbon cutting ceremony which has several exterior shots of the Rochelle plant and the new Shop 3 fabrication building: Nippon Sharyo U.S.A Holds Grand Opening Ceremony for Shop III; Addition to Manufacturing Campus increase employment to 500.


----------



## rickycourtney

afigg said:


> I would regard that rendering as an early conceptual one. The N-S cars will have the same overall form factor and layout as a Surfliner, but we should expect the final product to look at least a bit different from the rendering.


With the exception of the front end of the cab... that concept appears to be identical to the California Car and Surfliner. Actually there are very few exterior differences between the California Car and Surfliner. The most noticeable is that California Car has more fluting on the side.


----------



## neroden

Regarding the money, the option order is paid for because *the initial order came in under budget* -- it's paid for by the budget underrun. Therefore it's going to be exactly the same money as originally allocated.


----------



## Paulus

A bit of additional information from LOSSAN. Table 9.2 on page 3 of Attachment C gives the per car prices for the new bi-levels.

Coach: $2.7 million

Cab: $2.9 million

Café: $2.9 million


----------



## Anderson

Paulus said:


> A bit of additional information from LOSSAN. Table 9.2 on page 3 of Attachment C gives the per car prices for the new bi-levels.
> 
> Coach: $2.7 million
> 
> Cab: $2.9 million
> 
> Café: $2.9 million


Now _that_ is interesting, not the least because Amtrak was (if I'm not mistaken) assuming $4m/car for bilevels.


----------



## rickycourtney

Anderson said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bit of additional information from LOSSAN. Table 9.2 on page 3 of Attachment C gives the per car prices for the new bi-levels.
> 
> Coach: $2.7 million
> 
> Cab: $2.9 million
> 
> Café: $2.9 million
> 
> 
> 
> Now _that_ is interesting, not the least because Amtrak was (if I'm not mistaken) assuming $4m/car for bilevels.
Click to expand...

That's the power of buying in bulk!
It's also why Amtrak should try to take advantage of the situation and order some new cars.


----------



## afigg

Paulus said:


> A bit of additional information from LOSSAN. Table 9.2 on page 3 of Attachment C gives the per car prices for the new bi-levels.
> 
> Coach: $2.7 million
> 
> Cab: $2.9 million
> 
> Café: $2.9 million


There are other nuggets of information in the LOSSAN board meeting attachments. After a paragraph discussing using Prop 1B funds to buy 15 locomotives to replace the Amtrak owned F59-PHI locomotives, it goes on:



> In addition, LOSSAN staff will continue to work with Caltrans and the California State Transportation Agency to explore opportunities to improve cost efficiency related to the existing lease of Amtrak-owned railcars to support the Pacific Surfliner service. Options being discussed include the purchase of the 39 bi-level railcars currently owned and operated by Amtrak for the Pacific Surfliner service, or purchase of additional bi-level Nippon Sharyo railcars to replace all or a portion of the 39 Amtrak-owned Pacific Surfliner railcars, while also providing sufficient equipment capacity to support projected future service needs for the Pacific Surfliner, as well as emerging corridors like the Coast Daylight, enhanced Santa Barbara to Ventura service, and Coachella Valley service.


The California agencies are clearly seeking to own all of the rolling stock so they have control over it. If they have the money, LOSSAN might decide to buy 39 additional Nippon-Sharyo bi-levels to have a more uniform and younger fleet mix. Amtrak could end up with 39 Surfliners that they could move to the LD trains or offer as starter equipment for new corridor services in the Midwest and in Texas.


----------



## neroden

> In addition, LOSSAN staff will continue to work with Caltrans and the California State Transportation Agency to explore opportunities to improve cost efficiency related to the existing lease of Amtrak-owned railcars to support the Pacific Surfliner service. Options being discussed include the purchase of the 39 bi-level railcars currently owned and operated by Amtrak for the Pacific Surfliner service, or purchase of additional bi-level Nippon Sharyo railcars to replace all or a portion of the 39 Amtrak-owned Pacific Surfliner railcars,


Oooh, good catch, afigg.
Either way this is good.

* If California purchases additional new cars, the Amtrak-owned Surfliner cars will immediately be transferred to other Amtrak lines. Some would probably run on the Heartland Flyer immediately. Some might be used as spares in the Midwest (which seems to be ordering *barely* enough cars for its services). Others would probably be retrofitted (with wider seat pitch) and used to lengthen some of the trains on "long-distance" routes. Or they might be used for new startup service (Minnesota might want them for the proposed St. Paul-Chicago second frequency, for instance).

* If California buys the 39 cars out from Amtrak, Amtrak gets a cash injection of, perhaps, ~$39 million. After the leases are bought out, the remainder can go directly to buying new Viewliners (or whatever, but I'm guessing Viewliners are the best bang for Amtrak's buck).


----------



## Paulus

There are two emerging corridors in California that would run out of LA and likely use most of them (Coachella and Daylight), assuming agreements and whatnot might ever be made.


----------



## battalion51

The Heartland Flyer and Hiawathas come to mind immediately as two services that would be good candidates to take on Surfliner equipment if re-deployed. In spite of the challenges with the State of Indiana, the Hoosier state would be another good choice. The challenge though is between those three services it'd only require four sets of equipment to completely replace the existing Horizons/Superliners in place. You could deploy some to local coach services provided on the Builder and Eagle. Inevitably some would probably be retrofitted to make them more of a LD car than a short haul.


----------



## Bob Dylan

The Missouri River Runners would also be good candidates for these cars to replace the Horizons which are no-ones favorite equipment!(But keep the 2x1 Seating Biz Class/ Cafe Cars!)


----------



## PRR 60

jimhudson said:


> The Missouri River Runners would also be good candidates for these cars to replace the Horizons which are no-ones favorite equipment!(But keep the 2x1 Seating Biz Class/ Cafe Cars!)


I believe the Missouri River Runner will be getting new bi-level cars from Missouri's share of the car purchase.


----------



## Bob Dylan

PRR 60 said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Missouri River Runners would also be good candidates for these cars to replace the Horizons which are no-ones favorite equipment!(But keep the 2x1 Seating Biz Class/ Cafe Cars!)
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the Missouri River Runner will be getting new bi-level cars from Missouri's share of the car purchase.
Click to expand...

Thanks Bill, I didn't know that!!


----------



## afigg

PRR 60 said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Missouri River Runners would also be good candidates for these cars to replace the Horizons which are no-ones favorite equipment!(But keep the 2x1 Seating Biz Class/ Cafe Cars!)
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the Missouri River Runner will be getting new bi-level cars from Missouri's share of the car purchase.
Click to expand...

Yes, Missouri along with Illinois and Michigan are members of the Midwest consortium or authority or however they structured it that are getting the Nippon-Sharyo bi-level cars. There are strong indications that Wisconsin will be getting bi-levels as well when the 45 car option is exercised, so the Hiawatha service won't be needing Surfliners either.

Having speculated that the CA corridor agencies may seek to buy new bi-levels from Nippon-Sharyo to replace the Amtrak owned Surfliners, I suspect the costs of doing so may keep them from doing so. I do expect that CA will buy more N-S bi-levels for service expansion, including the Coast Daylight and possibly the Coachella Valley. But they may opt to buy the 39 Surfliners from Amtrak or at least try to; don't know if Amtrak would be willing to give up that control.

For the record, Amtrak now owns the 39 Surfliners outright: the lease for 10 Surfliners came up for Early Buyout in June, 2013 ($17 million) and the remaining 29 in March, 2014 ($28.4 million). We know Amtrak took out a commercial loan to exercise the batch of Early Buyouts options that came up in FY2014.


----------



## Anderson

I've heard a variety of speculation concerning the Horizons. The best theories I've heard are:
(1) Use on some eastern corridor trains (for example, the Pennsylvanian, which _did_ use them back in the 90s when it ran to Chicago), which would free up Amfleets for some mix of NEC service and/or LD service (depending on what route they were on).

(2) Use on one or more LD trains (for example, the CONO could be converted to Horizons plus Viewliners at least in theory, or one of the existing LD trains could be converted from Amfleets to Horizons to free up Amfleets for the other LDs).

My best guess is that the Pennsylvanian/Palmetto would take four sets. The Adirondack would be a decent candidate for another two sets, and that would dump a batch of LD Amfleets back into the pool for the LSL, SM, etc. If the Capitol Limited through cars happen, that's another possibility, and that would actually sync nicely with the Pennsylvanian getting them. Honestly, that mix would go through a pretty good share of the equipment; the rest might get kicked to the Ethan Allen or another corridor, or (as noted) be put on one of the LD trains.


----------



## Anderson

On the CA equipment situation...

On the one hand, $110m or so to replace those cars is a lot of money; on the other hand, this is California and they're paying for the equipment they don't own as it stands.

Also, does anyone know what the actual status of the Coast Daylight and/or the Coachella Valley service actually are? IIRC, CA does want to start up the former (Daylight) when equipment becomes available (they own the slots though UP is being a bit difficult), but I thought CA had basically been told to sod off by UP on the latter service.

(To afigg: Sorry for editing your post for a moment. I picked the wrong post when adding this, so I threw it in as its own post.)


----------



## rickycourtney

While I enjoy railfan fantasia as much as any guy, I HIGHLY doubt that the Alstom-built cars will ever leave California. I fully expect that Caltrans will make a offer that a cash strapped Amtrak can't refuse.

If railfans in Oklahoma or Indiana really want to see bi-level cars on their favorite route, I suggest they petition their lawmakers to purchase some from Nippon-Sharyo. I heard the company is offering bargain prices right now.


----------



## Anderson

rickycourtney said:


> While I enjoy railfan fantasia as much as any guy, I HIGHLY doubt that the Alstom-built cars will ever leave California. I fully expect that Caltrans will make a offer that a cash strapped Amtrak can't refuse.
> 
> If railfans in Oklahoma or Indiana really want to see bi-level cars on their favorite route, I suggest they petition their lawmakers to purchase some from Nippon-Sharyo. I heard the company is offering bargain prices right now.


(1) I believe Oklahoma currently uses Superliners on the Heartland Flyer.

(2) I have to wonder what an "offer Amtrak couldn't refuse" would be.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Anderson said:


> rickycourtney said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I enjoy railfan fantasia as much as any guy, I HIGHLY doubt that the Alstom-built cars will ever leave California. I fully expect that Caltrans will make a offer that a cash strapped Amtrak can't refuse.
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> (2) I have to wonder what an "offer Amtrak couldn't refuse" would be.
Click to expand...

I'd be terribly tempted to take $100 million and exercise the option for up to 70 more Viewliners.


----------



## afigg

WoodyinNYC said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> (2) I have to wonder what an "offer Amtrak couldn't refuse" would be.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be terribly tempted to take $100 million and exercise the option for up to 70 more Viewliners.
Click to expand...

Probability of that is very small. First of all, the 39 Surfliners owned by Amtrak were built around 2000, so they are 14 years old and halfway through their nominal service life. If CA were to offer to buy them at half the price of a new bi-level at an average of $1.4 million each, the offer would be for $54 million, not $100 million. I also don't see why CA would buy the Amtrak Surfliners until the new N-S bi-levels are delivered as part of a move to get ownership of all the CA corridor rolling stock and not have to pay capital charges for any of it. So even if Amtrak were looking to use the money for new rolling stock, the CAF production line could be shut down by then.
An offer that Amtrak couldn't refuse might be a 5 year corridor operating service contract extension in return for selling the Surfliners to CalTrans.


----------



## neroden

Anderson said:


> I've heard a variety of speculation concerning the Horizons. The best theories I've heard are:
> 
> (1) Use on some eastern corridor trains (for example, the Pennsylvanian, which _did_ use them back in the 90s when it ran to Chicago), which would free up Amfleets for some mix of NEC service and/or LD service (depending on what route they were on).
> 
> (2) Use on one or more LD trains (for example, the CONO could be converted to Horizons plus Viewliners at least in theory, or one of the existing LD trains could be converted from Amfleets to Horizons to free up Amfleets for the other LDs).


It's worth noting that in either case the Horizons really need an serious overhaul. *Nobody* likes the lighting, and apparently they have problems in cold weather which need to be addressed. For NEC service they need automatic doors and for LD service they need wider seat pitch. For either deployment, there are an excess of cafes relative to coaches.
Hopefully Amtrak management is already planning out a Horizon conversion program at Beech Grove.



afigg said:


> I also don't see why CA would buy the Amtrak Surfliners until the new N-S bi-levels are delivered....


If California waits too long, Amtrak will have a strong incentive to hang onto the Surfliners: advertise them for any state wanting to start up new services, use them to replace Superliners as the Superliners break one by one, etc. On the other hand, if California offers to buy them right now, at the period of Amtrak's cash crunch, when the money could be used immediately to buy new Viewiners from an operating production line, it would be a better offer from Amtrak's point of view.


----------



## rickycourtney

afigg said:


> An offer that Amtrak couldn't refuse might be a 5 year corridor operating service contract extension in return for selling the Surfliners to CalTrans.


Bingo! That's exactly what I was thinking.

A contract extension plus cash from the sale of those 39 cars would be a tough deal for Amtrak to pass up.


----------



## rickycourtney

Also I expect that the Coast Daylight (or another "emerging" corridor) will get the Comet IB cars currently used on the San Joaquin and not the new bi-levels. The San Joaquin desperately needs the capacity the bi-level cars would would provide.

Once those new corridors prove themselves, bi-level cars could be ordered.


----------



## neroden

ADA considerations mean that the Comet IBs are extremely undesirable cars for a startup service with low-level platforms. The rules are complicated; but basically California was able to use them on the current route because they were the only cars available within a short enough timeframe. On a startup service, they would be required to try to get cars which matched the platform height (whatever it was).


----------



## rickycourtney

neroden said:


> ADA considerations mean that the Comet IBs are extremely undesirable cars for a startup service with low-level platforms. The rules are complicated; but basically California was able to use them on the current route because they were the only cars available within a short enough timeframe. On a startup service, they would be required to try to get cars which matched the platform height (whatever it was).


In all my years covering transportation issues in California, I've never heard this rule, but I'll take your word for it. But I'm curious, who would require that? 
If your suggestion is that the Coast Daylight gets the new bi-level equipment, while the San Joaquin continues to operate the Comet cars... then you don't know the people in charge of the San Joaquin JPA. They are already putting a lot of pressure on Caltrans to get the first new bi-level cars. They are "taking one for the team" because it would be difficult to run single level cars on the Capitol Corridor and the San Joaquin badly needed the additional capacity.


----------



## neroden

Federal ADA law requires that a startup service be fully accessible according to CURRENT rules, which NOW require a level-boarding platform. Or alternatively a long and convoluted process to get an exception by proving inability to get level-boarding platforms -- which must be proved one platform at a time. (The level-boarding regulations are relatively new regulations.)

There are various derogations and exceptions; most of them, however, relate to maintaining and modifying existing service.

One exception allows the purchase of less-accessible used vehicles if more-accessible new vehicles are simply not available in the right timeframe for a reasonable price. This is presumably what was used to get the Comet Ibs.

I doubt this exception would be available for the Coast Daylight, unless some governor decided to do a rush job on the project and get it running within a year.

I expect the Comet Ibs to be either retired -- or sold east to an area with high platforms. (Vermont or North Carolina might be interested in them, for example.)


----------



## cirdan

rickycourtney said:


> While I enjoy railfan fantasia as much as any guy, I HIGHLY doubt that the Alstom-built cars will ever leave California. I fully expect that Caltrans will make a offer that a cash strapped Amtrak can't refuse.


Absolutely. If California is spending money, then it's to improve service in California, not to support other parts of the Amtrak system.


----------



## afigg

rickycourtney said:


> Also I expect that the Coast Daylight (or another "emerging" corridor) will get the Comet IB cars currently used on the San Joaquin and not the new bi-levels. The San Joaquin desperately needs the capacity the bi-level cars would would provide.
> 
> Once those new corridors prove themselves, bi-level cars could be ordered.


Setting aside possible ADA compliance questions with regards to level boarding, CA would not be starting the Coast Daylight as an "experimental" service. CalTrans and UP still have to agree on what minimum track improvements are needed before UP relents and allows the Coast Daylight train to run on their tracks, but CalTrans may have to lay out $30 million to $40 million for track and station upgrades. Possibly more. CalTrans is not going to spend that kind of money with the intent of running a temporary experimental service. The communities on the route won't take that position either.

A Coast Daylight would take 2 consists, but it also would be treated as an extension of a Surfliner slot, so one Surfliner consists becomes a Coast Daylight. Figure a Coast Daylight train would be 5 to 6 cars, and if 2 new consists are needed, worse case 6 cars * 2 consists plus 3 spares means that CalTran might order 15 additional bi-level cars to support the Coast Daylight. At ~$3 million each, not a big deal for CalTrans with the Cap and Trade revenue coming in.


----------



## rickycourtney

neroden said:


> Federal ADA law requires that a startup service be fully accessible according to CURRENT rules, which NOW require a level-boarding platform. Or alternatively a long and convoluted process to get an exception by proving inability to get level-boarding platforms -- which must be proved one platform at a time. (The level-boarding regulations are relatively new regulations.)


Here's the problem with that... unlike in New York... there is no such thing as "level" or step-free boarding for the commuter or intercity trains in California. All of the equipment in use today has a lift, ramp or bridgeplate for people using mobility devices. These new Nippon-Sharyo cars will be equipped with two wheelchair lifts. Granted that's nicer than the manually operated wheelchair lift in use on the San Joaquin, but it's not "level" or step-free.



afigg said:


> Setting aside possible ADA compliance questions with regards to level boarding, CA would not be starting the Coast Daylight as an "experimental" service. CalTrans and UP still have to agree on what minimum track improvements are needed before UP relents and allows the Coast Daylight train to run on their tracks, but CalTrans may have to lay out $30 million to $40 million for track and station upgrades. Possibly more. CalTrans is not going to spend that kind of money with the intent of running a temporary experimental service. The communities on the route won't take that position either.
> 
> A Coast Daylight would take 2 consists, but it also would be treated as an extension of a Surfliner slot, so one Surfliner consists becomes a Coast Daylight. Figure a Coast Daylight train would be 5 to 6 cars, and if 2 new consists are needed, worse case 6 cars * 2 consists plus 3 spares means that CalTran might order 15 additional bi-level cars to support the Coast Daylight. At ~$3 million each, not a big deal for CalTrans with the Cap and Trade revenue coming in.


Apologies, I was unclear in my last post. I don't think the Coast Daylight would be an experiment. If Caltrans is going to launch the service, they are going to commit to making it work for the long haul. My point was that without some real-world information on the train, it doesn't make since to purchase cars for the line. The state would be spending millions on trainsets that will be used at some unknown time in the future on a line with totally unknown ridership.

If Caltrans orders 2 trainsets for the Coast Daylight at published prices, that's $41.7 million. Why spend that money today, when in 2017/2018 the state will have two perfectly good Comet IB trainsets sitting in mothballs?

That being said... I think the state has been too conservative with its equipment purchase. Considering the explosive ridership growth on the San Joaquin and the aspirations of both the Pacific Surfliner and the San Joaquin to add runs to their schedule, I fear California will find itself with another equipment shortage a few short years after these cars are delivered. I remain hopeful that the state will keep adding to this order.


----------



## neroden

For new service:

If the "freight" owner of the tracks obstructs level boarding (as they might be anticipated to), a separate case has to be made to the FRA for *each station* proving that the option chosen is the best they could get, and specifically proving it superior to traincar-based lifts. (Traincar-based lifts/ramps are the default for situations where the freight operator is being obstructive.)

This only applies where the freight operator has some sort of legal property rights -- on Metrolink and Caltrain tracks, they probably don't; unless they have a specific "high and wide" guarantee in their retained freight easement, level boarding would be required for any station modifications.

Good luck going through this process with the Comet Ibs. It's going to be a lot easier to buy some more bilevels with built-in ramps.

(Incidentally, it's possible that the CPUC "no platforms higher than 8" next to trains" rule is actually bad law now. It may be preempted by the ADA regulations. It would be interesting to see an agency try this one in court.)



rickycourtney said:


> If Caltrans orders 2 trainsets for the Coast Daylight at published prices, that's $41.7 million. Why spend that money today, when in 2017/2018 the state will have two perfectly good Comet IB trainsets sitting in mothballs?


The best way to answer this is "they aren't perfectly good". Not for California. They were simply available quickly. Caltrans would be much better off buying some new bilevels which match the rest of the fleet, and selling the Comet IBs to a high-platform area. Goodness knows there's enough latent demand for single-level coaches.


----------



## Anderson

I wish I was being pithy, but I'm really not...

Can someone please explain to me why, when SP sold CA the slots needed to add in the Daylight back in the 70s, UP is able to demand a stack of improvements to run the Daylight? Was there a clause in the sale contract allowing this or something?


----------



## Paulus

Anderson said:


> I wish I was being pithy, but I'm really not...
> 
> Can someone please explain to me why, when SP sold CA the slots needed to add in the Daylight back in the 70s, UP is able to demand a stack of improvements to run the Daylight? Was there a clause in the sale contract allowing this or something?


That agreement expired. Per 2000 California state rail planning for the Daylight:



> Amtrak currently operates the Coast Starlight over the UP Coast Line under terms of an expired agreement between Amtrak and SP. A new operating agreement is currently being negotiated and is likely to be effective soon. The agreement will need to be amended to cover operation of the Coast Daylight between San Jose and Moorpark. Entering into negotiations of the Coast Daylight, UP expressed its concern about increasing passenger train activity on its line between San Jose and Salinas. UP likely will assess capacity on that segment specifically in the near- term, given assumptions about future passenger trains.


It's possible that is just got sidelined during the electricity crisis and Arnold's term as governor.


----------



## roadman3313

I do recall it was in a Capitol Corridor Business plan to extend train service south to Salinas. That is a Capitol Corridor project, however the main concern was also UP's concern regarding increasing service between San Jose and Salinas. If anything, it would be nice to branch the gap between San Jose and San Luis Obispo with another train connection as mentioned. The buses allow for options, however a train to train connection (if not a thru-train) would be nice.

The Capitol Corridor Business plan also included extending a trip east to Reno, however that also came under huge opposition by UP. Expansion of Service to Roseville and building a yard facility in Sacramento east of the current station are more realistic projects in the short-term unless UP changes its mind.


----------



## west point

It may be the best way to solve the high level platform issue is to add station tracks only for passenger trains with high level platforms . Example The northern California joint powers uses one at Oakland Coliseum station. The siding for station track(s) may meet the requirement for additional sidings on single tracks that the freight RRs often desire ( require ). That way the costs for sidings and signals are met.

There are several ways to build station tracks.

1. Ideally for those stations that are far away from the main track is build a platform far enough away from main track to allow for station track. That will be easy for locations getting a new station.

2. for locations with clearance restrictions ( especially historic buildings ) use old main track as station track and install new main track farther away from station. Then build a high level platform next to old main.

3. At locations with 2 or more tracks and platforms on both sides of tracks then the opposite platform might need to be moved farther from main station and a underpass or overpass might be needed.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Paulus said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone please explain to me why, when SP sold CA the slots needed to add in the Daylight back in the 70s,
> 
> UP is able to demand a stack of improvements to run the Daylight? ...
> 
> 
> 
> That agreement expired. Per 2000 California state rail planning for the Daylight:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak currently operates the Coast Starlight over the UP Coast Line ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's possible that is just got sidelined during the electricity crisis and Arnold's term as governor.
Click to expand...

[SIZE=12pt]"The purpose of this document is to outline an implementation plan [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]for the Coast Daylight. Start-up is scheduled for late 2001."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Damn. Reading those old historical documents can be so depressing.[/SIZE]


----------



## Anderson

roadman3313 said:


> I do recall it was in a Capitol Corridor Business plan to extend train service south to Salinas. That is a Capitol Corridor project, however the main concern was also UP's concern regarding increasing service between San Jose and Salinas. If anything, it would be nice to branch the gap between San Jose and San Luis Obispo with another train connection as mentioned. The buses allow for options, however a train to train connection (if not a thru-train) would be nice.
> 
> The Capitol Corridor Business plan also included extending a trip east to Reno, however that also came under huge opposition by UP. Expansion of Service to Roseville and building a yard facility in Sacramento east of the current station are more realistic projects in the short-term unless UP changes its mind.


This just came up in another thread in a broader context, but what CA _really_ needs to do, IMHO, is to find a way to buy out the Coast Line from San Jose to Moorpark. Yes, I know this would probably be "not cheap", but between this, commuter service to Salinas, UP's relatively light use of the line, and the fact that the state could presumably do a lot to help out UP over with Tehachapi (where the _real_ bottleneck is) this seems like a worthwhile endeavor.


----------



## Anderson

WoodyinNYC said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone please explain to me why, when SP sold CA the slots needed to add in the Daylight back in the 70s,
> 
> UP is able to demand a stack of improvements to run the Daylight? ...
> 
> 
> 
> That agreement expired. Per 2000 California state rail planning for the Daylight:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak currently operates the Coast Starlight over the UP Coast Line ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's possible that is just got sidelined during the electricity crisis and Arnold's term as governor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [SIZE=12pt]"The purpose of this document is to outline an implementation plan [/SIZE]
> 
> [SIZE=12pt]for the Coast Daylight. Start-up is scheduled for late 2001."[/SIZE]
> 
> [SIZE=12pt]Damn. Reading those old historical documents can be so depressing.[/SIZE]
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to file this as a Warrington-era botch. The timing is _just_ right for it to have somehow gotten wrapped up in the meltdown of the Network Expansion Plans.


----------



## Paulus

Anderson said:


> roadman3313 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do recall it was in a Capitol Corridor Business plan to extend train service south to Salinas. That is a Capitol Corridor project, however the main concern was also UP's concern regarding increasing service between San Jose and Salinas. If anything, it would be nice to branch the gap between San Jose and San Luis Obispo with another train connection as mentioned. The buses allow for options, however a train to train connection (if not a thru-train) would be nice.
> 
> The Capitol Corridor Business plan also included extending a trip east to Reno, however that also came under huge opposition by UP. Expansion of Service to Roseville and building a yard facility in Sacramento east of the current station are more realistic projects in the short-term unless UP changes its mind.
> 
> 
> 
> This just came up in another thread in a broader context, but what CA _really_ needs to do, IMHO, is to find a way to buy out the Coast Line from San Jose to Moorpark. Yes, I know this would probably be "not cheap", but between this, commuter service to Salinas, UP's relatively light use of the line, and the fact that the state could presumably do a lot to help out UP over with Tehachapi (where the _real_ bottleneck is) this seems like a worthwhile endeavor.
Click to expand...

California already has grants for BNSF to make improvements to Tehachapi and buying the Coast Line is too expensive to be worth it, especially with HSR coming down the line (and since UP is starkly opposed to it). The same amount of money would be better used to build extra capacity for frequent service Sacramento-Redding or Los Angeles-Indio.


----------



## neroden

I've said this before, but the really smart thing for the state to do would be to come up with $120 bn. and buy Union Pacific out in a tender offer. Eliminates a lot of problems and provides some cash flow for the treasury. Requires thinking big though -- and if they were thinking big, they would already have started a state Bank of California (which would have even more advantages).

(It's not actually that strange for one province of a country to own railway lines which extend through other provinces.)


----------



## Paulus

neroden said:


> I've said this before, but the really smart thing for the state to do would be to come up with $120 bn. and buy Union Pacific out in a tender offer. Eliminates a lot of problems and provides some cash flow for the treasury. Requires thinking big though -- and if they were thinking big, they would already have started a state Bank of California (which would have even more advantages).
> 
> (It's not actually that strange for one province of a country to own railway lines which extend through other provinces.)


The required referendum would never pass and, quite frankly, it's stupid for the state to do that just for the Coast Line and some marginal ROW issues with HSR. Would require Federal approval as well (via the STB) which I doubt would be forthcoming. A more realistic option is for California to talk to Amtrak about going back to basically A-Day and truncating the Starlight at Emeryville while the state takes over control of the Daylight between LA and Oakland. No increase in frequencies, but better scheduling for the state and lowered costs for Amtrak.


----------



## neroden

Frankly, California has had fights with recalcitrant "freight railroads" for 100 years, dating back to the period when SP owned the state government. Railroad nationalization is grossly overdue. We won't see it from the feds, so it's up to the states, and California is the biggest.

Or we can just keep sinking into underdeveloped-country status. Seems like the path most in this country have chosen. Really, why try to improve the country, when we can instead aim to bring our situation down to that of Mexico? (That'll stop illegal immigration!)


----------



## Anderson

Paulus said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've said this before, but the really smart thing for the state to do would be to come up with $120 bn. and buy Union Pacific out in a tender offer. Eliminates a lot of problems and provides some cash flow for the treasury. Requires thinking big though -- and if they were thinking big, they would already have started a state Bank of California (which would have even more advantages).
> 
> (It's not actually that strange for one province of a country to own railway lines which extend through other provinces.)
> 
> 
> 
> The required referendum would never pass and, quite frankly, it's stupid for the state to do that just for the Coast Line and some marginal ROW issues with HSR. Would require Federal approval as well (via the STB) which I doubt would be forthcoming. A more realistic option is for California to talk to Amtrak about going back to basically A-Day and truncating the Starlight at Emeryville while the state takes over control of the Daylight between LA and Oakland. No increase in frequencies, but better scheduling for the state and lowered costs for Amtrak.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's assume that the state would need to put $120bn up to pull that off. They'd net about $5bn in current assets against the $120bn, and about $5bn/yr in profits (or $10bn/yr in EBITDA; determining how to factor in depreciation of ROWs versus operating profits). Or, if you go over to the cash flow chart, you've got $3.3bn in free cash flow plus $1.3bn in dividends and $2.2bn in stock repurchases (for a total of $6.8-6.9bn/yr) to offset the cost. Basically, you'd get a bit more than 5% on your investment if nothing changes.

Of course, if the state did that what they would probably do is strip certain assets off for public use (access rights, etc.) at a nominal cost and keep the rest of the company at arm's length. Assuming a minimal effect on the company's operations you could probably justify writing off a few billion dollars of the cost as being recouped there, and possibly more by some favorable deals with other states (i.e. LA-Vegas, commuter tracks around Denver or Chicago, etc.).


----------



## Paulus

neroden said:


> Frankly, California has had fights with recalcitrant "freight railroads" for 100 years, dating back to the period when SP owned the state government. Railroad nationalization is grossly overdue. We won't see it from the feds, so it's up to the states, and California is the biggest.


And it's a simple political reality that you aren't going to get California voters to agree to a $120 billion buyout of Union Pacific and that's without the fact that there's going to be a massive push by industry, rail and non-rail, against such a ballot measure.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Or the state retirement board just buys the railroad a 5% return is pretty good.

No idea if CA is set up like NY, but if NY want to invest in only railroad stock, why not buy the local guy?


----------



## WoodyinNYC

A corporate raider might look at this and say, "$120 Billion is

too much money for me to do alone." And go looking for partners.

Often acquisitions pencil out because the parts are worth more

than the whole thing. So sell one Transcon to NS and the other

to CSX. Or to CN or CP or Kansas City Southern for all i care.

(Assuming regulators will allow such a thing. But I'm scratching

my head to think the last time a big BIG transportation merger

was blocked for anti-trust reasons. LOL.) Maybe Oregon would

buy tracks south of Portland. Nevada or a bunch of casino owners

could take L.A.-Vegas or even L.A.-Vegas,Denver. In the end,

California would own the UP lines in the state for, oh, let's guess

$20 Billion, not $120.

Again, thinking like a raider, if you announce a takeover attempt,

the target will often bargain off a piece of itself to save the rest.

So maybe UP would stay otherwise intact but under such duress

agree to sell off the California routes for $20 Billion or much less.

It's really not impossible to imagine Cali doing the damn thing.


----------



## Paulus

Major telecom mergers have been blocked recently and the STB put a moratorium on Class I mergers in the late 90s. And again: the bond measures to pay for UP's purchase, or even large chunks thereof, require approval in a statewide election, an election that would almost certainly be lost.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Paulus said:


> Major telecom mergers have been blocked recently ...


"the last time a big BIG transportation merger

was blocked for anti-trust reasons"

You are saying that telecoms are "transportation"?

I'd say, telecom mergers have been blocked since

the horses all left the barn. AT&T was broken up into

the Baby Bells; then Southwestern Bell merged most of

them -- and the rump parent -- into a reconstituted AT&T.

"The STB put a moratorium on Class I mergers in the late 90s."

And Canadian Pacific floated a plan to merge with CSX just

last month. CSX was "cool" to the idea, and there were "concerns

about regulators", despite the former chair of the STB serving

on the CP Board of Directors. So the plan was dropped -- for now.

But really. Our government won't break up "too big to fail" banks,

or punish the bankers at HSBC involved in trading with Iran in

violation of the embargo. So I don't expect the toothless bunch

of government regulators to get in the way of a big deal. No, I don't.

Sweet of you to think they would.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

WoodyinNYC said:


> A corporate raider might look at this and say, "$120 Billion is
> 
> too much money for me to do alone." And go looking for partners.
> 
> It's really not impossible to imagine Cali doing the damn thing.


Actually, of course, California doesn't have to do it.

Let the raider do it. With financial backing from Cali --

and the understanding that Cali would get the pieces

it wants when the deal is done.


----------



## Paulus

How are they supposed to get financial backing from California? The state constitution requires a two-thirds approval by the Legislature and voter approval for any debt over $300,000.

Actually, scratch that. It's also a violation of the state constitution for the Legislature to approve any money to benefit a company not under 100% state control (unless they're chipping in alongside Federal funds apparently).


----------



## afigg

WoodyinNYC said:


> Actually, of course, California doesn't have to do it. Let the raider do it. With financial backing from Cali --
> 
> and the understanding that Cali would get the pieces it wants when the deal is done.


The odds of the Governor and state legislature of California would try to or work with a corporate raider on a hostile takeover or buyout of UP is as close to zero as it gets. And what does the UP takeover idea have to do with the order for, contract, construction, delivery, additional orders of the Nippon-Sharyo bi-level cars? Nothing. Getting more than a little off-topic here.


----------



## jis

Yeah sometimes it seems like people are using very high quality stuff beyond anything that is legal even in California


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Paulus said:


> ... It's also a violation of the state constitution for the Legislature to approve any money to benefit a company not under 100% state control ...


It's a violation of the state constitution for the enormous retirement fund to buy stock, say, UP?

Wikipedia says that "CalPERS has used its influence as one of the largest shareholders in the world to change the way certain things are done in business."

Actually, merely musing aloud about taking aggressive action against UP might be enuff to make the company improve its attitude. Of course, if UP's defenders rush to allege that nothing could be done or should be done, then UP can continue business as usual. So thanks, fellas. LOL.

I didn't take this thread off-topic. I only commented on posts before mine. But I'm quite ready to move on.


----------



## MikefromCrete

WoodyinNYC said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... It's also a violation of the state constitution for the Legislature to approve any money to benefit a company not under 100% state control ...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a violation of the state constitution for the enormous retirement fund to buy stock, say, UP?
> 
> Wikipedia says that "CalPERS has used its influence as one of the largest shareholders in the world to change the way certain things are done in business."
> 
> Actually, merely musing aloud about taking aggressive action against UP might be enuff to make the company improve its attitude. Of course, if UP's defenders rush to allege that nothing could be done or should be done, then UP can continue business as usual. So thanks, fellas. LOL.
> 
> I didn't take this thread off-topic. I only commented on posts before mine. But I'm quite ready to move on.
Click to expand...

Compared to NS, CSX, BNSF and CN, UP is running a first class operation handling passenger trains. Getting voters to approve a take over of UP in California is the silliest thing I have ever read on Amtrak Unlimited.


----------



## jis

I agree. But them is what provides the entertainment and the need for popcorn and peanuts 

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Anderson

*sighs*
At least in my experience, NS has done a good job handling Amtrak so long as they haven't also fouled themselves up (which is what happened with the Cap's situation). CSX is another story, however...


----------



## jis

Except that of late CSX seems to be doing a relatively good job of supporting Amtrak's Atlantic Coast Service of all colors.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Anderson

jis said:


> Except that of late CSX seems to be doing a relatively good job of supporting Amtrak's Atlantic Coast Service of all colors.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


True, though there's a legacy of Regionals getting held up (endpoint OTP is likely helped by good handling from WAS north as well as padding). CSX also has borderline obscene delays on the Empire Corridor...basically, the Silver Service gets good handling and nobody else does (though at least in the case of the Auto Train, most of those delays seem to be built in).


----------



## jis

Auto Train appears to be about an hour slower than it used to be under private operation. So while there is some additional delay built in, does not seem to be a major degradation since its inception pre-Amtrak.

In general both CSX and NS do a much better job running the trackage they did not acquire from Conrail. They are yet to figure out how to operate the stuff they got from Conrail properly. There are exceptions. The Oak Island - Reading to Pittsburgh line for one. But as soon as you go past Pittsburgh things start falling apart.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> In general both CSX and NS do a much better job running the trackage they did not acquire from Conrail. They are yet to figure out how to operate the stuff they got from Conrail properly.


I'm willing to believe that CSX is trying to dispatch the Empire Corridor properly, but they did an appalling things with maintenance, allowing it to lapse into disrepair shortly after they bought the trackage from Conrail. From what I can tell, it's still not up to Conrail Quality standards yet.

Someone at CSX also needs to understand that they need to buy some snow-fighting equipment. Southern railroaders should never have been allowed to buy northern railroads, they don't understand the climate.  Proposed new law: any CEO of a railroad operating in the snow belt *must live in the snow belt full time*. Forcing that idiot Ward to live in Rochester would probably be enough to get him to fix some of his stupider mistakes.


----------



## Steve4031

Another 12/31 ride on 301 from chi-stl on aging amfleet bc car with intermittent heat. Hopefully next year we will be on the bi-levels.


----------



## afigg

Steve4031 said:


> Another 12/31 ride on 301 from chi-stl on aging amfleet bc car with intermittent heat. Hopefully next year we will be on the bi-levels.


By end of 2015? Unlikely. The delivery and test schedule for the Nippon-Sharyo that was in a CA briefing some months ago called for the pilot cars (aka initial test units) to undergo testing from July 2015 through Jan 2016. The first bi-level cars probably will not enter revenue service until early to mid-2016.
As for the balky heating on the Amfleet BC car, that is a maintenance issue. The Amfleet cars, despite the years and mileage on them, are holding up quite well.


----------



## jis

One could surmise similar maintenance practices used on the new cars will yield similar results in a couple of years.

Somebody has yet to figure out how to get Chicago Maintenance Facility to step upto the plate. :help:


----------



## rickycourtney

jis said:


> One could surmise similar maintenance practices used on the new cars will yield similar results in a couple of years.
> 
> Somebody has yet to figure out how to get Chicago Maintenance Facility to step upto the plate. :help:


Unlike the Amfleet/Horizon cars, the bi-level will be owned by the states.One would hope that the states would demand better maintenance on their equipment than Amtrak does... and if they don't get one would hope that they would hire someone other than Amtrak.

That being said, Amtrak does a pretty good job maintaining California's state owned equipment.


----------



## Paulus

California will be getting more coaches and locomotives (page 106)



> On December 10, 2014, the CTC approved allocation of $108 million in Prop 1B funding for additional passenger rail cars and locomotives. This will result in additional new equipment being assigned to the San Joaquin Corridor. The exact breakdown between locomotives and railcars is still under negotiations. The option locomotives will cost about $6.5 million and the option railcars will be approximately $3.2 million each. About 10% of this allocation will be utilized for an “On-board Information System (OBIS)”. The OBIS is an integrated video and audio communications system for on-train travel and service messages as well as potential advertising messages. Please see the attached December 9, 2014 CIPR Leadership Coalition letter of support to the CTC for this allocation.


----------



## seat38a

Paulus said:


> How are they supposed to get financial backing from California? The state constitution requires a two-thirds approval by the Legislature and voter approval for any debt over $300,000.
> 
> Actually, scratch that. It's also a violation of the state constitution for the Legislature to approve any money to benefit a company not under 100% state control (unless they're chipping in alongside Federal funds apparently).


Easy, the Democrats of 2/3 majority in both chambers of the legislature. The GOP effectively don't have to show up anymore.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Paulus said:


> California will be getting more coaches and locomotives (page 106)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On December 10, 2014, the CTC approved allocation of $108 million in Prop 1B funding for additional passenger rail cars and locomotives. This will result in additional new equipment being assigned to the San Joaquin Corridor. The exact breakdown between locomotives and railcars is still under negotiations. The option locomotives will cost about $6.5 million and the option railcars will be approximately $3.2 million each. About 10% of this allocation will be utilized for an “On-board Information System (OBIS)”. The OBIS is an integrated video and audio communications system for on-train travel and service messages as well as potential advertising messages. Please see the attached December 9, 2014 CIPR Leadership Coalition letter of support to the CTC for this allocation.
Click to expand...




> [SIZE=12pt]In December 2014, the CTC approved allocation of $108 million in Prop 1B funding for additional passenger rail cars and locomotives. This will result in additional new equipment for the California fleet. The exact breakdown between locomotives and railcars is still under negotiations. The option locomotives will cost about $6.5 million and the option railcars will be approximately $3.2 million each. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]The State expects to focus on purchasing new locomotives which will mostly be used to replace locomotives being leased from Amtrak. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]About 10% of this allocation will be utilized for an “On-board Information System (OBIS)”. The OBIS is an integrated video and audio communications system for on-train travel and service messages as well as potential advertising messages[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]. [/SIZE]





> Man, is this formatting getting messed up. LOL.





> Anyway, a slightly different paragraph with slightly different info from page 38 (IIRC, before the misbehaving formatting blew away my feeble mind.)


----------



## WoodyinNYC

WoodyinNYC said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> 
> California will be getting more coaches and locomotives (page 106)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On December 10, 2014, the CTC approved allocation of $108 million in Prop 1B funding for additional passenger rail cars and locomotives. This will result in additional new equipment being assigned to the San Joaquin Corridor. The exact breakdown between locomotives and railcars is still under negotiations. The option locomotives will cost about $6.5 million and the option railcars will be approximately $3.2 million each. About 10% of this allocation will be utilized for an “On-board Information System (OBIS)”. The OBIS is an integrated video and audio communications system for on-train travel and service messages as well as potential advertising messages. Please see the attached December 9, 2014 CIPR Leadership Coalition letter of support to the CTC for this allocation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [SIZE=12pt]In December 2014, the CTC approved allocation of $108 million in Prop 1B funding for additional passenger rail cars and locomotives. This will result in additional new equipment for the California fleet. The exact breakdown between locomotives and railcars is still under negotiations. The option locomotives will cost about $6.5 million and the option railcars will be approximately $3.2 million each. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]The State expects to focus on purchasing new locomotives which will mostly be used to replace locomotives being leased from Amtrak. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]About 10% of this allocation will be utilized for an “On-board Information System (OBIS)”. The OBIS is an integrated video and audio communications system for on-train travel and service messages as well as potential advertising messages[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]. [/SIZE]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man, is this formatting getting messed up. LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, a slightly different paragraph with slightly different info from page 38 (IIRC, before the misbehaving formatting blew away my feeble mind.)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So I was trying to say, I don't know enuff about how many Amtrak owned locomotives they want to, or could, replace.

But rough number on the $108 million, about 10% for OBIS, leaves roughly $100 million even.

One locomotive call it $7 million, four coaches and one cafe car at $2.3 X 5 = $13 million, so $20 million for each five-passengercar train and new locomotive, gives five additional train sets out of the $100 million.

That would be the top for additional train sets. Probably less, replacing Amtrak's locos, adding more coaches per train set, etc. But $100 million worth of new equipment will make a nice difference here.

The Revised Business Plan that Paulus linked to above (chock full of tidbits) makes clear the top priority is for an additional roundtrip Bakersfield-Oakland, the 8th San Joaquin, as soon as FY 2015-2016 !!! (I don't see how they get equipment in time, but hey, the is a plan by politicians.) And next priority is for a 9th San Joaquin. The goal is 11 frequencies, with some of them starting midway, rather than all being end to end) but somebody will have to pay for a lot more work on the tracks to make those things happen. Work is already underway to allow that 8th frequency, the first added to Oakland-Bakersfield since 1993.

Whatever the number of new bi-levels ordered out of this $108 million, it's got to be good news for the Nippon-Sharyo plant and all its potential and future customers as the busy assembly line stretches deeper into the future.


----------



## Anderson

You're probably looking at one or two trainsets and an order of 10-15 locomotives. There's an existing EMD-F125 order that CA put together under Metrolink that they'll probably be able to piggyback on. That order was for 10 locomotive and 10 options (the options have been exercised), but it is worth noting that the 125 MPH spec for the design is massively over-engineered for Metrolink territory.


----------



## Paulus

Why would they piggyback on Metrolink's order rather than just exercise some of their own Charger options? The 125 mph spec wasn't a Metrolink requirement either, as I recall, just an artifact of EMD selling the same locomotive they were hoping would win the other competition (there was a high HP bias due to a baffling 10 car Antelope Valley run time comparison).


----------



## afigg

Anderson said:


> You're probably looking at one or two trainsets and an order of 10-15 locomotives. There's an existing EMD-F125 order that CA put together under Metrolink that they'll probably be able to piggyback on. That order was for 10 locomotive and 10 options (the options have been exercised), but it is worth noting that the 125 MPH spec for the design is massively over-engineered for Metrolink territory.


yes, why would CalTrans order EMD F125s when the state is getting Siemens Charger locomotives for the Amtrak services? Amtrak did post a RFI a few months ago requesting price data for 15 locomotives to be purchased for CA using CA state funds to replace Amtrak's F-59s. I'm sure the RFI was aimed at Siemens, but had to be a public announcement. Since it is clear that CalTrans and the agencies overseeing the 3 corridor services prefer to have entirely state owned equipment to avoid the capital fees that Amtrak has to charge, the bulk of the $108 million is likely to be used to acquire Siemens Charger locomotives.

According to the draft EIS posted to the FRA website for the Coast Corridor route (aka Coast Daylight), CA already has $51 million allocated for starting the Coast Daylight service and track improvements. Some of those funds may go to equipment acquisition, so how about 10 bi-level cars for the Coast Daylight?


----------



## rickycourtney

This multi-state contract has really lowered the cost of buying equipment and rail is popular in the Golden State, so this announcement isn't entirely unexpected, but I'm really glad to see it happen.

Those extra trains have been in the works for years (including lots of track construction) and they are anxiously awaited. Last I heard, the first run that will go into service is one of the "short turn" runs between Merced and Bakersfield. Problem with the current schedule is that the first southbound train/bus of the day won't get you to Southern California until about 2:30pm and if you're booked on the last northbound bus/train of the day, you need to leave by 3pm. They'd like to get a train/bus that can get valley passengers to Southern California around 11:30am and a bus/train that can allow them to stay until around 5p.


----------



## Anderson

Honestly, I forgot about the Chargers. For some reason I got it in my head that the Siemens plant was producing equipment for everywhere _except_ California (i.e. the ACS-64 order and the FEC coach order).


----------



## WoodyinNYC

WoodyinNYC said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> 
> California will be getting more coaches and locomotives (page 106)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On December 10, 2014, the CTC approved allocation of $108 million in Prop 1B funding for additional passenger rail cars and locomotives. This will result in additional new equipment being assigned to the San Joaquin Corridor. The exact breakdown between locomotives and railcars is still under negotiations. The option locomotives will cost about $6.5 million and the option railcars will be approximately $3.2 million each. About 10% of this allocation will be utilized for an “On-board Information System (OBIS)”. The OBIS is an integrated video and audio communications system for on-train travel and service messages as well as potential advertising messages. Please see the attached December 9, 2014 CIPR Leadership Coalition letter of support to the CTC for this allocation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [SIZE=12pt]In December 2014, the CTC approved allocation of $108 million in Prop 1B funding for additional passenger rail cars and locomotives. This will result in additional new equipment for the California fleet. The exact breakdown between locomotives and railcars is still under negotiations. The option locomotives will cost about $6.5 million and the option railcars will be approximately $3.2 million each. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]The State expects to focus on purchasing new locomotives which will mostly be used to replace locomotives being leased from Amtrak. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]About 10% of this allocation will be utilized for an “On-board Information System (OBIS)”. The OBIS is an integrated video and audio communications system for on-train travel and service messages as well as potential advertising messages[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]. [/SIZE] Anyway, a slightly different paragraph with slightly different info from page 38 (IIRC, before the misbehaving formatting blew away my feeble mind.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But rough number on the $108 million, about 10% for OBIS, leaves roughly $100 million even.
> 
> One locomotive call it $7 million, four coaches and one cafe car at $2.3 X 5 = $13 million …
> 
> [Oops!]
> 
> The Revised Business Plan that Paulus linked to above (chock full of tidbits) makes clear
> 
> the top priority is for an additional roundtrip Bakersfield-Oakland, the 8th San Joaquin ...
Click to expand...

Sorry, I've got to stop posting at my bedtime. LOL.

One locomotive @ $7 million, four coaches and one cafe car @ $3.2 million

(not figure used in my post, sorry) is $16 million, so *$23 million per train set*.

They'd need a minimum of two such train sets to add the 8th frequency on

the San Joaquin route, so $46 million right there? Leaves roughly $50 million

for replacing locomotives, or 7 of them.

If they want to use this money to replace all 15 of the Amtrak locomotives

with this funding, that would leave nothing for that added frequency of the

San Joaquin. Not to mention the Coast (Daylight) Corridor.

In other words, this funding is good news, but they'll need another $100 million

or so of more good news pretty soon.


----------



## Paulus

Daylight has its own allocation already set aside patiently doing nothing at all (ever I suspect) and I'm not sure that they'll need two trainsets for the additional San Joaquin frequency; depends on how things are turned. California's cap and trade program has some money set aside for conventional intercity rail, however, (10% of auction proceeds to the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program), so we'll manage to find it.


----------



## neroden

I can't keep track of the total size of the California loco or car orders, since they keep coming in dribs and drabs. Maybe I'll just wait until 2017 and look at OTOL to see what happened.


----------



## sakers

Riding the 305 to Alton now the bilevels can not come soon enough. They are only opening one door because of all the snow and ice and dumping bags of salt at every stop on the steps. Also anyone know why they got rid of the protect engines on the Illinois service recently?


----------



## sakers

Just an update we left Joliet crossed over the rock island tracks and stopped. Waited for the 304 backed up to the station to switch tracks now we need to back into the station again to get back onto the other track. Supposedly only single track between here and Dwight. Not sure how the intermodals keep passing on each direction.


----------



## CCC1007

I think you are seeing the bnsf transcon next to you. You are on another railroads track, not bnsf.


----------



## afigg

A comment on another forum about the lack of news on the Nippon-Sharyo order led me to conduct a Google search for updates. Used "CalTrans bi-level procurement updates", which turned up two document links of interest.

First is this 9 page February 20, 2015 presentation from Nippon-Sharyo and Sumitomo to the Next Generation Equipment Committee. Turns out that the project is encountering schedule slippage with the Feb 2015 schedule calling for the completion of testing of 3 pilot cars by December 2016 (from end of May 2016) and the 130th car to be completed by October, 2018. The Feb 2015 status bullets:



> • Preliminary & Intermediate Design: Completed
> • Mockup Review: Completed
> • Final Design: 92% Complete
> • Carbody Steel Procurement: Completed up to car #39
> • First Article Inspection: 18% Complete
> • Started Fabrication of Metal Parts: July 2014
> • Started Carbody Shell Assembly: September 2014
> • Completion of 1st Carshell: June 2015


I think it is a safe bet that the first bi-level cars will not enter revenue service until at least early 2017. How that is reconciled with the September, 2017 deadline for spending the stimulus funds, I do not know.

The second another interesting document is a November, 2014 RFI from Michigan DOT on the behalf of the Midwest States (IL, MI, MO, and WI (Yes, Wisconsin)) for statements of interests and comments for a Fleet Maintenance Contract for the Midwest bi-levels. Amtrak's Chicago facility is not assured to get the contract for the maintenance of the Midwest bi-levels.

PS. The MI DOT RFI states this about the CHI-STL corridor which currently is constrained by the IL DOT agreement with UP to be allowed to run only 3 of the 4 daily Lincoln service trains at 110 mph: "In addition, the state, Amtrak and the UPRR have been negotiating to run the fourth train pair at 110 mph (where safe track conditions allow), which is expected to begin by the end of 2015."


----------



## neroden

afigg said:


> I think it is a safe bet that the first bi-level cars will not enter revenue service until at least early 2017. How that is reconciled with the September, 2017 deadline for spending the stimulus funds, I do not know.


Once the cars are debugged and rolling off the line, I don't think there's a problem with sending the contractor money in mid-2017, even if the last cars won't be *delivered* until 2018.


----------



## Amfleeter

Apparently the cars failed the 800k lb crush test.... badly. Hearsay on the trains magazine forums, but it could mean delays. If N-S screws up the corridor order, it won't look good for them when it comes time for Superliner replacement. Might be we actually see Amtrak try Bombardier again for real-deal Superliners.... or more Siemens.


----------



## jis

Amfleeter said:


> Apparently the cars failed the 800k lb crush test.... badly. Hearsay on the trains magazine forums, but it could mean delays. If N-S screws up the corridor order, it won't look good for them when it comes time for Superliner replacement. Might be we actually see Amtrak try Bombardier again for real-deal Superliners.... or more Siemens.


Why would they want to try Bombardier when Alstom is the one that has delivered scads of viable Superliner sized double deckers Surfliners (62 of them) more recently?


----------



## Amfleeter

jis said:


> Amfleeter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently the cars failed the 800k lb crush test.... badly. Hearsay on the trains magazine forums, but it could mean delays. If N-S screws up the corridor order, it won't look good for them when it comes time for Superliner replacement. Might be we actually see Amtrak try Bombardier again for real-deal Superliners.... or more Siemens.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they want to try Bombardier when Alstom is the one that has delivered scads of viable Superliner sized double deckers Surfliners (62 of them) more recently?
Click to expand...

Ah, fair enough - though I thought Alstom was caught up in the Acela/HHP-8 mess than soured the Amtrak-Bombardier waters as well, as well as only licensing the Superliner design from Bombardier to produce Surfliners? If it was more extensive than a simple license, then Alstom might be a better idea.


----------



## neroden

Bombardier is a complete mess right now, as I've explained elsewhere. With the problems Toronto's having with delivery, the supply chain problems, and the general risk of the company going completely bankrupt in the near term, I would avoid making a Bombardier order at this time. The Amtrak-Bombardier history is really the least of it.

At least with Nippon-Sharyo / Sumitomo, it's quite clear that they're capitalized well enough to deliver the order even if it is delivered at a loss due to screwups and having to redo cars. Bombardier is now seriously undercapitalized and has been stripping capital from the rail business to subsidize their money-pit CSeries airplane.

Alstom, Siemens, Kawasaki, whatever... there's a fair number of choices to order from.


----------



## jis

At the end of the day it matters very little who owns the design these days, way less than passenger rail aficionados seem to think. If there is money to be made such things are freely licensed back and forth. The Acela thing did not cause any damage to Alstom since they were sub contractors. It was Bombardier that got burned on that one.

Frankly Amtrak would be foolish to worry about such stuff 15 years later anyway. Bombardier is about to shed its rail equipment business possibly as a jointly owned subsidiary with Siemens as a starter. It is a completely different game in a different setting. But Alstom does have the latest successful manufactured design, which is different from the Bombardier original as is obvious when one takes a closer look at the Surfliners. Nobody can own rights to all designs and variations of 16' tall cars anyway.

I agree with neroden. There are plenty of credible manufacturers that are well capitalized that are around to pick up such an order. Any licenses needed they can take care of. All the patens have expired.


----------



## afigg

Amfleeter said:


> Apparently the cars failed the 800k lb crush test.... badly. Hearsay on the trains magazine forums, but it could mean delays. If N-S screws up the corridor order, it won't look good for them when it comes time for Superliner replacement. Might be we actually see Amtrak try Bombardier again for real-deal Superliners.... or more Siemens.


I went looking for updated info on the AASHTO HSR website, specifically the Section 305 Executive Board page. I knew I had seen this site before, but it took a little digging to find it again. Some good news and some not good news with regards to the bi-level car order in the August 2015 Activities Report,

With regards to the compression test for the Nippon-Sharyo car shell, the report states:



> Schedule information (additional detail) has been provided by the manufacturer and will be discussed in a meeting in Rochelle, Illinois on August 19, 2015. Caltrans, IDOT, FRA and Nippon Sharyo will attend.
> 
> On August 20-12-2015 there will be a compression test of the car shell.
> 
> A meeting including Nippon Sharyo and FRA’s Office of Safety on safety issues was held and it was reported to be successful.


So, if I am interpreting this correctly, the car passed the compression test. Or was the N-S and FRA meeting successful?

The bad news is that the plans for the up to 45 car option order funded by federal money for the N-S bi-levels are dead. Excerpt:



> - Bi-Level Car Procurement Update as of August 19th:
> 
> On August 19, 2015, Larry Salci, Consultant to the FRA on the Bi-Level Specification, provided a brief high level update on the status of the bi-level car procurement.
> 
> FAIs are ongoing.
> 
> There are no option cars being added to the order – it was thought there might be, but it did not happen.
> 
> The big picture challenge is to meet the HSIPR ARRA deadline for expending the federal funds by 9/30/17.
> 
> Some of the money is state money which does not have the same deadline, but the effort is underway to make sure that the ARRA funds are spent and the deadline is met.


Since Caltrans has money, CA may be in position to buy the additional bi-levels that were in the proposed option order for CA. But the Midwest states buying more bi-levels with their own money, especially Illinois with Gov. Rauner? Longer odds.


----------



## sportbiker

afigg said:


> First is this 9 page February 20, 2015 presentation from Nippon-Sharyo and Sumitomo to the Next Generation Equipment Committee. Turns out that the project is encountering schedule slippage with the Feb 2015 schedule calling for the completion of testing of 3 pilot cars by December 2016 (from end of May 2016) and the 130th car to be completed by October, 2018. The Feb 2015 status bullets:


Excellent find! For me, this is the money shot in that presentation: the "Lessons Learned":


Standardization and Innovation can be in conflict at times. 

Overly-detailed specification may limit equipment choices in a 

constantly changing supply market. 

It is challenging to accurately allocate weight and physical space for a technologically evolving car design. 

Resolving ambiguities or contradictions in the specification required much time and effort to resolve. 

[SIZE=24pt]Areas for discretion of the carbuilder could be further evaluated... [/SIZE]


N-S do not sound like happy campers.


----------



## neroden

afigg said:


> PS. The MI DOT RFI states this about the CHI-STL corridor which currently is constrained by the IL DOT agreement with UP to be allowed to run only 3 of the 4 daily Lincoln service trains at 110 mph: "In addition, the state, Amtrak and the UPRR have been negotiating to run the fourth train pair at 110 mph (where safe track conditions allow), which is expected to begin by the end of 2015."


Well, finally. I mean, this was a ridiculous restriction; if the track speed allows 110 mph, it should allow it for all trains which have suitable 110 mph equipment.


----------



## neroden

afigg said:


> There are no option cars being added to the order – it was thought there might be, but it did not happen.
Click to expand...

It was thought there might be because the bid amount was below the appropriated money! The "extra" money was going to be used to buy option cars...
So if there aren't any option cars being bought with the federal money, there's *free ARRA money available* which can be reallocated to *other projects*. I hope the states with over-budget ARRA railroad projects are paying attention and have asked for the money....


----------



## keelhauled

Unless the bilevels have run over budget too...


----------



## neroden

keelhauled said:


> Unless the bilevels have run over budget too...


Can't really, can they? Fixed-price bid. That would require change orders.


----------



## keelhauled

Well the "Resolving ambiguities or contradictions in the specification required much time and effort to resolve" sounds to me like a euphemism for N-S and the states/Amtrak changing the specs to make a workable design. Who swallows that cost, I don't know.


----------



## keelhauled

Nippon Sharyo is laying off 100 workers in Illinois as a "result of complications during the testing phase of one of its prototype cars, which requires the company to undergo a design review by its engineers," which seems to jive with the report of a failed compression test. Perhaps more ominously, they say that "we do not know how long this reduction of work will be."

http://www.rrstar.com/article/20150903/NEWS/150909775

Edit: a somewhat more in depth article from Trains Magazine (http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2015/09/04-nippon-story for those that are subscribers) confirms that the compression test did fail and N-S does not know why.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

This is why we test things.


----------



## jis

neroden said:


> keelhauled said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless the bilevels have run over budget too...
> 
> 
> 
> Can't really, can they? Fixed-price bid. That would require change orders.
Click to expand...

Of course they can run over budget. As to who will eat the overage is a different matter.


----------



## George K

Edit: I didn't see the post above.

Excuse: Only about 2 sips into my AM coffee.


----------



## Andrew

Speaking of coaches, though, I wonder if Metro North will end up ordering double-decker coaches to eventually replace their M8 cars, and if the local trains will end up being double-decker EMU's, and the express trains to and from New Haven double decker trains with electric locomotives.

I also wonder if the Auto Train will get a new order of bi-level coaches in the near future...

How come Nippon-Sharyo got the bi-level coach order, instead of Bombardier or even Kawasaki?


----------



## west point

Double deck passenger cars for MNRR or LIRR ? There are severe clearance issues for MNRR GCT and LIRR GCT as well. East side access tunnel below east river was designed before bi-levels were considered viable. NYC access to GCT as well.

Unfortunately NYP east river tunnels 5 & 6 although would allow bi-levels the 5 & 6 would only be able to the new Penn south which will be just for Amtrak and maybe NJT.


----------



## jis

Penn South upper level which is what will be built initially will be entirely NJT. No access to Sunnyside and difficult, almost nonexistent access to Moynihan Station which will be Amtrak's primary concourse. So Amtrak is unlikely to use those six or eight tracks except in extremely unusual circumstances.

As for tunnels 5 and 6 under the east river, currently there are no concrete plans for them. Allowance has been made for providing access to such if and when they are built. My guess is it will be well after 2030 when they get built.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Penn South upper level which is what will be built initially will be entirely NJT. No access to Sunnyside and difficult, almost nonexistent access to Moynihan Station which will be Amtrak's primary concourse. So Amtrak is unlikely to use those six or eight tracks except in extremely unusual circumstances.
> 
> As for tunnels 5 and 6 under the east river, currently there are no concrete plans for them. Allowance has been made for providing access to such if and when they are built. My guess is it will be well after 2030 when they get built.


Does "After 2030" refer to tunnels 5 and 6 or the Gateway Tunnels?

Double decker coaches can be designed to go into GCT through the Metro North tunnels.


----------



## jis

What is that paragraph about which mentions 2030? 

The Metro North tunnels into Grand Central have the same loading gauge as the Penn Station tunnels. Actually the two outer tunnels are a little worse. It maybe the case that neither the C3 nor the MLVs fit through them without some modifications.


----------



## MikefromCrete

Andrew said:


> Speaking of coaches, though, I wonder if Metro North will end up ordering double-decker coaches to eventually replace their M8 cars, and if the local trains will end up being double-decker EMU's, and the express trains to and from New Haven double decker trains with electric locomotives.
> 
> I also wonder if the Auto Train will get a new order of bi-level coaches in the near future...
> 
> How come Nippon-Sharyo got the bi-level coach order, instead of Bombardier or even Kawasaki?


N-S submitted the lowest and best bid. I don't know who else bid on the project.


----------



## iggy

I see the Nippon Sharyo layoffs mentioned. But didn't see anything with a quick glance - detailing the labor issues that have been ongoing in news for at least 6 months. Seems in my area these issues haven't seen local news reports. Also haven't seen rail advocates reporting these problems.

Would redesign do to Federal Railroad Administration regulations compared to rest of world - have led to the test failure?

Or do we think this is a Firestone situation - labor sabotage?

Either way horrible news for Amtrak Chicago St Louis riders. New rolling stock would go a long way in helping to resolve some customer service issues on that route.

More ammo for Illinois Governor Rauner to hate Amtrak?


----------



## neroden

keelhauled said:


> Nippon Sharyo is laying off 100 workers in Illinois as a "result of complications during the testing phase of one of its prototype cars, which requires the company to undergo a design review by its engineers," which seems to jive with the report of a failed compression test. Perhaps more ominously, they say that "we do not know how long this reduction of work will be."
> 
> http://www.rrstar.com/article/20150903/NEWS/150909775
> 
> Edit: a somewhat more in depth article from Trains Magazine (http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2015/09/04-nippon-story for those that are subscribers) confirms that the compression test did fail and N-S does not know why.


Ouch. The N-S engineers will be embarassed... you're supposed to catch that sort of stuff before building prototypes...

This means a significant delay to delivery. They still have that 2017 deadline for most of the cars, so they'll have to staff up massively once they fix whatever the engineering mistake was.


----------



## Palmetto

Apparently, their engineers relied on a computer model showing the crash test would pass. And as we all know, it didn't.


----------



## dlagrua

PerRock said:


> This press release seemed to have gotten missed. and it's pretty big one, as it contains a nice render of the cars. From Nippon-Sharyo:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Nippon Sharyo and Sumitomo Corporation receive the Contract Award for 130 Bi-Level Passenger Cars from Caltrans and IDOT*
> 
> *November 6, 2012 *
> 
> On November 6th, 2012, The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) awarded the contract for 130 High-Speed Bi-Level Passenger Railcars to be built by Nippon Sharyo and the prime contractor Sumitomo Corporation of America (SCOA). The contract includes a base order of 130 railcars for $352 million along with an option to purchase an additional 300 railcars for $898 million, bringing the contract total to $1.25 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peter
Click to expand...

Are these cars supposed to fit through the NY and Baltimore tunnels? They look to be as high as the Superliners.


----------



## PerRock

No, they should be pretty close to the same height as the Superliners.

peter


----------



## A Voice

dlagrua said:


> PerRock said:
> 
> 
> 
> This press release seemed to have gotten missed. and it's pretty big one, as it contains a nice render of the cars. From Nippon-Sharyo:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Nippon Sharyo and Sumitomo Corporation receive the Contract Award for 130 Bi-Level Passenger Cars from Caltrans and IDOT*
> 
> *November 6, 2012 *
> 
> On November 6th, 2012, The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) awarded the contract for 130 High-Speed Bi-Level Passenger Railcars to be built by Nippon Sharyo and the prime contractor Sumitomo Corporation of America (SCOA). The contract includes a base order of 130 railcars for $352 million along with an option to purchase an additional 300 railcars for $898 million, bringing the contract total to $1.25 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are these cars supposed to fit through the NY and Baltimore tunnels? They look to be as high as the Superliners.
Click to expand...

No, these cars are intended for service in California and the midwest. They cannot be run in the Northeast due to clearance restrictions; They will fit neither the Hudson nor B & P tunnels.


----------



## trainman74

Any talk in this thread of bi-level cars for Metro-North or other Northeast commuter systems is not related to the cars pictured above, except in the mind of a certain poster who will take any opportunity to mention New York-area rail tunnels (existing or proposed).


----------



## AmtrakBlue

trainman74 said:


> Any talk in this thread of bi-level cars for Metro-North or other Northeast commuter systems is not related to the cars pictured above, except in the mind of a certain poster who will take any opportunity to mention New York-area rail tunnels (existing or proposed).


:giggle:


----------



## frequentflyer

A Voice said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PerRock said:
> 
> 
> 
> This press release seemed to have gotten missed. and it's pretty big one, as it contains a nice render of the cars. From Nippon-Sharyo:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Nippon Sharyo and Sumitomo Corporation receive the Contract Award for 130 Bi-Level Passenger Cars from Caltrans and IDOT*
> 
> *November 6, 2012 *
> 
> On November 6th, 2012, The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) awarded the contract for 130 High-Speed Bi-Level Passenger Railcars to be built by Nippon Sharyo and the prime contractor Sumitomo Corporation of America (SCOA). The contract includes a base order of 130 railcars for $352 million along with an option to purchase an additional 300 railcars for $898 million, bringing the contract total to $1.25 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are these cars supposed to fit through the NY and Baltimore tunnels? They look to be as high as the Superliners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, these cars are intended for service in California and the midwest. They cannot be run in the Northeast due to clearance restrictions; They will fit neither the Hudson nor B & P tunnels.
Click to expand...

You would think they would find a better cab car design, more like Rotems design in SoCal.


----------



## keelhauled

frequentflyer said:


> You would think they would find a better cab car design, more like Rotems design in SoCal.


The same ones with the design suspected of derailing in collisions?


----------



## PerRock

frequentflyer said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PerRock said:
> 
> 
> 
> This press release seemed to have gotten missed. and it's pretty big one, as it contains a nice render of the cars. From Nippon-Sharyo:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Nippon Sharyo and Sumitomo Corporation receive the Contract Award for 130 Bi-Level Passenger Cars from Caltrans and IDOT*
> 
> *November 6, 2012 *
> 
> On November 6th, 2012, The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) awarded the contract for 130 High-Speed Bi-Level Passenger Railcars to be built by Nippon Sharyo and the prime contractor Sumitomo Corporation of America (SCOA). The contract includes a base order of 130 railcars for $352 million along with an option to purchase an additional 300 railcars for $898 million, bringing the contract total to $1.25 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> peter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are these cars supposed to fit through the NY and Baltimore tunnels? They look to be as high as the Superliners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, these cars are intended for service in California and the midwest. They cannot be run in the Northeast due to clearance restrictions; They will fit neither the Hudson nor B & P tunnels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would think they would find a better cab car design, more like Rotems design in SoCal.
Click to expand...

The problem with the Rotems design (besides the plow derailing the train) is that the cabs have to be used on the ends of the train. There is no diaphragm connection thru the cab. So if you were to stick the cab car in the middle of a train people couldn't walk thru it to get to the other cars. On a commuter train this isn't too much of an issue, as the conductors are about the only people walking thru the cars; but on longer-distance trains you really need that ability.

That all being said I do think the design of the cab car is hideous!

peter


----------



## jis

Apparently the Metrolink folks specifically asked for the no diaphragm design.

Somehow I am starting to get the impression that left to ourselves we seem to specialize on hideous looking designs of late. Witness the strange looking creature that the Talgo cab unit came out to be. Fortunately when we get stuff close to off the shelf from Europeans they look less hideous. I think the Charger, specially in conjunction with the AAF Viaggio Comfort sets will come out looking unusually nice, since they will be uniform put together by purpose sets, instead of a mish mash of cars with a loco stuck in the front (or behind as the case may be).


----------



## PerRock

jis said:


> Apparently the Metrolink folks specifically asked for the no diaphragm design.
> 
> Somehow I am starting to get the impression that left to ourselves we seem to specialize on hideous looking designs of late. Witness the strange looking creature that the Talgo cab unit came out to be. Fortunately when we get stuff close to off the shelf from Europeans they look less hideous. I think the Charger, specially in conjunction with the AAF Viaggio Comfort sets will come out looking unusually nice, since they will be uniform put together by purpose sets, instead of a mish mash of cars with a loco stuck in the front (or behind as the case may be).


If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on the AAF Siemens train looking a lot like OBB's RailJet seen here: http://4rail.info/ger/ger_obb_railjet_taurus1116nr213_1_166_munich_2012_L.jpg

Although I'm also still thinking that the Chargers are going to look a lot like the ACS-64s.

peter


----------



## frequentflyer

The Rotem design offers more crash protection (we are talking 110 mph running), then the illustration here. Did not know pass through was so important?


----------



## PVD

Since cab cars are ordered specifically to be last/first in a push-pull, cab end pass thru shouldn't be an issue. I guess in some sense you lose some versatility in that it would problematic if you needed to add cars at the end, but no one wants too many extra cab cars around because they are more expensive, more complex, and have less seating capacity. I'm sure someone will have the whole story about the safety regs that apply to leading cabs and how that seriously changes things.


----------



## jis

PerRock said:


> If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on the AAF Siemens train looking a lot like OBB's RailJet seen here: http://4rail.info/ger/ger_obb_railjet_taurus1116nr213_1_166_munich_2012_L.jpg
> 
> Although I'm also still thinking that the Chargers are going to look a lot like the ACS-64s.
> 
> peter


Well, the Chargers being single cab locomotives, will probably not look like the Sprinters which is double cab. However, the nose may very well look quite similar. The rear end will line up with the body instead of having cab. I have heard rumors that the AAF cab end will be shaped somewhat differently from the Midwest/California Chargers, but that may or may not be true.
And yeah, the cars will definitely look very much like those. They will have only minor modifications to meet FRA external fixture requirements and such.



PVD said:


> Since cab cars are ordered specifically to be last/first in a push-pull, cab end pass thru shouldn't be an issue. I guess in some sense you lose some versatility in that it would problematic if you needed to add cars at the end, but no one wants too many extra cab cars around because they are more expensive, more complex, and have less seating capacity. I'm sure someone will have the whole story about the safety regs that apply to leading cabs and how that seriously changes things.


Two factors - Collision Posts, and additional crumple zone for CEM.


----------



## Bjartmarr

PerRock said:


> The problem with the Rotems design (besides the plow derailing the train) is that the cabs have to be used on the ends of the train. There is no diaphragm connection thru the cab. So if you were to stick the cab car in the middle of a train people couldn't walk thru it to get to the other cars.


The other problem with the Metrolink Rotems is that the seats are horribly uncomfortable, compared to the old Bombardier cars. I wish they could find a way to fix that...


----------



## afigg

PerRock said:


> If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on the AAF Siemens train looking a lot like OBB's RailJet seen here: http://4rail.info/ger/ger_obb_railjet_taurus1116nr213_1_166_munich_2012_L.jpg
> 
> Although I'm also still thinking that the Chargers are going to look a lot like the ACS-64s.


There are rendering of the Siemens Chargers from a recent presentation discussed in the Charger order thread (my post with the links). Don't have to guess what the Chargers are going to look like. Nor discuss it here, really, because this is a thread on the Nippon-Sharyo bi-level cars, not Siemens locos nor Rotems as should be pointed out.

The rendering of the Nippon-Sharyo bi-level that was linked to above is an old one which I'm sure is in earlier posts in this thread. That rendering is from the contract award announcement before N-S had a final design, so odds are that there have been numerous small changes in the details of the car.


----------



## DSS&A

It was announced yesterday that Nippon Sharyo will be laying off more workers in November. Here is the basic information:

Nippon Sharyo has announced even more temporary reductions in its Final Assembly shop staff.

These staff reductions will affect about 60 employees and will go into effect beginning November 30. According to Nippon Sharyo, this reduction, as well as the one announced in early September, is a result of complications during the testing phase of one of its prototype cars.

The company has not said how long the temporary lay-offs will last, but they say they will be providing a severance package to those employees.


----------



## jis

How is the 2017 deadline for the funding going to play into all of this?


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> How is the 2017 deadline for the funding going to play into all of this?


That is the $352 million dollar question. Are there ways for the FRA to "pre-pay" for delivery if the production schedule slips on the portion of the contract that is 2009 ARRA funds with the 2017 deadline. Which is most of the funding as I recall. Or is the entire 130 car order at risk? There is much we do not know.


----------



## afigg

The Next Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee webpage has posted a September update to their activities report. The report is a long document that they are inserting updates into, so one has to search carefully for the relevant update. There is a brief update on the compression test failure which has caused Nippon-Sharyo to lay personnel off at the plant:



> - Bi-Level Car Procurement Update as of September 24, 2015:'
> 
> Two FAIs were scheduled for 9-29/30-2015.
> 
> With regard to the car shell compression test failure – the contractors issued an analysis on 9-12-15. The results show that design and modeling were the major causes of the failure. The contractors will submit a proposed approach and strategy for the redisign on 10-1-15.
> 
> Design Review hot list open items – there are currently 10 open items remaining. The redesign effort, however, will result in a design review meeting to go over the re-design. This date has not yet been determined.
> 
> The schedule is now under review until the redesign approach and strategy is fully understood. It is hoped that a schedule revision will be forthcoming next month.


----------



## neroden

Ooooh, that's embarassing. The engineers at Nippon-Sharyo just plain screwed up the design.


----------



## afigg

Went digging on the AASHTO NGEC website and came across this page with links to minutes from meetings of the Technical Subcommittee. The most recent minutes from October 8 has the following updates on the failed compression tests and the potential impact on the delivery schedule. What it means with regards to the September, 2017 stimulus funds deadline is not discussed.



> Update: Procurements:
> Bi-Level Cars – Rob Edgcumbe for Momoko Tamaoki:
> 
> Rob Edgcumbe, on behalf of Caltrans, provided a brief update on the bi-level car procurement activities:
> 
> Rob reported that there are two primary courses of action underway:
> 
> The ongoing FAI and testing on the existing car design
> The re-design after the failed compression test.
> 
> On the FAIs – there have been several conducted recently with additional ones upcoming. The FAIs are progressing well.
> 
> On the issue of the failed compression test, a meeting was held with Nippon Sharyo (NS) during which they went through their analysis report on what heppened. Their findings indicate that it was a welding issue which was design related rather than manufacturing related. Re-design activities are underway and by mid to end of the month re-design revisions should be complete. NS is using margin of safety criteria higher than is necessary.
> 
> Unofficial tests are taking place on items such as endframes and collision parts.
> 
> Design Review – there are 10 remaining open items.
> 
> They are holding on new design review until the revised car shell re-design is completed. This will probably happen by around the end of December.
> 
> RSCs – there are a couple of outstanding items.
> 
> Schedule – with the compression test failure the schedule is under review. Initial indications are that the schedule is going to have a “significant slip”. It is not yet known what the impact will be on funding with the schedule slipping.
> 
> While Rob did not have a firm timeline on the schedule slippage, he responded to a question of what does “significant” delays mean? – a year, more than a year? Rob responded “don’t pin me down on this, but not far off a year.”


The November 11 draft minutes don't add much beyond this ominous line:



> After these open items are closed, it will be down to the car shell redesign – it drives the final schedule.
> 
> There is no doubt there is a significant impact on the production schedule and it will impact funding.


----------



## seat38a

frequentflyer said:


> The Rotem design offers more crash protection (we are talking 110 mph running), then the illustration here. Did not know pass through was so important?


On the Surfliner, it seems to be quite important. I have been on many trains where they will attach another car at the end, open up the metal door and allow passage to the attached cars. This seems to be done mostly during times when they are really busy during long weekends, comicon etc.. Also, remember, they don't have a wye to turn things around in SD or move cars around. Generally speaking, they will add or subtract by adding cars to the end but will not move cars around in the consist.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

afigg said:


> Went digging on the AASHTO NGEC website and came across this page with links to minutes from meetings of the Technical Subcommittee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their findings indicate that it was a welding issue which was design related rather than manufacturing related.
> 
> Schedule – ... Initial indications are that the schedule is going to have a “significant slip”. It is not yet known what the impact will be on funding with the schedule slipping.
> 
> ... what does “significant” delays mean?... Rob responded “don’t pin me down on this, but not far off a year.”
> 
> 
> 
> The November 11 draft minutes don't add much beyond this ominous line:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... the car shell redesign – it drives the final schedule.
> There is no doubt there is a significant impact on the production schedule and it will impact funding.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Ouch.

Sadly, this means the by-then finished Billions in upgrades for the Wolverines and Lincoln service will not be up to speed until 2018, or later. The two biggest items out of the roughly $10 billion in Stimulus rail grants will be considerably delayed. Oy vey.

Don't these infrastructure grants all have terms and conditions about full completion, speed, maybe added frequencies? So they default and the Feds ask for their $2 Billion back? Do they also ask for money back on the new locomotives that can't be deployed as promised?

Well, the deadline falls in the term of the next president. So perhaps knee-jerk Obama haters can just blame him and the foreigners and simply vote to extend the deadline.

Lessee. A very train-friendly Republican governor in Michigan, but he's term limited out in 2016, in a lean-Democratic state. Probably it will be a Republican governor in Missouri, it's been trending red and many voters are inflamed about the state's response (or lack thereof) to Ferguson and the U of Missouri stuff. Illinois has a train-hater in office now, who doesn't face an election until 2018. California will still have a Democrat until 2018.

So politically it will be rough, but not impossible, to persuade Congress to waive and extend in this one case (or a few more  ) the deadline that Congress set. If that's what President Cruz wants to do.


----------



## keelhauled

The Horizons are rated for at least 110 mph service, and they are already doing so regularly in Michigan. Therefore I don't see why highish speed trains in the Midwest are contingent on the NS order. Nor do I see any reason why the Charger locomotives have any connection to this mess at all.


----------



## Ryan

The Horizons are rated for 125.


----------



## jis

Ryan said:


> The Horizons are rated for 125.


Right, and they have been known to operate on the NEC at 125mph.

Ironically, the first place where the Chargers or their close cousin will operate regularly at 125mph is apparently in Florida, since it is unlikely that any of the midwest and California Chargers will find their way onto the NEC. The of course there will be the MARC Chargers that should be able to operate at 125 on the NEC. It is possible that they could land up doing so before the ones in Florida. But still, apparently no Amtrak operated train will run at 125mph under diesel traction for a while.


----------



## neroden

WoodyinNYC said:


> Lessee. A very train-friendly Republican governor in Michigan, but he's term limited out in 2016, in a lean-Democratic state.


Michigan is very unlikely to elect a train-hostile lunatic, unless waves of outside money are poured in to do so, and probably not even then.



> Probably it will be a Republican governor in Missouri


I wouldn't bet on that.



> Illinois has a train-hater in office now, who doesn't face an election until 2018.


This is the least of Rauner's problems. There are fairly decent odds he'll be impeached. Or recalled. Or arrested. I've never seen a governor make enemies so fast; his "my way or the highway" attitude is not suitable for a governor.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Don't these infrastructure grants all have terms and conditions about full completion, speed, maybe added frequencies? So they default and the Feds ask for their $2 Billion back? Do they also ask for money back on the new locomotives that can't be deployed as promised?



keelhauled said:


> The Horizons are rated for at least 110 mph service, and they are already doing so regularly in Michigan. Therefore I don't see why highish speed trains in the Midwest are contingent on the NS order. Nor do I see any reason why the Charger locomotives have any connection to this mess at all.


This is somewhat reassuring, that even using Horizons the half-new trains could still cut 40 or 50 minutes out of the schedules when the track upgrades are finished.

But I still worry a bit about the terms and conditions. I'd been thinking that the Chargers would be quicker to accelerate etc and so contribute to the promised speeds and trip times. But if every major component of the new-n-improved routes -- track upgrades, locomotives, passenger cars -- had to perform as agreed, the whole house could collapse if they fall 10 minutes short of their promise. (Of course, they may have left enuff fudge factor that it won't matter.)


----------



## George K

neroden said:


> This is the least of Rauner's problems. There are fairly decent odds he'll be impeached. Or recalled. Or arrested. I've never seen a governor make enemies so fast; his "my way or the highway" attitude is not suitable for a governor.


Illinois (please, don't pronounce the 's') has a long and proud tradition of sending its governors to prison.


----------



## Palmetto

neroden said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lessee. A very train-friendly Republican governor in Michigan, but he's term limited out in 2016, in a lean-Democratic state.
> 
> 
> 
> Michigan is very unlikely to elect a train-hostile lunatic, unless waves of outside money are poured in to do so, and probably not even then.
> 
> 
> 
> Probably it will be a Republican governor in Missouri
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't bet on that.
> 
> 
> 
> Illinois has a train-hater in office now, who doesn't face an election until 2018.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the least of Rauner's problems. There are fairly decent odds he'll be impeached. Or recalled. Or arrested. I've never seen a governor make enemies so fast; his "my way or the highway" attitude is not suitable for a governor.Have you noticed that his anti-train proposals have gone to rest? I'm thinking he heard some stiff opposition to his train-off proposls.
Click to expand...


----------



## keelhauled

WoodyinNYC said:


> This is somewhat reassuring, that even using Horizons the half-new trains could still cut 40 or 50 minutes out of the schedules when the track upgrades are finished.
> 
> But I still worry a bit about the terms and conditions. I'd been thinking that the Chargers would be quicker to accelerate etc and so contribute to the promised speeds and trip times. But if every major component of the new-n-improved routes -- track upgrades, locomotives, passenger cars -- had to perform as agreed, the whole house could collapse if they fall 10 minutes short of their promise. (Of course, they may have left enuff fudge factor that it won't matter.)


My understanding is that the major advantage of the Chargers is they can handle the 110 mph trains with a single locomotive, whereas two P42s are presently required. So even if the Charger order goes down the tubes somehow, *in theory*, Amtrak should be able to utilize the upgraded trackage with existing equipment, although additional frequencies will have to wait--after all, on Amtrak's end, that would just continue the status quo. Of course, this assumes Amtrak can continue flogging the P42s indefinitely for the immediate future. But I am optimistic, if cautiously so, about the Charger order. If I had to place a bet, I would expect to see Chargers hauling Horizon equipment in 2018.


----------



## Bjartmarr

keelhauled said:


> My understanding is that the major advantage of the Chargers is they can handle the 110 mph trains with a single locomotive, whereas two P42s are presently required.


Why is that? The two engines have similar power output, around 4200 hp.


----------



## jis

Possibly because the Chargers have AC drive giving them superior traction and quicker acceleration from zero speed? Don;t know. Just guessing.


----------



## keelhauled

It is probable that they are geared differently as well, the Cummins engine in the Chargers is a higher speed (crankshaft RPM) motor than the GE prime mover.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

Engine speed has nothing to do with gearing as transmission is Diesel electric.

and with AC traction locomotive the path is AC alternator > DC bus > variable AC from Inverters to traction motors.


----------



## keelhauled

An update was posted on the progress of the cars. Nothing particularly exciting, but apparently the next scheduled (but not final) design review of the redesigned carbody is scheduled for May.


----------



## R30A

This does shed light on the design flaws. The car deformed at 798K lbs. It needs to not deform at 800K lbs. This is substantially less bad than prior posts seem to make it out to be.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

What is 2,000 lbs between friends. Can't we just get a waiver?

.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> What is 2,000 lbs between friends. Can't we just get a waver?


I know you're kidding, but No. There was a losing bidder, you may recall, and giving a waiver to the winner would provoke such a stir among the Chi-town lawyers, OMG.


----------



## jis

It is just plain ridiculous that they are unable to design a car shell that meets a requirement that has been already met by many others. If this causes problems with the federal funds they should be on the hook for the entire amount IMHO


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Per the Amtrak Rep: this order is in big trouble, it was more than one failure, and the funding is in risk.

EPSA / NARP 2016 meeting.


----------



## Steve4031

Talgos are looking better at this point. Wish they would have used them. State of Illinois can't do anything right.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Per the Amtrak Rep: this order is in big trouble, it was more than one failure, and the funding is in risk.
> 
> EPSA / NARP 2016 meeting.


Best I can hope for is that Congress set the funding deadline, so Congress in its wisdom could extend the deadline.

Not a good place, to depend on the mercy of the crazies in Congress.


----------



## Paulus

Steve4031 said:


> Talgos are looking better at this point. Wish they would have used them. State of Illinois can't do anything right.


Caltrans made the purchase, not Illinois, and Talgos aren't suitable for what CA and the Midwest want or need.


----------



## PerRock

I know MDOT almost bought em, but shortly before it happened the state congress got all upset over the cost the state was paying to store the rebuilt commuter cars we have, so the purchase got put on hold. Last I checked it's still on hold, someone could tweet them and ask for an update in light of the NS issues, they were pretty receptive & responsive last time I did it.

peter


----------



## PVD

I thought it was a multi-state consortium with Illinois Dot as the lead, together with Caltrans. But it is 88 cars/Midwest 44 cars/Caltrans Wasn't that a big part of building them in Illinos? They were going to go with something that was built to the standards of the PRIIA. But that doesn't change the fact that the Talgos (or any other trainset scenario) were not what they were looking for.


----------



## afigg

PVD said:


> I thought it was a multi-state consortium with Illinois Dot as the lead, together with Caltrans. But it is 88 cars/Midwest 44 cars/Caltrans Wasn't that a big part of building them in Illinos? They were going to go with something that was built to the standards of the PRIIA. But that doesn't change the fact that the Talgos (or any other trainset scenario) were not what they were looking for.


Yes, the Nippon-Sharyo bi-level purchase is by a multi-state consortium with Caltran acting as the lead agency. The Next Generation Equipment Committee with representatives from multiple state DOTs, Amtrak, the FRA, and various consultants wrote the bi-level spec and oversaw the contract bid and selection process. AFAIK, the decision to award the contract to NS was made by the 4 states, Amtrak, and the FRA (as the FRA is the source of most of the funding).

Not all of the funding for the 130 bi-levels is from stimulus funds with a September, 2017 deadline. Some of the funding is FY2010 money and some is California state funds which don't have the deadline. Whether the FRA can shuffle funds between FY2010 and stimulus accounts and projects to help cover a delay in delivery by NS, don't know. That there is a statement that the contract is at risk indicates that the FRA is limited in what it can do. If not all of the stimulus funds can be spent by the deadline, CA has the resources to step up and cover the gap for the bi-levels it is ordering if it has to. But Illinois (under Gov. Rauner), Michigan, Missouri are another matter.

In more normal times in Washington, Senator Durbin (D-IL) or another Senator along with a House member would work to add a rider to an appropriations bill authorizing the FRA to extend the September, 2017 deadline 1 or 2 years and leave it to FRA to decide which projects to allow extensions for, provided there is a justification. Would be a boon to CA HSR as well as the bi-level contract. It would only take a couple of sentences tucked away in a 1000 page bill. Would not add anything to the official deficit as the money has already been spoken for in terms of annual spending. However, we are not in normal times on Capitol Hill. The tea party Republicans would try to block anything having to do with the Obama stimulus program, even 7 years later.


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

According to the latest committee report, a new draft delivery schedule may be released in mid-April.


----------



## PRR 60

DSS&A said:


> Hi,
> 
> According to the latest committee report, a new draft delivery schedule may be released in mid-April.


A tentative schedule to release a tentative schedule. Love it.


----------



## Steve4031

Thank you for the update.


----------



## Caesar La Rock

http://www.wsj.com/articles/delays-may-derail-stimulus-funding-for-amtrak-railcars-1460308921


----------



## Palmetto

This is not the first production fiasco, as I'm sure we're aware. Is it a flaw in the bidding process? I'm not an expert in this area, but is there even a penalty clause of some sort relating to meeting production deadlines? It seems that companies underbid so that they can get the job, then wind up either missing deadlines, and/or putting out a shoddy product. I think this is also happening in the awarding of some commuter rail transit contracts.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Caesar La Rock said:


> http://www.wsj.com/articles/delays-may-derail-stimulus-funding-for-amtrak-railcars-1460308921


Well, it's a dirty job but somebody gotta do it. Fair use excerpts from the thorough and horror-filled article in the _Wall Street Journal_:





> Delays May Derail Stimulus Funding for Amtrak Railcars
> 
> ... Funding for about three-quarters of the 130-car order is tied to the 2009 [stimulus]. [it] required the cars be built entirely with domestically sourced components and materials. [They] must be completed by Sept. 2017 and missing the deadline would result in any unspent money being redirected by the federal government.
> 
> ... assembly work by ... Nippon Sharyo USA Inc., was suspended last fall after it was unable to comply with U.S. design requirements.... Crashworthiness ... a primary focus of car designers since ... Nippon Sharyo’s car hasn’t been able to pass a federally mandated test for absorbing rear- and front-end compression force generated in a crash.
> 
> After repeated failures, engineers are now redesigning the car’s body shell. That and testing will take about two more years ... The job was to be finished in 2018, the stimulus-funded portion ... in 2017. Now, Nippon Sharyo isn’t expected to start production until 2018 . . .


Maybe CAF should take over this order?


----------



## seat38a

Well I guess California can pay for more wreaked Amtrak LD cars sitting around at Beach Grove to be fixed and then put into State Service. How many are sitting around?


----------



## A Voice

Most of these cars were to be funded by the stimulus bill, but not all. Of the cars funded directly by the state(s), how many each of those are for California and the mid-western states?

We may well be seeing Horizon cars on Chicago regional trains for years to come, pulled by brand new Siemens locomotives...


----------



## afigg

Palmetto said:


> This is not the first production fiasco, as I'm sure we're aware. Is it a flaw in the bidding process? I'm not an expert in this area, but is there even a penalty clause of some sort relating to meeting production deadlines? It seems that companies underbid so that they can get the job, then wind up either missing deadlines, and/or putting out a shoddy product. I think this is also happening in the awarding of some commuter rail transit contracts.


Yes, there are penalty clauses. As mentioned in the WSJ article: "Blown delivery deadlines could leave Nippon Sharyo liable for several million dollars of damage fees for violating the contract terms, sources familiar with the contract said. The states could use that money to pay for some railcars, but would likely have to find other sources to make up the shortfall."

A few million dollars in fees for missing the tight deadline will only pay for a couple of cars. The flaw in the bidding process is arguably with how long it took to write the specifications, requirements, write an RFP, and award the contract. I think the contract award to N-S was announced in late 2012, but that is just the award selection. Given the complexities of a multi-state contract, the Notice to Proceed might not have been given until some months later.

The problem is the stimulus deadline of September, 2017. N-S had a manufacturing plant that built passenger rail cars when they won the contract. The challenge as discussed (briefly) in the WSJ are all the requirements to buy all the parts from US vendors, meet FRA regulations, and design & fabricate a new design in the time allowed. In a normal build contract, if there is a 1 or even 2 year slip, the agency that awarded the contract might be unhappy and the contractor may take a hit in penalty fees, but the funding remains available, and eventually the rolling stock gets delivered. See the CAF Viewliner II and the seriously delayed Series 7000 car deliveries for WMATA as examples.

There is a fix for the deadline. Senator Durbin could team with one of the California Senators and insert a rider in an appropriations bill to give the FRA the authority to extend the stimulus deadline for up to 2 years to September, 2019 if the FRA determines there are legitimate reasons on a case by case basis to do so. Could probably be done in 2-3 sentences in a bill. The catch, of course, is that while such a rider could probably get through the Senate, there will be House Republicans who will go out of their way to block any such extension. In a normal functioning Congress, an extension would be no big deal. After all, the funds have already been obligated and "spent" from a budget viewpoint. But we don't have a normal functioning Congress.

Whether the FRA has a legal work-around the deadline for the bi-level stimulus funds, don't know. Pay N-S in advance with new full refund clauses if they don't deliver or something similar, if that is even possible.


----------



## Amfleeter

I imagine CAF and perhaps Alstom and Siemens are feeling very good about getting orders to expand Amtrak's LD fleet - I have a feeling N-S has screwed the pooch.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

> In a written response to questions from The Wall Street Journal, Nippon Sharyo said the 88-foot-long Amtrak cars are “different from all of the existing railcars” it has built for U.S. customers. “Programs of this type are complex undertakings, have high thresholds for safety and technical challenges are not uncommon,” the company said.


I don't understand how hard it would have been to design the cars to meet the crush requirements in the first place - one would have thought they (they being the designers/engineers drafting the plans) would have done calculations and run modeling programs to determine whether or not the cars met that requirement.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997

Metra Electric Rider said:


> In a written response to questions from The Wall Street Journal, Nippon Sharyo said the 88-foot-long Amtrak cars are “different from all of the existing railcars” it has built for U.S. customers. “Programs of this type are complex undertakings, have high thresholds for safety and technical challenges are not uncommon,” the company said.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how hard it would have been to design the cars to meet the crush requirements in the first place - one would have thought they (they being the designers/engineers drafting the plans) would have done calculations and run modeling programs to determine whether or not the cars met that requirement.
Click to expand...

Exactly! It shouldn't be too hard to make calculations how to design railcars to meet crush requirements.

How could they have done such a terrible job and delay the order?


----------



## CCC1007

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Metra Electric Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a written response to questions from The Wall Street Journal, Nippon Sharyo said the 88-foot-long Amtrak cars are “different from all of the existing railcars” it has built for U.S. customers. “Programs of this type are complex undertakings, have high thresholds for safety and technical challenges are not uncommon,” the company said.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand how hard it would have been to design the cars to meet the crush requirements in the first place - one would have thought they (they being the designers/engineers drafting the plans) would have done calculations and run modeling programs to determine whether or not the cars met that requirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly! It shouldn't be too hard to make calculations how to design railcars to meet crush requirements.
> How could they have done such a terrible job and delay the order?
Click to expand...

Could it be that the models are imperfect?


----------



## John Bredin

afigg said:


> Whether the FRA has a legal work-around the deadline for the bi-level stimulus funds, don't know. Pay N-S in advance with new full refund clauses if they don't deliver or something similar, if that is even possible.


My first thought is escrow: pay the stimulus funds over to a non-governmental third party like a bank so they're spent (no longer in a government account) for stimulus-deadline purposes with no need for a Congressional extension, and then the third party pays Nippon-Sharyo when the cars are satisfactory, whenever that is.


----------



## MikefromCrete

Since N-S recently completed 160-some Highliner II's for Metra Electric in an orderly manner with no public problems on record, as well as non-powered cars for Metra, DMU'S for Toronto and SMART as well other cars, I find it stunning that it has screwed up this order to this degree. I hope that a way can be found to keep the funding for these cars. Failure to obtain these cars would be terrible for the Midwest states, California and Amtrak.

This still doesn't make CAF look good, since the prototype sleeper, diner and baggage-dorm cars are still in Miami and haven't been sent out for testing.

Maybe Siemens and Alstrom can deliver working cars on schedule for any future orders.


----------



## CCC1007

MikefromCrete said:


> Since N-S recently completed 160-some Highliner II's for Metra Electric in an orderly manner with no public problems on record, as well as non-powered cars for Metra, DMU'S for Toronto and SMART as well other cars, I find it stunning that it has screwed up this order to this degree. I hope that a way can be found to keep the funding for these cars. Failure to obtain these cars would be terrible for the Midwest states, California and Amtrak.
> 
> This still doesn't make CAF look good, since the prototype sleeper, diner and baggage-dorm cars are still in Miami and haven't been sent out for testing.
> 
> Maybe Siemens and Alstrom can deliver working cars on schedule for any future orders.


My understanding is that the crush test was only very small failure, as in 780000+ lbs sustained without problem. This tells me that either their modeling was just slightly wrong, or there might have been manufacturing errors or even deficiencies in the metal. It seems to me that there should have been only minor changes, not a complete redesign.


----------



## MisterUptempo

I don't mean to throw the discussion too far off course, but does this delay put the Talgos, currently sitting unused at Beech Grove, back into play at all?

If I understand the settlement between Talgo and the state of Wisconsin correctly, Wisconsin paid Talgo $9.7 million(in addition to the $40 million the state spent on the first two trainsets), and Talgo currently holds the title for the two trainsets. Talgo is paying to store the trains and keep them in shape to sell. If Talgo does sell the trainsets, it must kickback 30% of the sale price to Wisconsin, up to a maximum of $9.7 million.

I know the purpose of the Midwest pooled purchase of railcars and locomotives is to have a standardized fleet, and taking on the Talgos would be anathema to that strategy. But would Talgo be desperate enough to either sell the trainsets at a fire sale price, just to get them off the books, or agree to lease the trainsets, provided a maintenance contract was thrown in? Could the Midwest states apply its share of any penalty money Nippon-Sharyo may be required to pay for the bi-level delay against the purchase or lease of the Talgos?

I'd imagine IDOT and MDOT will both be anxious to showcase their new 110-mph corridors once they are ready, potentially wanting to add a frequency or two. MDOT is studying a coast-to-coast service, from Grand Rapids to Detroit as well as a train from Ann Arbor to Traverse City. IDOT still plans on service to the Quad Cities and possibly Rockford. That, of course, was one of the reasons for the new equipment purchases. Would either state consider the Talgos the best stopgap available at the moment?


----------



## CCC1007

MisterUptempo said:


> I don't mean to throw the discussion too far off course, but does this delay put the Talgos, currently sitting unused at Beech Grove, back into play at all?
> 
> If I understand the settlement between Talgo and the state of Wisconsin correctly, Wisconsin paid Talgo $9.7 million(in addition to the $40 million the state spent on the first two trainsets), and Talgo currently holds the title for the two trainsets. Talgo is paying to store the trains and keep them in shape to sell. If Talgo does sell the trainsets, it must kickback 30% of the sale price to Wisconsin, up to a maximum of $9.7 million.
> 
> I know the purpose of the Midwest pooled purchase of railcars and locomotives is to have a standardized fleet, and taking on the Talgos would be anathema to that strategy. But would Talgo be desperate enough to either sell the trainsets at a fire sale price, just to get them off the books, or agree to lease the trainsets, provided a maintenance contract was thrown in? Could the Midwest states apply its share of any penalty money Nippon-Sharyo may be required to pay for the bi-level delay against the purchase or lease of the Talgos?
> 
> I'd imagine IDOT and MDOT will both be anxious to showcase their new 110-mph corridors once they are ready, potentially wanting to add a frequency or two. MDOT is studying a coast-to-coast service, from Grand Rapids to Detroit as well as a train from Ann Arbor to Traverse City. IDOT still plans on service to the Quad Cities and possibly Rockford. That, of course, was one of the reasons for the new equipment purchases. Would either state consider the Talgos the best stopgap available at the moment?


Last I heard California was looking at them for the lossan corridor group.


----------



## PerRock

CCC1007 said:


> MisterUptempo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mean to throw the discussion too far off course, but does this delay put the Talgos, currently sitting unused at Beech Grove, back into play at all?
> 
> If I understand the settlement between Talgo and the state of Wisconsin correctly, Wisconsin paid Talgo $9.7 million(in addition to the $40 million the state spent on the first two trainsets), and Talgo currently holds the title for the two trainsets. Talgo is paying to store the trains and keep them in shape to sell. If Talgo does sell the trainsets, it must kickback 30% of the sale price to Wisconsin, up to a maximum of $9.7 million.
> 
> I know the purpose of the Midwest pooled purchase of railcars and locomotives is to have a standardized fleet, and taking on the Talgos would be anathema to that strategy. But would Talgo be desperate enough to either sell the trainsets at a fire sale price, just to get them off the books, or agree to lease the trainsets, provided a maintenance contract was thrown in? Could the Midwest states apply its share of any penalty money Nippon-Sharyo may be required to pay for the bi-level delay against the purchase or lease of the Talgos?
> 
> I'd imagine IDOT and MDOT will both be anxious to showcase their new 110-mph corridors once they are ready, potentially wanting to add a frequency or two. MDOT is studying a coast-to-coast service, from Grand Rapids to Detroit as well as a train from Ann Arbor to Traverse City. IDOT still plans on service to the Quad Cities and possibly Rockford. That, of course, was one of the reasons for the new equipment purchases. Would either state consider the Talgos the best stopgap available at the moment?
> 
> 
> 
> Last I heard California was looking at them for the lossan corridor group.
Click to expand...

MDOT put out an RFP for the Talgos a few years ago; and were going to purchase them. However a state congressional report about the cost of the MiTrain commuter rail came out shortly after the RFP winner was selected and nothing has been done to buy the Talgos since. I inquired a few months ago with MDOT as to the status of the procurement & they claim to still be working on it.

peter


----------



## seat38a

They should just go back to Alstom and order more of the Surfliners if that is possible. Unlike the California Cars, I'm not aware of any issues with the Surfliner order. Is there anything preventing anyone from ordering current generation models if the manufacturer agrees to make them?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

CCC1007 said:


> My understanding is that the crush test was only very small failure, as in 780000+ lbs sustained without problem. This tells me that either their modeling was just slightly wrong, or there might have been manufacturing errors or even deficiencies in the metal. It seems to me that there should have been only minor changes, not a complete redesign.


As stated early it was a multi-point failure. Per Amtrak Rep at the ESPA-NARP meeting. He also stated the whole project is in trouble with the federal funding deadline.

Sure don't know what a multi-point failure means, or what the definition of "trouble". However I be thinking it's not good.


----------



## PVD

Life unfortunately is not that simple. Whatever they buy with Fed money would have to comply with todays regulations and standards as agreed on by the States, the Feds, and the PRIAA committee. An RFP would be issued and competition would dictate the selection, not a single source purchase. Negotiated acquisitions and split awards are possible in some government projects (NY MTA does this often) but generally not with Fed money.


----------



## PVD

Therein lies the challenge of engineering. To make a small change can be a big problem. example: I need to make something a little stronger, well if I make it thicker, I might not hit a weight requirement, if I change the shape or fabrication method, I might add cost, a different material might be better, but the same applies ( or it might not be compatible with other metals touching it) It just isn't as easy as we would like to imagine it.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

I don't think people have quite realized how YUUUGE a problem this is.

Well over $1 Billion has been spent upgrading tracks St Louis-CHI, mostly between Alton and Joliet, to 110 mph condition. The new cars were supposed to handle the higher speed, accelerate faster, and look good doing it. And provide about 30% more seats per car, bi-levels over Horizons, as well as enuff new cars to allow adding more frequencies.

Taken together, the project was supposed to cut about an hour out of the schedule, increase capacity by at least 50%, and make the _Lincoln Service_ the showpiece of 110-mph High(er) Speed Rail. Not so fast, after all.

No idea how much of the "about an hour" was going to come from the faster trains and how much from the track upgrades. We'll find out. They can try for faster trip times when the Chargers come online (too much to presume they will be on time?) to pull the well-used Horizons for two more years. But the trains won't look shiny, and the P.R. splash of launching new trains and much better service all at once, will be lost to various increments dribbling out, and to weaker claims, like "save about 45 minutes" or whatever.

Meanwhile Michigan has spent $500 or $600 million to acquire and upgrade the tracks Kalamazoo-Dearborn to 110 mph operation and take almost an hour out of the DET-CHI trip time. Same two-year delay for the _Wolverines_.

Missouri was smart enuff not to make any predictions of time saved, just vaguely 'better service'. It will take two more years to see what better service will mean on the _River Runners_.

I'd figured the _Lincolns_ and the _Wolverines_ would each add 200,000 passengers in their first high(er) speed year. Easy to make that estimate, because that would be bounce-back to the numbers before the construction started. And then more riders the next year and the new.

The direct benefit to Amtrak would have been small but real. Figure fast trains from St Louis, Springfield, and Bloomington/Normal bringing in more riders to connect in Chicago, and the same effect from more and faster trains from Michigan. ALL the LD trains and ALL the Midwest corridors were going to get a boost. The _Texas Eagle,_ sharing the upgraded route, was going to get a little bit more of a boost. The Amtrak brand, both with prospective new customers and CongressCritters, was set to get a humongous boost.

Well, not for two more years than planned.

And further afield, trains that might have benefitted from a cascade of a dozen or so cars displaced by the new bi-levels, like the _CONO extension by another name_ along the Gulf Coast, now face a two year delay, just when things were gaining momentum. 

California was going to pay for part of its order with its own state funds, not all Stimulus. That state can easily spend that money on other on-going or authorized projects for a couple of years, and then come up with fresh money in two more years. But for the Midwest trains, even it's only the years lost, not to mention if they can't salvage that pile of Stimulus money, this loss is devastating.

With the Talgo cars and the Charger diesels, the _Cascades_ will be the only train to show the full benefit of its Stimulus Billion, not that much to show for passenger rail some 8 or 10 years after the funds were approved.


----------



## cirdan

seat38a said:


> Well I guess California can pay for more wreaked Amtrak LD cars sitting around at Beach Grove to be fixed and then put into State Service. How many are sitting around?


And how many of those sitting around can still be feasibly repaired? I guess all the easy ones have alread been creamed off and fixed with parts taken off the others, making each further car to be fixed incrementally more expensive and difficult.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

cirdan said:


> seat38a said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I guess California can pay for more wreaked Amtrak LD cars sitting around at Beach Grove to be fixed and then put into State Service. How many are sitting around?
> 
> 
> 
> And how many of those sitting around can still be feasibly repaired? I guess all the easy ones have alread been creamed off and fixed with parts taken off the others, making each further car to be fixed incrementally more expensive and difficult.
Click to expand...

Just the opposite, the expense ones were fixed first, the easier one were to be done later. That was the plan for the extra federal funds.

As for California rebuilding more cars, I pretty sure Amtrak need ever one, and will not lease any out.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Aren't the existing Lincoln Service trains able to take advantage of the 110 speed? I know one of my friends took it and was excited to be going that quick when the first section opened.


----------



## keelhauled

Yes. Well, I think there is one short stretch of 110 track in service. The project seems unending. The Michigan trains though run at 110 from Kalamazoo west to Porter, Indiana, and hopefully from Kalamazoo east to Dearborn by the end of next summer. Current equipment doesn't limit speed, it limits capacity both on a single train and in terms of adding more frequencies, and, depending on how the cars are fitted out, the on board experience.


----------



## PVD

The scary part of any failure like this, enemies of rail funding will point to it as an excuse to slam any project no matter how different from this or worthwhile it may be.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

CCC1007 said:


> Could it be that the models are imperfect?


That's a good point, but still somewhat concerning. Could the _tests_ have been flawed?

I think having the single level Talgo consists would require longer platforms compared to superliners, no?


----------



## jis

WoodyinNYC said:


> I don't think people have quite realized how YUUUGE a problem this is.
> 
> Well over $1 Billion has been spent upgrading tracks St Louis-CHI, mostly between Alton and Joliet, to 110 mph condition. The new cars were supposed to handle the higher speed, accelerate faster, and look good doing it. And provide about 30% more seats per car, bi-levels over Horizons, as well as enuff new cars to allow adding more frequencies.
> 
> Taken together, the project was supposed to cut about an hour out of the schedule, increase capacity by at least 50%, and make the _Lincoln Service_ the showpiece of 110-mph High(er) Speed Rail. Not so fast, after all.


What is there to prevent the current Horizon fleet from running at exactly the same speed as what the new bilevels would run at? Afterall we are just talking 110mph for midwest or 125mph in California, Well California might have to figure out how to get some more NJT single level cars and get them certified for 125mph, which should not be that hard, as a stop gap. As long as the Chargers are delivered on time, which looks likely now plus/minus a month or two at worst, I don;t see why the higher speed project would suffer at all. Passenger comfort will suffer yes, but not the speed component of it. The capacity increase will be harder to achieve on a per train basis.



Just-Thinking-51 said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that the crush test was only very small failure, as in 780000+ lbs sustained without problem. This tells me that either their modeling was just slightly wrong, or there might have been manufacturing errors or even deficiencies in the metal. It seems to me that there should have been only minor changes, not a complete redesign.
> 
> 
> 
> As stated early it was a multi-point failure. Per Amtrak Rep at the ESPA-NARP meeting. He also stated the whole project is in trouble with the federal funding deadline.
> 
> Sure don't know what a multi-point failure means, or what the definition of "trouble". However I be thinking it's not good.
Click to expand...

From what I have heard from people who were actually involved with the test, it was a catastrophic failure like they have never seen before.

I have also heard from reliable sources that the entire project for acquiring these cars is in jeopardy and might have to start from the beginning taking many more years. The phrase "it is almost certainly dead" was used. I have no idea what the actual future is of the order, but it is not at a very good place according to people that know.

Optimistically I'd imagine that they will be be able to extract at least those cars that they can pay for within the deadline from the time restricted funding (if any) and the cars that they can pay for from the non time restricted funds and whatever they can extract as penalty. But that will be far short of what the original order was for, and they will be several years behind schedule.

This must have been truly embarrassing while Siemens was passing the same test on their Viaggios with flying colors.

The core problem appears to be that N+S has no experience with building center sill-less cars. They have never built one before and apparently they don't quite know how to design one.

And of course the requirement for 100% built in USA requirement has been a significant problem too since the ancillary industries to deliver certain parts, and the skills required in the labor force apparently don't exist anymore, and have to be developed from ground up. CAF faced this problem too. Apparently Siemens somehow is able to work around this because of their much broader establishment in the US, and also using tried and tested designs from Europe instead of trying to design the whole thing here from ground up.


----------



## west point

Feel that the sub contractor supply problems are a red herring. How is it the auto manufacturers can get there required pars on a JIT or earlier ? Applies to both N-S and CAF.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> Feel that the sub contractor supply problems are a red herring. How is it the auto manufacturers can get there required pars on a JIT or earlier ? Applies to both N-S and CAF.


I am just reporting what I heard first hand from a manufacturers representative. Take it or leave it. Supply chains take time to develop. They just don't fall out of the sky exactly when you need them. This applies both to supply of ancillary parts and also of labor with appropriate skills. Automobile parts and their availability have exactly zero relevance to manufacture of railroad equipment.

If you don't believe me go and look up the trials and travails of Boeing in developing the supply chain for the 787 production line and how delayed and FUBAR-ed they were.


----------



## Caesar La Rock

Responding to jis' post about N-S, that's a bummer there. At least the Horizon equipment are capable of 110 or 125mph, but as mentioned because they are single level equipment, they will limit capacity to a degree until the bi-levels are delivered.


----------



## west point

VRE is about to surplus some of their legacy bi-levels bought from METRA. Since METRA seems short of cars wonder if the cars might go back to METRA ?


----------



## Ryan

The MARC ones did...


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

west point said:


> VRE is about to surplus some of their legacy bi-levels bought from METRA. Since METRA seems short of cars wonder if the cars might go back to METRA ?


I'd have to double check but I think that METRA just put out a RFQ for new cars (unless I have that confused with locomotives....).


----------



## jis

Just wondering what VRE cars going to METRA has to do with Nippon-Sharyo order? Maybe I am missing something that establishes a connection. So just trying to figure out, and not just asking a rhetorical question.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Well, Nippon-Sharyo has built a lot of Metra's cars, so I suppose that could be the connection - or else they are coming home to Chicago?


----------



## jis

Oh yeah! BTW, the difference between the METRA cars and the Midwest bilevels is that the METRA Gallery Cars are cars with center sill, whereas the Midwest and California bilevels have no center sill. That is what most likely tripped up N-S.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

It's a totally and completely, if not utterly, different design. The metra bilevels/highliners (I guess I can't really call them that anymore) aren't truly double-deck or two storied unlike the Superliners in the sense that you can't stand upright with someone else standing upright above you.


----------



## sechs

Gallery cars?


----------



## jis

See the "Gallery Car" section in

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilevel_rail_car


----------



## PerRock

Metra Electric Rider said:


> The metra bilevels/highliners (I guess I can't really call them that anymore.)


Actually the new ones are still technically called Highliners, per NS's website: http://www.nipponsharyousa.com/products/pages/zusametra-emu2005.htmIn fact I believe there are now 3 (arguably 4) different Highliners that have been made.

peter


----------



## Andrew

How would Amtrak's order for (at least) 130 new bi-level coaches impact Septa's purchase of new double decker coaches and Metra's soon to be purchase of new bilevel coaches?


----------



## PVD

Amtrak didn't buy any bi-level coaches. A multi state consortium bought cars that were supposed to be running on state supported routes currently (mostly, but California provides a good bit of its own equipment) leasing equipment from Amtrak. The ripple effect of this delay on both capacity and service expansion has been discussed extensively earlier in this thread. Maybe down the road, the problems will be fixed, and NS will be a good supplier for a future LD bi-level purchase by Amtrak when and if the money was there. Design would likely be similar to these corridor cars, not the same.


----------



## jis

Specifically it should have only minimal effect, if any, on any SEPTA or Metra orders. The SEPTA order if any would be for something like the Bombardier MLV the fit within a 14'6" loading gauge, and hence quite different from any Western bi-level order. Any Metra order would like be for Gallery cars which are also very different design -cars with center sill which even NS already knows how to build.


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Specifically it should have only minimal effect, if any, on any SEPTA or Metra orders. The SEPTA order if any would be for something like the Bombardier MLV the fit within a 14'6" loading gauge, and hence quite different from any Western bi-level order. Any Metra order would like be for Gallery cars which are also very different design -cars with center sill which even NS already knows how to build.


Do you think that Hyundai Rotem has an advantage for this bid since they got the contract for the EMUs that Septa previously ordered?

Where can I find the specifications regarding the Nippon Order (such as length and height, etc)?


----------



## R30A

Andrew said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Specifically it should have only minimal effect, if any, on any SEPTA or Metra orders. The SEPTA order if any would be for something like the Bombardier MLV the fit within a 14'6" loading gauge, and hence quite different from any Western bi-level order. Any Metra order would like be for Gallery cars which are also very different design -cars with center sill which even NS already knows how to build.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that Hyundai Rotem has an advantage for this bid since they got the contract for the EMUs that Septa previously ordered?
> 
> Where can I find the specifications regarding the Nippon Order (such as length and height, etc)?
Click to expand...

No.

Google "PRIIA bi-level"


----------



## jis

Has Hyundai Rotem ever built a center sill-less car? The Bombardier MLVs like their western cousins do not have a center sill too.


----------



## DevalDragon

Considering the problems with the Rotem cab cars in California, I don't see them bidding on anything anytime soon.



Andrew said:


> Do you think that Hyundai Rotem has an advantage for this bid since they got the contract for the EMUs that Septa previously ordered?
> 
> Where can I find the specifications regarding the Nippon Order (such as length and height, etc)?


----------



## jis

Ah yes. The California Cab Cars. So at leat HR is one step ahead of NS in building sill-less cars that passed the cab crush tests.


----------



## Steve4031

There is an article in Trains magazine with an update about the bi-level order. http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2016/05/10-nippon-sharyo

I know from previous experience that only subscribers can view the entire article. A brief summary is that the 42 cars ordered by California will be safe from funding issues due to the delays from the failed structure tests. The article states that the remaining cars ordered for the midwest might be at risk if congress does not make changes to address these delays. The article states that this is likely not to happen at this time.


----------



## seat38a

Steve4031 said:


> There is an article in Trains magazine with an update about the bi-level order. http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2016/05/10-nippon-sharyo
> 
> I know from previous experience that only subscribers can view the entire article. A brief summary is that the 42 cars ordered by California will be safe from funding issues due to the delays from the failed structure tests. The article states that the remaining cars ordered for the midwest might be at risk if congress does not make changes to address these delays. The article states that this is likely not to happen at this time.


Let me guess, California used State money to buy the rail cars?


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Steve4031 said:


> There is an article in Trains magazine with an update about the bi-level order. http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2016/05/10-nippon-sharyo
> 
> I know from previous experience that only subscribers can view the entire article. ..


Under fair use, you may copy -- cut and paste -- up to three fat paragraphs and rewrite a few others into your own words.

I always make sure to give the name of the magazine or source, as you did. I also like to name the author of the story, and add a compliment if I can, so they won't feel ripped off.


----------



## KmH

WoodyinNYC said:


> Under fair use, you may copy -- cut and paste -- up to three fat paragraphs and rewrite a few others into your own words.
> 
> I always make sure to give the name of the magazine or source, as you did. I also like to name the author of the story, and add a compliment if I can, so they won't feel ripped off.


Under fair use there are no certain quantities and some have discovered that even copying 1 paragraph caused them to spend buckets full of money defending their actions in federal court.

You might want to read what the US Copyright Office has to say about the slippery, uncertain slope that is US Copyright's Fair Use Doctrine:

http://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html



> . . . In addition to the above, other factors may also be considered by a court in weighing a fair use question, depending upon the circumstances. Courts evaluate fair use claims on a
> 
> case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry. This means that* there is no formula to ensure that a predetermined percentage or amount of a*
> 
> work—or specific number of words, lines, pages, copies—may be used without permission.


----------



## Steve4031

Just to clarify, was my action a violation of fair use or AU policy. If so I will notify a moderator myself. I was not intending to do anything dishonest


----------



## jis

Steve4031 said:


> Just to clarify, was my action a violation of fair use or AU policy. If so I will notify a moderator myself. I was not intending to do anything dishonest


Don't worry. It was not. Some people just want to carry on discussing things on a thread that are completely irrelevant to it. That's all. Even I do it sometimes. Just ignore it.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Steve4031 said:


> Just to clarify, was my action a violation of fair use or AU policy. If so I will notify a moderator myself. I was not intending to do anything dishonest


I spent 30 years working in the Time-Life Building. I told you what our Legal Dept told us. We were also told if the quoted material was used for profit, then you could be sued for its value. But not for profit use, not so much. Of course, anyone wanting to sue a rich and powerful national magazine with its own full legal staff would hesitate.

You did nothing to violate the law or AU policy as I understand it. In this internet era, you can always link to a source. And as I said, as a courtesy I always give the name of the publication and the author, with a complimentary word or two, 'comprehensive', 'well-reported' (if full of quotes from serious sources), 'in-depth', 'full coverage', etc.

I suggested that you could use or re-use some of the material from the block article. But Chicken Little is more scairdy than I am. LOL. So just let it go.


----------



## Steve4031

Lets just get back on topic.


----------



## Lake Country

The WSJ has a good article on the subject. And its not locked

http://www.wsj.com/articles/delays-may-derail-stimulus-funding-for-amtrak-railcars-1460308921


----------



## jis

Yup. Here is the most relevant part from the _Trains _article by _Kevin P. Keefe_:



> In a statement provided to Trains News Wire, Caltrans, the lead agency in the 172-car project, acknowledged that some American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds designated for the $551 million project will likely revert back to the U.S. Treasury. The deadline for spending the stimulus funds is Sept. 30, 2017.
> 
> Most at risk are the 130 cars intended for use in the Midwest, an order dependent on the ARRA funds.


The California cars involve very little if any of the ARRA grant tranche that involves a deadline. A significant part of the Midwest order is funded by time limited ARRA grant. Hence the difference in how they need to be handled.

Here is a _Wall Street Journal_ article on the same subject:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/delays-may-derail-stimulus-funding-for-amtrak-railcars-1460308921

If you are not a frequent reader of WSJ on line you should be able to see the entire article without registering.

Here is an interesting slideset from Caltrans giving some details of funding source:

http://www.capitolcorridor.org/downloads/rail_advocacy/StanHunterCaltrans2015.pdf

Here is an even more interesting funding source breakdown from _NGEC_:

http://docslide.us/documents/bi-level-car-procurement-status-report-ngec-annual-meeting-february-21-2014.html

I can't remember whether it was the _ARRA _funding that had the deadline or the _HSIPR _one. Maybe *afigg *can throw some light on that.


----------



## Steve4031

IMHO Congress has plenty of time to sort this mess out. That is over a year away. There should be some way of changing this deadline. To not do so would only harm employees at Nippon Sharyo and set back economic progress in the midwest.


----------



## A Voice

Congress has the unfortunate habit of not taking action until the very last minute, which is a potential problem for Nippon-Sharyo if you plan on returning the funds to the treasury but get an eleventh hour extension and then have to build the 130 cars which were effectively cancelled. 

Can the funds be spent by the affected states on any other project which can be completed within the deadline? Trackwork or station improvements, anything but let the money be wasted (the deficit is so large it makes little difference to the treasury, but is a boon to passenger rail).


----------



## jis

For the Midwest (IDOT) order, what is the breakdown of the specific HSIPR and ARRA accounts? Do all the accounts involved have September 2017 deadline or only some of them? If the latter what is the amount that does not have September 2017 deadline.

Ah! Here is a breakdown that was posted by Woody back in August 2014 way back in this thread:



> IDOT for 88 cars (on behalf of Michigan and Missouri too) total $238.5 million
> 
> of which Stimulus $211.4 million
> 
> and from HSIPR $27.1 million
> 
> Caltrains total $113.8 million
> 
> of which Stimulus $54.2 million
> 
> from HSIPR $36.8 million
> 
> and from Prop 1B state funds $22.8 million
> 
> So while Cali might get less than half its cars by deadline Sept 2017,
> 
> the Midwest must get about 85% of its cars or it's Cinderella's Coach.
> 
> Not so bad for Cali after all
> 
> Not sure if any of the 45 option order waiting for sign-off is to use
> 
> Stimulus funds, but I doubt it. They've paid attention to the deadline,
> 
> after all.


This shows as I suspected, that California had only a small proportion of the federal funding with the September 2017 deadline and they are probably quite capable of funding that part or a significant part of that part, on their own if necessary. The situation in the case of Midwest is less optimistic. These numbers are consistent with the numbers on one of the slides in the sldieset I pointed to in a message a few messages back.

BTW, I have been reading this thread from page 1 and trying to determine how many of us need to eat how much Crow regarding our starry eyed blue sky optimistic speculation about how all this was going to go down. It is pretty grim. Lots and lots of Crows involved.


----------



## Steve4031

Well if congress pulls its collective head out its collective place where the sun don't shine, there is a chance.


----------



## MikefromCrete

All government action takes place at the last minute. Nippon Shayro knows this and a revival of funds won't take them by surprise. It will be interesting to see if Trump's run for president will have any effect on Congressional elections. Perhaps many loyal Republicans will just stay home leading to more Democrats in Congress. Democrats regaining control of the Senate is very possible. The House may stay Republican but perhaps the Tea Party types will go down to defeat or moderate their views. In any case, time will tell. Of course, if N-S can't build a car to meet the stress test, then it's back to the drawing board.

As far as using the money allocated for the purchase of the cars for other purposes, I don't that would be possible without an act of Congress.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Somewhat on topic (it's about N-S): I had an interesting chat with a Metra employee (not sure as to his role, not an official conductor, i.e. out of uniform, but assisting them) the other day and he hinted/intimated/indicated that the new highliners have a lot of build and reliability problems - obviously no one expected them to last as long as the Mark I highliners - but that could portend bad things for the new bi-level coaches...


----------



## seat38a

jis said:


> For the Midwest (IDOT) order, what is the breakdown of the specific HSIPR and ARRA accounts? Do all the accounts involved have September 2017 deadline or only some of them? If the latter what is the amount that does not have September 2017 deadline.
> 
> Ah! Here is a breakdown that was posted by Woody back in August 2014 way back in this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IDOT for 88 cars (on behalf of Michigan and Missouri too) total $238.5 million
> 
> of which Stimulus $211.4 million
> 
> and from HSIPR $27.1 million
> 
> Caltrains total $113.8 million
> 
> of which Stimulus $54.2 million
> 
> from HSIPR $36.8 million
> 
> and from Prop 1B state funds $22.8 million
> 
> So while Cali might get less than half its cars by deadline Sept 2017,
> 
> the Midwest must get about 85% of its cars or it's Cinderella's Coach.
> 
> Not so bad for Cali after all
> 
> Not sure if any of the 45 option order waiting for sign-off is to use
> 
> Stimulus funds, but I doubt it. They've paid attention to the deadline,
> 
> after all.
> 
> 
> 
> This shows as I suspected, that California had only a small proportion of the federal funding with the September 2017 deadline and they are probably quite capable of funding that part or a significant part of that part, on their own if necessary. The situation in the case of Midwest is less optimistic. These numbers are consistent with the numbers on one of the slides in the sldieset I pointed to in a message a few messages back.
> 
> BTW, I have been reading this thread from page 1 and trying to determine how many of us need to eat how much Crow regarding our starry eyed blue sky optimistic speculation about how all this was going to go down. It is pretty grim. Lots and lots of Crows involved.
Click to expand...

Hopefully, while the California ones are being built and delivered, the midwest can figure out their money problem. The midwest states really need to come up with a dedicated stream of revenue to pay for their stuff without waiting for the Federal Government. They really need their own version of Prop 1B.


----------



## 9900

HAH! Good luck with that.

Those shiny new Siemens engines are gonna look GREAT pulling 1970's era amfleets


----------



## seat38a

9900 said:


> HAH! Good luck with that.
> 
> Those shiny new Siemens engines are gonna look GREAT pulling 1970's era amfleets


You mean those ugly horizons


----------



## Anthony V

MisterUptempo said:


> I don't mean to throw the discussion too far off course, but does this delay put the Talgos, currently sitting unused at Beech Grove, back into play at all?
> 
> If I understand the settlement between Talgo and the state of Wisconsin correctly, Wisconsin paid Talgo $9.7 million(in addition to the $40 million the state spent on the first two trainsets), and Talgo currently holds the title for the two trainsets. Talgo is paying to store the trains and keep them in shape to sell. If Talgo does sell the trainsets, it must kickback 30% of the sale price to Wisconsin, up to a maximum of $9.7 million.
> 
> I know the purpose of the Midwest pooled purchase of railcars and locomotives is to have a standardized fleet, and taking on the Talgos would be anathema to that strategy. But would Talgo be desperate enough to either sell the trainsets at a fire sale price, just to get them off the books, or agree to lease the trainsets, provided a maintenance contract was thrown in? Could the Midwest states apply its share of any penalty money Nippon-Sharyo may be required to pay for the bi-level delay against the purchase or lease of the Talgos?
> 
> I'd imagine IDOT and MDOT will both be anxious to showcase their new 110-mph corridors once they are ready, potentially wanting to add a frequency or two. MDOT is studying a coast-to-coast service, from Grand Rapids to Detroit as well as a train from Ann Arbor to Traverse City. IDOT still plans on service to the Quad Cities and possibly Rockford. That, of course, was one of the reasons for the new equipment purchases. Would either state consider the Talgos the best stopgap available at the moment


The two train sets Wisconsin didn't want would be perfect for the new Chicago-Rockford-Dubuque service in Illinois. The rail line in and out of Galena is full of twists and turns and these trains would handle the curvy track the best without having to slow down too much. It would be nice if Illinois could have gotten their hands on these Talgo sets for the new Black Hawk service.﻿


----------



## afigg

Anthony V said:


> The two train sets Wisconsin didn't want would be perfect for the new Chicago-Rockford-Dubuque service in Illinois. The rail line in and out of Galena is full of twists and turns and these trains would handle the curvy track the best without having to slow down too much. It would be nice if Illinois could have gotten their hands on these Talgo sets for the new Black Hawk service.﻿


No, the two Talgos would have the same drawbacks as anywhere else in the Midwest. Only 2 trainsets which will require a specialized service and maintenance facility for just those 2 trainsets. Will cost money to open and supply a facility that would be better spent on acquiring and supporting N-S bi-levels.

Besides, the plans for the Chicago-Rockford-Dubuque service are in deep freeze, thanks to the Illinois budget crisis made far worse than it needs to be by Governor Rauner. The service expansion, except for the rolling stock, is entirely state funded, so as far as I know, all contract and track work has been stopped. Even the Quad Cities service expansion which has $177 million in federal funding is on hold until Rauner releases the state funding portion of the project. If Rauner doesn't release the state funds soon, the FRA may have to take back the $177 million in FY2010 federal funding and re-allocate it elsewhere.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Anyway, I've seen a report that California may want them, to use soonish on added service for the northern stretch of the _Pacific Surfliner_ service, L.A.-Santa Barbara-San Luis Obispo.

There's ongoing study to figure our how and where to improve the very curvy route between the mountains and the ocean. Then gather the funds. Then get the work done. Could be years.

But using Talgos could speed up the process. Whether the figures will work depends.

I bet California wishes there were two more slightly unused Talgo trainsets around. LOL.

And then when California gets the route upgraded to use regular equipment, the Talgos can go to Washington State, where they belong.


----------



## John Bredin

afigg said:


> Besides, the plans for the Chicago-Rockford-Dubuque service are in deep freeze, thanks to the Illinois budget crisis made far worse than it needs to be by Governor Rauner. The service expansion, except for the rolling stock, is entirely state funded, so as far as I know, all contract and track work has been stopped. Even the Quad Cities service expansion which has $177 million in federal funding is on hold until Rauner releases the state funding portion of the project. If Rauner doesn't release the state funds soon, the FRA may have to take back the $177 million in FY2010 federal funding and re-allocate it elsewhere.


Also as to Chicago-Rockford-Dubuque, if the budget impasse was cleared up tomorrow (from my keyboard to God's ears!) the present plans are Chicago-Rockford only, via Metra and Union Pacific rails, because Canadian National owns the only possible route west of Rockford and they aren't playing ball right now. :angry2: IIRC, the last plan before Rauner put everything on hold was one daily round-trip to Rockford in 2015  followed about a year later by another.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> I can't remember whether it was the _ARRA _funding that had the deadline or the _HSIPR _one. Maybe *afigg *can throw some light on that.


ARRA (stimulus) funding has a deadline. HSIPR funding has no deadline.
The Federal government can reallocate the money at any time. They have done so already with other ARRA funding. They can't do so as long as the state is in compliance with the terms of the funding, but if the state isn't, the feds can immediately shift the money elsewhere, no act of Congress required.

I'm not sure where they could put it at this point, though; it would have to be projects which can be finished by the end of 2017. Washington State finished its entire "ready to go" list of rail projects already, and hasn't refilled the queue. New York got its entire rather short "ready to go" list funded and hasn't refilled the queue either. Same with Michigan. Illinois is not functional and can't take any money for anything; they'll probably be giving back the Quad Cities money as well as the money for the bilevel coaches. Most of the other states have nothing which is close to ready to build in 1.5 years.

-- Amtrak might have a couple of *very small* buildable projects on the NEC, but not much. (Extend the tunnel box under one more street?)

-- California might be able to accelerate a dozen LOSSAN projects and (by shuffling money) build more of CAHSR.

-- Vermont could accelerate the Western Route.

The plausible Amtrak projects + Vermont don't come close to the amount of money which is likely to be handed back by the Midwest, so I suppose much of it will go to California, but I don't know how much they can actually take!

Those are basically the only places I can see the money going. Can anyone think of any other possibilities?


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

It was just announced this week that the FEDS and the California HSR just amended their funding agreement adjusting many items including giving them more time to complete the work. If they did it for the HSR project, they may also amend the funding agreement for the new cars. We will find out soon, one way or the other.

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/high_speed_rail/news/California-High-Speed-Rail-Authority-updates-federal-grant-pushes-back-construction-deadline--48303


----------



## afigg

DSS&A said:


> Hi,
> 
> It was just announced this week that the FEDS and the California HSR just amended their funding agreement adjusting many items including giving them more time to complete the work. If they did it for the HSR project, they may also amend the funding agreement for the new cars. We will find out soon, one way or the other.


Read the Progressive Railroading article more carefully. Excerpt:



> "Today's amendment marks a significant step toward the delivery of the operable segment connecting the Silicon Valley with the Central Valley, does not delay the project, and will ensure that ARRA funds are expended by the mandated deadline of September 30, 2017," authority officials said.


The funding for the initial operational segment comes from a mix of Federal ARRA (stimulus) grants, FY2010 grants, state funds, and up to $9 billion in state bond money. What they have arranged to do with the FRA is to spend all of the stimulus funds first by September, 2017; then spend the remaining FY2010 funds along with the state funds. I gather this required restructuring of the contract payment plans and agreements with the FRA as the early spending was to be a mix of federal and state matching funds.

The N-S contract doesn't have that much flexibility as much of it is funded by stimulus grants. The fix is simple, 2 or 3 sentences extending the deadline in a FY2017 appropriations bill. The politics of that fix, so long as we have members in the House such as Congressman Jeff Denham ®, who is determined to block the HSR project and take jobs & economic benefits of the HSR corridor away from his district, is another matter.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

afigg said:


> DSS&A said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... the FEDS and the CAHSR just amended their funding agreement ... giving them more time to complete the work.
> 
> If they did it for the HSR project, they may also amend the funding agreement for the new cars.
> 
> 
> 
> Read the Progressive Railroading article more carefully. Excerpt:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Today's amendment ... will ensure that ARRA funds are expended by the mandated deadline of September 30, 2017"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The N-S contract ... is funded by stimulus grants. The fix is simple, 2 or 3 sentences extending the deadline in a FY2017 appropriations bill. The politics of that fix ...
Click to expand...

The California amendments are all good news. Obviously the FRA is aware of the deadline problems and trying to find a work-around.

But if the states have to go to Congress to get an extension, it will be easier to do with CAHSR out of the way.

CAHSR has sworn embittered enemies. Bi-level cars for Midwestern and California routes are probably sort of opposed by the usual rail haters, but not at the level of passion as CAHSR. So a deadline extension, for bi-level cars only, should be more do-able if it comes to that.


----------



## Steve4031

Let's hope.


----------



## afigg

WoodyinNYC said:


> CAHSR has sworn embittered enemies. Bi-level cars for Midwestern and California routes are probably sort of opposed by the usual rail haters, but not at the level of passion as CAHSR. So a deadline extension, for bi-level cars only, should be more do-able if it comes to that.


There are likely a few other projects that will bump up against the September, 2017 deadline. Yes, tailoring an extension to exclude CAHSR or limit it to rolling stock only (to provide a margin for Siemens if there are delays in the Charger testing or production) might improve the chances of getting the rider through the House. But there are 30 to 40 right-wingers who object and obstruct every chance they get, so the extension would have to be in a bill that won't need their votes to pass. The politics on Capital Hill are complex and near toxic these days.


----------



## Anderson

The only other use of money which jumps to mind as plausible would be either adding to the CAF order (fouled-up as it is, some money-shuffling could be pulled off there by moving the "new" money in to pay for the "existing" order) with some wacky payment schedules, buying the Wisconsin Talgos (that's a ready-to-go purchase and they're technically NEC-capable), and possibly shoving some money around to displace some random smaller-level TIGER-and-friends projects.


----------



## neroden

I think it all has to go to projects which originally applied for the money when the ARRA funds first became available. This would rule out the CAF order. Washington State could buy the Wisconsin Talgos since they originally did ask for money to buy more trainsets. Vermont's Western Route is a good bet since they applied for the full funding to finish the entire route. CAHSR applied for ludicrously large amounts of money and LOSSAN applied for much more than they actually got, which is why those two are definitely possibilities. I think money could also be used for purchase of track from the freight companies, which could be done very fast and was arguably an implied possibility in many applications, but I don't know if there are any tracks the freights would be interested in selling.

There was actually a very long list of unfunded applications from Illinois. But with Rauner, Illinois can do nothing. Rauner has really created an unmitigated disaster in Illinois. I wonder when he'll be impeached.


----------



## afigg

The draft minutes of a June 7 meeting of the NGEC Executive Board have been posted which have the following updates for the Bi-level contract:



> The FAI for the manual door took place at the end of May.
> 
> The FAI for truck assembly is to take place on July 12th.
> 
> The section burn test will take place on June 22nd with the dynamic test taking place on June 27th.
> 
> With regard to the car shell re-design:
> 
> A number of items have been closed.
> 
> They are looking at weight reductions as a part of the re-design modifications.
> 
> Mock ups and design are taking place simultaneously.
> 
> It is anticipated that the manufacturer will have an updated schedule this week for the test/at risk model with testing planned for the Fall of 2016 – to be finalized in January, 2017.
> 
> *The states (Caltrans and IDOT) and FRA are working on funding, and funding options, and solutions despite the expiration of ARRA funds. They have a commitment to have a complete project that fulfills the original intent – post ARRA funding.*


The boldface on the last item is mine. So they are working on options to fund and complete the 130 car order despite the delay and the ARRA funding deadline. Whatever those "options" are. Anyway, appears that the current schedule has the first new bi-levels being delivered for testing in early 2017.

BTW, in the minutes it is stated that VIA Rail has contacted the NGEC to request authorization to use the PRIIA specs for their own future equipment order so they can have fully interoperable equipment between the US and Canada. However it is the single level equipment spec that VIA wants to use. VIA Rail will be invited to join the NGEC Technical Subcommittee as a non-voting member.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Assuming these cars eventually get delivered, does anybody know where the Horizon cars will go? Also, will the new cars have their own paint scheme like in California or will they be painted in standard Amtrak colors?


----------



## CCC1007

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Assuming these cars eventually get delivered, does anybody know where the Horizon cars will go? Also, will the new cars have their own paint scheme like in California or will they be painted in standard Amtrak colors?


The horizon fleet could be used in many other areas, such as expanded service, the gulf coast train, extra capacity on the NEC, or any number of uses.


----------



## Steve4031

afigg said:


> The draft minutes of a June 7 meeting of the NGEC Executive Board have been posted which have the following updates for the Bi-level contract:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FAI for the manual door took place at the end of May.
> 
> The FAI for truck assembly is to take place on July 12th.
> 
> The section burn test will take place on June 22nd with the dynamic test taking place on June 27th.
> 
> With regard to the car shell re-design:
> 
> A number of items have been closed.
> 
> They are looking at weight reductions as a part of the re-design modifications.
> 
> Mock ups and design are taking place simultaneously.
> 
> It is anticipated that the manufacturer will have an updated schedule this week for the test/at risk model with testing planned for the Fall of 2016 – to be finalized in January, 2017.
> 
> *The states (Caltrans and IDOT) and FRA are working on funding, and funding options, and solutions despite the expiration of ARRA funds. They have a commitment to have a complete project that fulfills the original intent – post ARRA funding.*
> 
> 
> 
> The boldface on the last item is mine. So they are working on options to fund and complete the 130 car order despite the delay and the ARRA funding deadline. Whatever those "options" are. Anyway, appears that the current schedule has the first new bi-levels being delivered for testing in early 2017.
> 
> BTW, in the minutes it is stated that VIA Rail has contacted the NGEC to request authorization to use the PRIIA specs for their own future equipment order so they can have fully interoperable equipment between the US and Canada. However it is the single level equipment spec that VIA wants to use. VIA Rail will be invited to join the NGEC Technical Subcommittee as a non-voting member.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Made my damn day which has been crappy up until reading this.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

afigg said:


> The draft minutes of a June 7 meeting of the NGEC Executive Board have been posted which have the following updates for the Bi-level contract:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With regard to the car shell re-design:
> 
> ...
> 
> They are looking at weight reductions as a part of the re-design modifications.
> 
> It is anticipated ... an updated schedule ... testing planned for the Fall of 2016 – to be finalized in January, 2017.
> 
> *The states (Caltrans and IDOT) and FRA are working on funding, and funding options, and solutions despite the expiration of ARRA funds. They have a commitment to have a complete project that fulfills the original intent – post ARRA funding.*
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, the minutes stated that VIA Rail has contacted the NGEC to request authorization to use the PRIIA specs for their own future equipment order so they can have fully interoperable equipment between the US and Canada. ... it is the single level specs that VIA wants to use. VIA Rail will be invited to join the NGEC Technical Subcommittee as a non-voting member.
Click to expand...

The info in the minutes is what passes for good news on this front, so we're glad to get the update.

I love the VIA news as well. Inter-operable equipment could at a minimum help extend one-seat service NYC-Montreal-Ottawa and NYC-Montreal-Quebec City; CHI-DET-Windsor-Toronto; and CHI-St Paul-Fargo-Grand Forks-Winnipeg. Or one-seat service Montreal-D.C. for that matter.

Best of all, if VIA can become part of a joint bid, it should help make a minimum-sized launch order large enuff to be affordable without civil war in Congress. Or after a civil war in Congress, if we win it. LOL.

I could even dream of VIA buying extra single-level cars and leasing them to Amtrak. Their help could get around the problem that Congress appropriates very short term while renewing a fleet of hundreds of cars is very long term. Canada is known for its generous foreign aid program, and our decrepit passenger rail system should qualify alongside the needy Third World countries.


----------



## MisterUptempo

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Assuming these cars eventually get delivered, does anybody know where the Horizon cars will go? Also, will the new cars have their own paint scheme like in California or will they be painted in standard Amtrak colors?


If what I found on a recent presentation given by IDOT is correct, then it appears that, yes, there will be a distinct paint scheme for the Midwest bi-levels, one that will match the scheme on the new Siemens Charger locomotives slated for delivery as well.

The presentation, which can be found at the following URL:

http://www.idothsr.org/pdf/2016 construction update local official briefing pontiac and joliet.pdf

contains a slide, highlighting equipment procurement, which has the following two renderings-












Please forgive the sub-par quality of the images; they were pulled from the .pdf version of the presentation and I had to enlarge them.

Looks like the design has a convenient empty spot on the middle of the locomotive and railcars that would accommodate an IDOT/MDOT/MoDOT logo quite nicely. Or, perhaps, they'll come up with a new logo/service mark, a "brand-within-a-brand", similar to Amtrak California. Amtrak Midwest, anyone?


----------



## neroden

afigg said:


> BTW, in the minutes it is stated that VIA Rail has contacted the NGEC to request authorization to use the PRIIA specs for their own future equipment order so they can have fully interoperable equipment between the US and Canada. However it is the single level equipment spec that VIA wants to use. VIA Rail will be invited to join the NGEC Technical Subcommittee as a non-voting member.


This would be nice. I wonder whether VIA will change their HEP specification to match Amtrak?

The single-level spec has been just sort of sitting there. VIA is likely to make an order before anyone in the US does. They are likely to get decent funding from the Trudeau government, and replacing their rolling stock is quite urgent, probably more urgent than it is for Amtrak.


----------



## jis

VIA being VIA will probably place the order with Bombardier with some appropriate Canadian arrangement about pricing, discounts etc. etc. completely contained in Canada. Afterall one can expect a Make in Canada condition attached for a VIA order just like we in the US insist on our own.


----------



## John Bredin

I had to laugh at the first drawing in the post by *MisterUptempo* because it's horribly out-of-date (obviously, IDOT's "fault" not his). The paved area to the left of the tracks is now a nearly-complete riverside skyscraper. Yes, that means the tower visible in the background near the Lake Street L is long gone. 

Of course, I can see why they'd use this picture because the old view makes it clear that this is the northern approach to Chicago Union Station while a more up-to-date view in the same spot would look like a generic, if rather wide, tunnel entrance. :giggle:


----------



## 9900

Meh. Paint scheme could be worse. Kind of an abstract representation of the Great Lakes. I kind of dig it


----------



## Steve4031

I'll like riding decent equipment that keeps passengers warm in the winter and cool in the summer.


----------



## TheMalahat

jis said:


> VIA being VIA will probably place the order with Bombardier with some appropriate Canadian arrangement about pricing, discounts etc. etc. completely contained in Canada. Afterall one can expect a Make in Canada condition attached for a VIA order just like we in the US insist on our own.


The good news for the project is that Via probably won't require too much Canadian content as long as there is a justifiable reason to purchase out of Canada. For about the last decade or so the Government of Canada has really backed off buy in Canada if there is a public interest (saving money) in going elsewhere.

Given the benefits of a larger order of cars for the name of efficiency, and the fact that the American & Canadian timelines seem to be roughly on par this could be a really good thing for the rail passenger car market.

Via received a fairly large amount of money to study new cars in this year's federal budget. I suspect the capital procurement process will begin next year or perhaps 2018.


----------



## trainviews

TheMalahat said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> VIA being VIA will probably place the order with Bombardier with some appropriate Canadian arrangement about pricing, discounts etc. etc. completely contained in Canada. Afterall one can expect a Make in Canada condition attached for a VIA order just like we in the US insist on our own.
> 
> 
> 
> The good news for the project is that Via probably won't require too much Canadian content as long as there is a justifiable reason to purchase out of Canada. For about the last decade or so the Government of Canada has really backed off buy in Canada if there is a public interest (saving money) in going elsewhere.
> 
> Given the benefits of a larger order of cars for the name of efficiency, and the fact that the American & Canadian timelines seem to be roughly on par this could be a really good thing for the rail passenger car market.
> 
> Via received a fairly large amount of money to study new cars in this year's federal budget. I suspect the capital procurement process will begin next year or perhaps 2018.
Click to expand...

Many of at least the OECD countries have actually moved away from this kind of protectionist measures, as they tend to give higher prices and sometimes lower quality or delivery problems, especially in instances where the domestic production base is thin or have to be rebuilt entirely (Viewliners, bilevels anyone?)

But even though there's no buy Canadian clause I very much doubt VIA would tag on to any order with a buy American clause. That is like getting all the disadvantages without at least getting the jobs, and the political fallout would not be pretty.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

John Bredin said:


> I had to laugh at the first drawing in the post by *MisterUptempo* because it's horribly out-of-date (obviously, IDOT's "fault" not his). The paved area to the left of the tracks is now a nearly-complete riverside skyscraper. Yes, that means the tower visible in the background near the Lake Street L is long gone.
> 
> Of course, I can see why they'd use this picture because the old view makes it clear that this is the northern approach to Chicago Union Station while a more up-to-date view in the same spot would look like a generic, if rather wide, tunnel entrance. :giggle:


Actually two buildings, one on each side of Lake Street (which is where the el is in the pictures) and a riverwalk. Both had to go through structural acrobatics to clear the tracks, as did the Boeing building to their south which hung part of the building so no columns needed to be built in the ROW. I'm assuming at least, that the Hiawatha will get bilevels so this scene, minus the new buildings, could actually happen. Was the also to have been the route to Rockford?


----------



## CSXfoamer1997

I wonder if Amtrak will buy any of the N-S bilevels for long-distance service?


----------



## CCC1007

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> I wonder if Amtrak will buy any of the N-S bilevels for long-distance service?


If they follow the fleet plan then not for a decent amount of time...


----------



## StriderGDM

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> I wonder if Amtrak will buy any of the N-S bilevels for long-distance service?


No money in the budget at this time, so no

And any money they did free up would probably be to extend the Viewliner II contract or start work on procuring Amfleet II replacements


----------



## Northeastern292

TheMalahat said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> VIA being VIA will probably place the order with Bombardier with some appropriate Canadian arrangement about pricing, discounts etc. etc. completely contained in Canada. Afterall one can expect a Make in Canada condition attached for a VIA order just like we in the US insist on our own.
> 
> 
> 
> The good news for the project is that Via probably won't require too much Canadian content as long as there is a justifiable reason to purchase out of Canada. For about the last decade or so the Government of Canada has really backed off buy in Canada if there is a public interest (saving money) in going elsewhere.
> 
> Given the benefits of a larger order of cars for the name of efficiency, and the fact that the American & Canadian timelines seem to be roughly on par this could be a really good thing for the rail passenger car market.
> 
> Via received a fairly large amount of money to study new cars in this year's federal budget. I suspect the capital procurement process will begin next year or perhaps 2018.
Click to expand...

Even to have VIA onboard, even if they go to Bombardier while Amtrak goes to Siemes/Alstom is good as it does provide more horsepower for the deal. Also, makes it easier to be off-the-shelf.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Northeastern292 said:


> TheMalahat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> VIA being VIA will probably place the order with Bombardier with some appropriate Canadian arrangement about pricing, discounts etc. etc. completely contained in Canada. After all one can expect a Make in Canada condition attached for a VIA order just like we in the US insist on our own.
> 
> 
> 
> The good news ... is that Via probably won't require too much Canadian content as long as there is a justifiable reason to purchase out of Canada. ... the Government has really backed off buy in Canada if there is a public interest (saving money) in going elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even to have VIA onboard ... makes it easier to be off-the-shelf.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how the North American Free Trade Agreement doesn't override the "100% Make in America" requirement.

Relaxing that rigidity to, say, only "90% Make in America" could be enuff to solve most sourcing problems reported by the car builders. And haven't they all complained? Talgo, CAF, Nippon Sharyo ... not sure Siemens has been out loud about it. Nobody worries about sourcing 10,000 seats in the U.S., that's easy. But there's some stuff that just isn't made in USA, is cheap to import, and very costly to custom-build for an Amtrak order.

So zero-tolerance for "Make in America" exceptions is about as big a failure as zero tolerance for sharing a Tylenol in the classroom or leaving a pocketknife in your pickup in the school parking lot. LOL. The authoritarians need to lighten up on all this stuff.


----------



## PVD

Because it doesn't tell the government what it has to buy, or pay for, it eliminates tariffs on products. Companies complain about everything if they think someone might listen. That certainly doesn't mean it is true.


----------



## Northeastern292

WoodyinNYC said:


> Northeastern292 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheMalahat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> VIA being VIA will probably place the order with Bombardier with some appropriate Canadian arrangement about pricing, discounts etc. etc. completely contained in Canada. After all one can expect a Make in Canada condition attached for a VIA order just like we in the US insist on our own.
> 
> 
> 
> The good news ... is that Via probably won't require too much Canadian content as long as there is a justifiable reason to purchase out of Canada. ... the Government has really backed off buy in Canada if there is a public interest (saving money) in going elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even to have VIA onboard ... makes it easier to be off-the-shelf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't understand how the North American Free Trade Agreement doesn't override the "100% Make in America" requirement.
> 
> Relaxing that rigidity to, say, only "90% Make in America" could be enuff to solve most sourcing problems reported by the car builders. And haven't they all complained? Talgo, CAF, Nippon Sharyo ... not sure Siemens has been out loud about it. Nobody worries about sourcing 10,000 seats in the U.S., that's easy. But there's some stuff that just isn't made in USA, is cheap to import, and very costly to custom-build for an Amtrak order.
> 
> So zero-tolerance for "Make in America" exceptions is about as big a failure as zero tolerance for sharing a Tylenol in the classroom or leaving a pocketknife in your pickup in the school parking lot. LOL. The authoritarians need to lighten up on all this stuff.
Click to expand...

Agreed. While I am highly supportive of American manufacturing, it's more important that we expand the passenger rail system in any way possible, and if that means a temporary relaxation on Buy America laws, so be it. I believe in the long run the benefits will be worth it.


----------



## CCC1007

Northeastern292 said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Northeastern292 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheMalahat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> VIA being VIA will probably place the order with Bombardier with some appropriate Canadian arrangement about pricing, discounts etc. etc. completely contained in Canada. After all one can expect a Make in Canada condition attached for a VIA order just like we in the US insist on our own.
> 
> 
> 
> The good news ... is that Via probably won't require too much Canadian content as long as there is a justifiable reason to purchase out of Canada. ... the Government has really backed off buy in Canada if there is a public interest (saving money) in going elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even to have VIA onboard ... makes it easier to be off-the-shelf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't understand how the North American Free Trade Agreement doesn't override the "100% Make in America" requirement.
> Relaxing that rigidity to, say, only "90% Make in America" could be enuff to solve most sourcing problems reported by the car builders. And haven't they all complained? Talgo, CAF, Nippon Sharyo ... not sure Siemens has been out loud about it. Nobody worries about sourcing 10,000 seats in the U.S., that's easy. But there's some stuff that just isn't made in USA, is cheap to import, and very costly to custom-build for an Amtrak order.
> 
> So zero-tolerance for "Make in America" exceptions is about as big a failure as zero tolerance for sharing a Tylenol in the classroom or leaving a pocketknife in your pickup in the school parking lot. LOL. The authoritarians need to lighten up on all this stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. While I am highly supportive of American manufacturing, it's more important that we expand the passenger rail system in any way possible, and if that means a temporary relaxation on Buy America laws, so be it. I believe in the long run the benefits will be worth it.
Click to expand...

Does the buy American law apply to leased cars that Amtrak will never own, just return to the lessor at the end of the terms?


----------



## frequentflyer

How did VIA get involved in this conversation? Is somewhere speculating that VIA will want the same bilevel corridor cars?


----------



## Northeastern292

frequentflyer said:


> How did VIA get involved in this conversation? Is somewhere speculating that VIA will want the same bilevel corridor cars?


Sort of. In the last Section 305 Committee meeting it was in the minutes that VIA wanted to join as a non-voting interested party. Trudeau's win last October has been a move towards improving VIA, including funding for new equipment.


----------



## TheMalahat

Via is actually signed as a non-voting member onto the single level portion aren't they?

A large fleet of Via's stainless steal cars used in corridor service are starting down mandatory retirement sometime in the medium future, I cannot remember the exact date.


----------



## afigg

frequentflyer said:


> How did VIA get involved in this conversation? Is somewhere speculating that VIA will want the same bilevel corridor cars?


Back in post #450 I wrote about the June 7 NGEC minutes updates on the N-S bilevel status, I mentioned as a side item from the minutes that VIA was seeking permission to use the single-level car specification for their own expected future order and as a result, the executive committee was planning to invite VIA to join the NGEC Technical Subcommittee as a non-voting member. So VIA is only interested in ordering single level corridor cars and I could see them asking permission to use (for a fee) and modify the diesel locomotive specification as well to save VIA the cost of writing specs for RFPs from scratch.

My bad on mentioning VIA as a side item as much of the above posts are meandering off-topic as a VIA equipment order would very likely go to Bombardier who would build their own design in Canada (or a licensed variation of an existing single level design). Common specifications may facilitate cross-border operations, but specifications are not rolling stock designs; the potential manufacturers are going to build different equipment with different parts. That said, all this has little to do with the current N-S contract and schedule for the 130 bi-level car order.


----------



## Northeastern292

Still waiting on the monthly Section 305 report. Interested to see what it has to say.


----------



## afigg

Updates and interesting bits from the July 19 and draft August 2 meeting minutes of the NGEC Executive Board on the Nippon-Sharyo bi-level car contract.

July 19 minutes excerpts:



> Carshell –We continue to have regular updates from NS to review the progress of the design issues and the schedule for the design activities and component tests leading up to the supplemental design review and to production and testing of the carshell. Carshell design activities are now proceeding in accordance with the schedule requirements of the supplemental design review in 2017. The revisions to the design to meet the full range of design cases have been identified and the analysis task is underway. Currently, the focus is on the methodology being used for the revised analysis exercises and the requirements that Caltrans/IDOT have for ensuring that the analysis is completed to a level of satisfaction for our subject matter experts.
> 
> Testing –The seat/table dynamic tests took place on June 30 & July 1. While some tests were successfully completed, there are still a few open items that need to be discussed and worked out between Caltrans, NS, and Kustom Seating. We are hoping to resolve all issues by fall. As for the Side door endurance test, as of July 11, the current cycle count is 462,262. The Side door system rig is still cycling well. We received preliminary information that the 500,000th cycle will most likely be accomplished during the day this Friday. The cycling will then be stopped for another major inspection and replacement of the drive nut.
> 
> Misc. – Program Management Plan Audit took place on July 13. NS was well prepared. We spent a lot of time on risk management. We were able to close about half the audit items based on the evidence that NS presented during the audit. NS agreed to revise the plan by the end of August to close the rest of the open items. The QA meeting, which took place on July 14, went well. NS was the most prepared that they have ever been. Overall, they have made good progress since our last meeting, and were able to present quite a bit of quality data from the pilot car build. The next QA date was set for October 6. At that time we will do another CDRL Element Audit. Our Quality system records audit went well with a minimal number of minor findings.


While the car frame is being redesigned, they have been life-cycle testing parts. Cycling the side door 500,000 times is impressive.

August 2 draft minutes excerpts:



> Bruce expressed thanks to IDOT, the Mid-West states, and the FRA who are all working hard with the vendor to address issues related to, not only the carshell redesign, but also those related to funding. * At this point it seems that all parties have come to a meeting of the minds on a way to fully fund and deliver the base order. Even with the issues related to ARRA funding deadlines. An amendment is in process with Caltrans, IDOT and all relevant parties.*
> 
> Bruce also pointed out that the internal schedule for delivery of the carshell redesign has not changed over the last 6 months – which is a very positive sign – and model 2C is progressing well.
> 
> Final Design Review is anticipated to take place in January of 2017 – with a pre-meeting expected to take place in October of this year.
> 
> There has been “lots of static and fatigue review” and it looks like the redesign of the carshell will be compliant with all necessary forces.
> ......
> 
> Bruce added that the Nippon Sharyo team has been “focused and intense”. As a result, the redesign seems to ”be a good model, a good design.”
> FAIs –Truck Assembly FAI took place on July 12 in Rochelle. Our Subject Matter Expert reported that it was an excellent FAI with no open issues. The upcoming FAIs are for passenger seat and table, food service cars and ATR/UTR in fall 2016.
> 
> Carshell –We continue to have regular updates from NS to review the progress of the design issues and the schedule for the design activities. The last update meeting was July 25, Monday. Carshell design activities are now proceeding in accordance with the schedule requirements of the supplemental design review in 2017. A number of design refinements have been incorporated into the structure and the Method 2C model has been created. All load cases have been run on this model and the analysis of the results is underway. Any further refinements will be added to Method 2D, which is the final standard model. Briefings were provided on a number of the design updates such as material changes, plate thickness increases and additional webs.
> 
> Testing –The seat/table dynamic tests took place on June 30 & July 1. While some tests were successfully completed, there are still a few open items that need to be discussed and worked out between Caltrans, NS, and Kustom Seating. We are hoping to resolve all issues by fall. We will schedule seat and table FAI after all issues have been closed.


So perhaps early 2017 for the initial delivery of the first bi-level cars for field tests?


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Wow, good news at last, great news even!


----------



## afigg

The August 30 meeting draft minutes of NGEC Executive Committee has an update on the proposed revised delivery schedule for the N-S bilevels. Appears that the test failure and subsequent redesign of the carshell will result in a 18 month to 2 year delay in the delivery schedule. Excerpt from the August 30, 2016 minutes:



> Overall, progress on the bi-level car procurement is moving forward. They are working their way through the FAI’s.
> 
> Testing is progressing well with there being a few open items yet to be resolved.
> 
> Work on the carshell design 2 is moving along well also with the schedule for design review holding.
> 
> *The Mid-West states and Caltrans are working with Nippon Sharyo to extend the contract through 2022 for delivery. The delivery period for the cars would be from 2018-2022, “keeping us under contract for delivery of the base order through 2022.”*


Through 2022? oh well.


----------



## jis

I wonder how they are finagling the spend deadline on some of the funding.


----------



## StriderGDM

I've wondered the same thing. I wonder if Amtrak can legally "spend" it into an escrow account of some sort that either gets paid out to Nippon-Sharyo upon delivery or back to the Treasury if they fail to deliver.


----------



## afigg

StriderGDM said:


> I've wondered the same thing. I wonder if Amtrak can legally "spend" it into an escrow account of some sort that either gets paid out to Nippon-Sharyo upon delivery or back to the Treasury if they fail to deliver.


Amtrak is not buying the Nippon-Sharyo bi-levels, the 4 states (CA, IL, MI, MO) are with (mostly) FRA funding. Amtrak will operate and maintain the bi-levels for the 3 Midwest states and presumably will do the same for CA. But it is a bystander in the issue of how the 130 car order gets paid for with the looming September, 2017 deadline for the expenditure of the 2009 stimulus funds which is providing, or was, part of the funding for the 130 bi-level car base order. How the states and the FRA are seeking to finagle around the stimulus funding constraints, we do not know.


----------



## StriderGDM

Replace "Amtrak" with "states" and my point still stands. More likely though is Congress provides some sort of extension.


----------



## Anthony V

Is there any way the funding deadline could be extended due to these extenuating circumstances?


----------



## Fan Railer

There's always a way if the people in power (congress) choose to make a way. The question is whether that will be done or not.


----------



## jis

StriderGDM said:


> Replace "Amtrak" with "states" and my point still stands. More likely though is Congress provides some sort of extension.


According to an article in the Passenger Train Journal that I was reading yesterday, apparently it is the Midwest states that are most affected by the possibility of running out of time on the funding. Most of California's funding is not thus encumbered.


----------



## frequentflyer

PTJ is still around? Wow.

So it seems like the locomotives will be delivered on time pulling old Amtrak rolling stock. And no word when the new cars will arrive.


----------



## jis

frequentflyer said:


> PTJ is still around? Wow.
> 
> So it seems like the locomotives will be delivered on time pulling old Amtrak rolling stock. And no word when the new cars will arrive.


PTJ did stop publication for a while. Then it was restarted by a new owner as a quarterly publication. It is actually quite good again. The PTJ 2016 Annual is a wonderful issue covering the Amtrak Rainbow Years. It is well worth it.


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

Nippon Sharyo announced last week that they have started hiring welders to begin making parts for the new cars in the 4th quarter of this year.

Here's a link to an article about this news.

http://www.wrex.com/story/33317249/2016/10/04/nippon-sharyo-rehiring-workers-after-business-climate-improves


----------



## kbmiflyer

DSS&A said:


> Hi,
> 
> Nippon Sharyo announced last week that they have started hiring welders to begin making parts for the new cars in the 4th quarter of this year.
> 
> Here's a link to an article about this news.
> 
> http://www.wrex.com/story/33317249/2016/10/04/nippon-sharyo-rehiring-workers-after-business-climate-improves


It says they are only hiring welders for the CA cars. I assume the Midwest cars are still on hold?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

I would not take that literally. The lead agency is California.

While the fund may be in trouble for the Midwest portion, one think it going to be addressed in a lame duck session. If not by administrative action at the FRA.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> I would not take that literally. The lead agency is California.
> 
> While the fund may be in trouble for the Midwest portion, one think it going to be addressed in a lame duck session. If not by administrative action at the FRA.


Seems like they could be using the State of California's own money to get things moving while they untangle the Stimulus funds for the rest of it.


----------



## MikefromCrete

California DOT is in charge of the cars, just like Illinois DOT is in charge of the locomotives. Since the California money is assured, it would make sense to use that at the end of the order after the stimulus money is spent.


----------



## afigg

Some rather interesting items in the November 8 minutes of the NGEC executive board with regards to the N-S bi-level contract.

Status Update:



> Caltrans, IDOT and Sumitomo are working on a contract extension to go beyond the ARRA funding deadline.
> 
> The Carshell redesign Final Design Review (FDR) is being planned for the early part of 2017 (Late January or early February) in Rochelle, Illinois.


 Would be interesting to learn how are they finagling a contract extension beyond the ARRA deadline.

The surprise item in the minutes is about NCDOT which is ordering 5 bi-levels. Had not read that before. The whaat? part is that the NCDOT bi-levels will be configured to connect to single level cars and somehow the mixed trains will deal with high level platforms.

Extended excerpt:



> Allan Paul, NCDOT, announced that they have received federal funds to acquire 5 bi-level cars. NCDOT would like to use the NGECs Bi-Level Car Specification and modify it as needed for our spec. The Bi-Level cars are going to be used with their single level fleet, so it will be necessary to match the two vehicle types up. The intent is to use the NGEC specification and cut and paste to transpose slightly to the NCDOT car.
> 
> Allan noted that NCDOT would keep the NGEC apprised of the changes they make and make those changes available to all.
> 
> Asked about their intent regarding access to the Bi-level (high/low level boarding), Allan explained that they are building high-level platform boarding from 8 above the platform and 48 above the top of the rail. They will create a high-level platform with an interior elevator for transition inside the car. This will accommodate either high-level or low-level boarding. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, there will be access between cars.
> 
> Mario Bergeron asked if the configuration is more multi-level with high-level side doors with the ability to go u and down inside the car or Bi-level with low-level entry to the car.
> 
> Allan responded that it could be considered multi-level, but the entry would be roll on roll off at mid-level (mezzanine). There would be a transition from the upper-level to the lower-level with the exit at the low-level.
> 
> Mario asked is it a vehicle that will need because of the funding will need to have 305?
> 
> Allan said that it was not necessary but NCDOT intends to use the 305 spec as much as possible.
> 
> Eric Curtit congratulated Allan and NCDOT on this great opportunity, and added you are a member (of the NGEC) they are your specs too.
> 
> Allan again committed to keeping the NGEC posted on its progress. He noted that they plan to work on the spec after the first of the year, with the intent to go out for bid in June or July with a delivery date of late 2019 or early 2020.


----------



## jis

So this will be a completely new tri-level car design for all intents and purposes that will have little in common with the midwest cars. They will be more like the Bombardier Lozenges but packaged in an NGEC outer shell that is quite different from the shells of the midwest cars.


----------



## PRR 60

jis said:


> So this will be a completely new tri-level car design for all intents and purposes that will have little in common with the midwest cars. They will be more like the Bombardier Lozenges but packaged in an NGEC outer shell that is quite different from the shells of the midwest cars.


The use of the NGEC spec will be "as much as possible." I heard that Brightline and Siemens feel that the single-level NGEC car, as spec'd, is not build-able due to an unrealistic weight limit. Siemens reportedly told the NGEC that they would no-bid work if held to that spec. Essentially, they feel the weight limit does not permit a frame strong enough to meet the structural requirements. Thus, the NGEC now wants to know what Siemens and Brightline did so they can learn from the positive work done for that project (not constrained by multiple and conflicting interests) and maybe apply it going forward to avoid the fiasco they have run into with the bi-level spec.

"Design by Committee" is an old engineering saying that is synonymous with disjointed, unfocused and, sometime simply incompetent specification preparation. I have no idea if that is the case with the bi-levels, but when I see that the spec calls for a car 20,000 pounds lighter than a Superliner but with the same or greater structural capability, I have to wonder if anyone made an effort to see if a car could even be built to that spec. I do know that recent revisions to the bi-level spec (305-001) have reduced the structural loading requirements in areas such as the live floor loadings, presumably in an effort squeeze some weight out of the design, but they still have that compression test elephant in the room to deal with.

I think it is very interesting that the NGEC has now put their standard specs - documents funded by taxpayers - under lock and key. The public is now prohibited from downloading the current versions so, quite frankly, we can't see what our tax dollars are producing. Any request for a copy must be approved by the NGEC chair, and the chair has made it clear that all such requests from the general public will be denied. I'm considering giving it a try anyway just to see what they say. I can become pretty annoying when I want to be, so it might be an interesting exercise.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Very interesting, give 'em hell Bill!


----------



## jis

PRR 60 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this will be a completely new tri-level car design for all intents and purposes that will have little in common with the midwest cars. They will be more like the Bombardier Lozenges but packaged in an NGEC outer shell that is quite different from the shells of the midwest cars.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is very interesting that the NGEC has now put their standard specs - documents funded by taxpayers - under lock and key. The public is now prohibited from downloading the current versions so, quite frankly, we can't see what our tax dollars are producing. Any request for a copy must be approved by the NGEC chair, and the chair has made it clear that all such requests from the general public will be denied. I'm considering giving it a try anyway just to see what they say. I can become pretty annoying when I want to be, so it might be an interesting exercise.
Click to expand...

I have heard from a few other sources that I trust also that the NGEC specs are a disaster based on fantasies of people who have never ever designed a real car, and there is a reason that many reputable builders have refrained from and will continue to refrain from bidding until it is fixed. Yes an FOIA request would be interesting to run up the flagpole, though it would be even better if it was done by someone who has the means to then drag it through the federal court. There is too much bull crap that goes on in the establishment that is worthy of being torn down.


----------



## MattW

Frankly it makes sense for any location not constrained by tunnels to use the BiLevel equipment. NC is in a little tricker position given that it has to have platforms to accommodate single level cars from the Carolinian (across the whole route) and the Star at Raleigh and the Meteor on the eastern end of the state (if regional service ever makes it that far). Are any of the stations west of Raleigh destined to get high level platforms other than Charlotte? (if Charlotte even still is)


----------



## jis

Greensboro is High Level. All Piedmont stations are eventually scheduled to get HL. I am not sure that any of the Meteor stations are scheduled to get HL in NC. I also don't think any of the Star stations south of Cary in NC will ever get high level. Hamlet would probably be a special challenge anyway.


----------



## MattW

Are you sure about that? Every picture I can find shows Greensboro as being low level for both platforms.


----------



## A Voice

I'm frankly surprised (and a bit confused) as to why North Carolina would go with a bi-level design at all, given the rest of the fleet (and Amtrak equipment serving the state) is entirely low-level, and the need to engineer fairly extensive modifications to the current design. It is not like single level designs don't exist; Both CAF and Siemens have current production models.

Access to adjacent (low-level) cars could possibly (and perhaps most easily) just be transition cars similar to the Amtrak Superliner II approach, but the need to preserve both high and low-level boarding seems cumbersome, at best. You're going to lose some interior capacity with a mezzanine level and necessary access to upper and lower levels.


----------



## keelhauled

It sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. You have to redesign an already iffy carbody to safely accommodate more holes cut in the side of it, and it hasn't even proven it's workable in its original design. Plus all this engineering work is spread out over five cars, meaning the individual price per car is likely to be astronomical.


----------



## John Bredin

Wouldn't it be a lot easier for NC to buy Bombardier Multilevels, instead of trying to cobble what's essentially a Surfliner car into a multilevel?! The Multilevels can run on the NEC and thus could be used on the Carolinian as well as Peidmonts. Having the seating on a Multilevel in a more comfortable configuration than the existing commuter configuration has to be a helluva lot easier than making a transition Surfliner.


----------



## CraigDK

I am not really sure what North Carolina is thinking. It sounds like a plan to end up with a few white elephants.

Maybe they realize they need new equipment and thought this was the easiest way to achieve it...


----------



## MattW

John Bredin said:


> Wouldn't it be a lot easier for NC to buy Bombardier Multilevels, instead of trying to cobble what's essentially a Surfliner car into a multilevel?! The Multilevels can run on the NEC and thus could be used on the Carolinian as well as Peidmonts. Having the seating on a Multilevel in a more comfortable configuration than the existing commuter configuration has to be a helluva lot easier than making a transition Surfliner.


The Bombardier Multilevels wouldn't provide any real advantage to NC over the existing single level equipment. The low-level door just opens up to a set of steps up to the normal floor height of the intermediate level. From posts here and elsewhere, it sounds like they're looking at these for the true low-platform capability.


----------



## neroden

afigg said:


> Allan Paul, NCDOT, announced that they have received federal funds to acquire 5 bi-level cars. NCDOT would like to use the NGECs Bi-Level Car Specification and modify it as needed for our spec. The Bi-Level cars are going to be used with their single level fleet, so it will be necessary to match the two vehicle types up. The intent is to use the NGEC specification and cut and paste to transpose slightly to the NCDOT car.
> 
> Allan noted that NCDOT would keep the NGEC apprised of the changes they make and make those changes available to all.
> 
> Asked about their intent regarding access to the Bi-level (high/low level boarding), Allan explained that they are building high-level platform boarding from 8 above the platform and 48 above the top of the rail. They will create a high-level platform with an interior elevator for transition inside the car. This will accommodate either high-level or low-level boarding. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, there will be access between cars.
> 
> Mario Bergeron asked if the configuration is more multi-level with high-level side doors with the ability to go u and down inside the car or Bi-level with low-level entry to the car.
> 
> Allan responded that it could be considered multi-level, but the entry would be roll on roll off at mid-level (mezzanine). There would be a transition from the upper-level to the lower-level with the exit at the low-level.
> 
> Mario asked is it a vehicle that will need because of the funding will need to have 305?
> 
> Allan said that it was not necessary but NCDOT intends to use the 305 spec as much as possible.
> 
> Eric Curtit congratulated Allan and NCDOT on this great opportunity, and added you are a member (of the NGEC) they are your specs too.
> 
> Allan again committed to keeping the NGEC posted on its progress. He noted that they plan to work on the spec after the first of the year, with the intent to go out for bid in June or July with a delivery date of late 2019 or early 2020.


Oh-kay. It would be fascinating to see this design. Obviously it requires an elevator from the lower level to the upper. But I don't know how the hell they're getting a third level in. The standard method is the one used in Bombardier Multilevels, but it means two height transitions to get from one end of a car to the other, which is horrible. And two elevators in each car, each with three different stops (upper, middle, lower). Yeesh. Not a sane design...

OK, so I'm trying to imagine a Surfliner-based design. Here's one. Keep the aisle at high-level all the way through. But remove some of the seats on one side, over the wheelsets, and replace them with a cutout section which is high-boarding, with the exterior high-boarding door. On one side of that section, have the staircase up to the upper level. On the other side (past the wheelsets), have the elevator up to the upper level and down to the lower level. Put this on the opposite end of the car on the other side.

OK, to see what I'm talking about, look at the Surfliner design:

http://www.craigmashburn.com/amtrakcardiagrams.html

Suppose, on the side opposite the stairs, there was another set of stairs leading to a 48-inch-boarding mezzannine, and an elevator going to all three levels. You lose probably 12 seats (6 pairs) on the upper level, and maybe some on the lower level. Repeat on the other side to get the 48" boarding door out the other side, lose another 12 seats. You could remove one of the top-to-bottom staircases to recover some of the seating.

I may be pessimistic. It may be possible to fit the elevator - mezzanine - staircase combo in 3 pairs of seats.

It would be an OK design. Two elevators per car, each with three levels, They'd be roll-through for boarding or deboarding at the middle level, roll-in-roll-out for going from upper level to lower level.


----------



## neroden

afigg said:


> Some rather interesting items in the November 8 minutes of the NGEC executive board with regards to the N-S bi-level contract.
> 
> Status Update:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Caltrans, IDOT and Sumitomo are working on a contract extension to go beyond the ARRA funding deadline
Click to expand...

These are the two states which have state-funded cars in addition to the ARRA-funded cars. IIRC, California has quite a lot of state-funded cars, Illinois has a few.
We'll see whether they manage to keep the federal funding, but both states will be buying cars regardless...


----------



## PVD

Building cars with passenger elevators will add a needless maintenance burden, a safety issue, and a huge waste of space. I don't get it.


----------



## Ryan

Agreed. Much better to just use a single level car that doesn't need that manner of complexity.


----------



## MikefromCrete

This sounds like a extremely complicated effort to retrofit the Surfliner design into something it isn't. The elevator will be a total disaster. It probably won't work half the time and will really slow down loading and unloading. NC would be better going with a single level car like the Brightliner.


----------



## A Voice

North Carolina should indeed pursue a single-level car, probably of a model currently or soon to be in production (which gives at least three possibilities), but an elevator actually is a feature which should be incorporated into future bi-level car designs. I fail to see how it would be either a "total disaster" or a safety issue (emergency evacuation is already often an EMS matter, even with single-level equipment). Rather, the simple inclusion of an elevator opens up a world of possibilities for the mobility impaired passenger (access to any lounge or cafe or diner, etc.), not nearly all of whom are in wheelchairs (many just can't routinely handle stairs).

Again, this Frankenstein's monster of a bi-level design sounds like a poor choice; Perhaps sanity will prevail during the process of modifying the existing design and plans will change. If they can produce an efficient, effective car I'll gladly stand corrected, but this has "design by committee" written all over it.


----------



## PVD

The access issue between cars goes away with a single level car. If an elevator goes out with a passenger in it, you have an enroute emergency. If an elevator goes out you are talking about bad ordering cars which drastically affects capacity for everyone, not just the mobility limited. I favor improving access by keeping things simple, that promotes lower operating costs and higher availability.


----------



## jis

MattW said:


> Are you sure about that? Every picture I can find shows Greensboro as being low level for both platforms.


I may be remembering wrong.


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> The access issue between cars goes away with a single level car. If an elevator goes out with a passenger in it, you have an enroute emergency. If an elevator goes out you are talking about bad ordering cars which drastically affects capacity for everyone, not just the mobility limited. I favor improving access by keeping things simple, that promotes lower operating costs and higher availability.


Back in my Bell Labs days we were taught to come up with designs that minimized the number of parts and specially moving part. The story line was "every part that is not there in the system will never fail". So yes, I do agree with you.

And good luck with meeting the weight limits of NGEC, which is hard to live within these additional Christmas Tree decorations thrown in. We would have the danger of having cars with wonderful elevators that fold u onto themselves at the least of a bump.


----------



## MikefromCrete

A Voice said:


> North Carolina should indeed pursue a single-level car, probably of a model currently or soon to be in production (which gives at least three possibilities), but an elevator actually is a feature which should be incorporated into future bi-level car designs. I fail to see how it would be either a "total disaster" or a safety issue (emergency evacuation is already often an EMS matter, even with single-level equipment). Rather, the simple inclusion of an elevator opens up a world of possibilities for the mobility impaired passenger (access to any lounge or cafe or diner, etc.), not nearly all of whom are in wheelchairs (many just can't routinely handle stairs).
> 
> Again, this Frankenstein's monster of a bi-level design sounds like a poor choice; Perhaps sanity will prevail during the process of modifying the existing design and plans will change. If they can produce an efficient, effective car I'll gladly stand corrected, but this has "design by committee" written all over it.


An elevator on a moving train will be out of service more than it is working.


----------



## PVD

To clarify my earlier point, yes, an emergency evacuation is an EMS event, but a passenger stuck in an elevator, where nothing else is wrong, now creates an emergency where none previously existed. It is never a good idea to solve a small problem by creating the potential of much more serious ones.


----------



## A Voice

PVD said:


> The access issue between cars goes away with a single level car. If an elevator goes out with a passenger in it, you have an enroute emergency. If an elevator goes out you are talking about bad ordering cars which drastically affects capacity for everyone, not just the mobility limited. I favor improving access by keeping things simple, that promotes lower operating costs and higher availability.





MikefromCrete said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> North Carolina should indeed pursue a single-level car, probably of a model currently or soon to be in production (which gives at least three possibilities), but an elevator actually is a feature which should be incorporated into future bi-level car designs. I fail to see how it would be either a "total disaster" or a safety issue (emergency evacuation is already often an EMS matter, even with single-level equipment). Rather, the simple inclusion of an elevator opens up a world of possibilities for the mobility impaired passenger (access to any lounge or cafe or diner, etc.), not nearly all of whom are in wheelchairs (many just can't routinely handle stairs).
> 
> Again, this Frankenstein's monster of a bi-level design sounds like a poor choice; Perhaps sanity will prevail during the process of modifying the existing design and plans will change. If they can produce an efficient, effective car I'll gladly stand corrected, but this has "design by committee" written all over it.
> 
> 
> 
> An elevator on a moving train will be out of service more than it is working.
Click to expand...

Why?

What is it about an elevator on a train which will make it so much less reliable than elevators or wheelchair lifts in essentially _any other application_? Further, how do you know this before it has even been designed, much less implemented? What other railroad equipment do you have experience with which has elevators which have proved so unreliable?

Elevators or wheelchair lifts seem to work just fine in everything from buildings, to cruise ships, buses, and vans; I don't understand why it is you think the train is so different.

Regardless, should an elevator fail, it would hardly be an emergency. Presumably there would be a way to manually (at least) lower the "lift" should a person be trapped inside or on the upper deck. The approach that it is just one more item which is subject to breakdown is correct, but even existing features - such as powered doors - sometimes malfunction without it being a big deal (you just push the door open...).

Again, why is an elevator on a train so very different from _any_ other technology, and how do you _know_ that already?


----------



## CCC1007

A wheelchair lift is already in action on several cars in the North American fleet, such as the rocky mountaineer


----------



## PVD

One of the primary reasons for the proliferation of low floor buses in transit is to avoid the mechanical complexity and propensity for failure of electric/hydraulic lifts.

Of course you can design manual fallback into a small elevator, but a 600 lb ADA chair requirement plus a companion weight is not such a small weight, and to safely provide the ability to lower a stuck passenger (yes, that could be an emergency) will tie up multiple crew members, and likely add to dwell time and enroute delays.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

A big difference would be operating while underway, not relevant in a bus, and very different in a ship.


----------



## PVD

The large cruise ships have quite a few elevators. Those are full sized passenger elevators, and the ships have enough of them that if one breaks down, the ship stays in service. Some of them carry trained personnel to handle service and maintenance issues enroute, turnarounds are too tight to just do maintenance work in port.


----------



## neroden

There are a lot of elevator designs which are... simpler... than the most modern elevator designs. Elevators can be highly reliable. Public transit elevators tend to fail due to abuse (weather, urination) and a train elevator is a much more controlled environment.


----------



## Andrew

So wouldn't Amtrak likely replace the old Superliner coaches with this new Nippon coach at some point?


----------



## jis

As far as I know Amtrak has not ordered any new Nippon Coaches yet. When it gets around to ordering it will probably go through a new RFQ process and who knows who will win that one?


----------



## Andrew

I thought that Nippon had the option of building another 300 double decker coaches if Amtrak wanted them to.


----------



## jis

That does not necessarily mean they have to exercise those options.


----------



## A Voice

Andrew said:


> So wouldn't Amtrak likely replace the old Superliner coaches with this new Nippon coach at some point?


Right now the Nippon-Sharyo car remains an unproven design; Certainly the previous failed compression tests did not go well. Presumably those issues will have been resolved, but regardless, Amtrak will need more than just coaches in a Superliner replacement (which is still years away, and the N-S production likely to be long since completed) which means further modifications (and greater weight) to the updated design.


----------



## 9900

December update. More delays and signs of frustration....

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Pages/305ExecBoard.aspx



> [SIZE=8pt]Sumitomo has informed Caltrans that the Final Design Review (FDR) will not take place in January, 2017, as initially anticipated and has been postponed to a later date – sometime in the Spring of 2017.[/SIZE]





> In closing, Bruce commented that it is important that a process and a stream of product be looked at. The current incremental “one and done” approach is “unsustainable”. It is time to look at a process for improvement.



Hope the midwest likes their Amfleet's and Horizon's. Looks like they're going to be stuck with them for a long time. I'd be shocked if they get a funding deadline extension from the Trump administration.


----------



## keelhauled

The most recent Trains magazine had a short article on the trials and tribulations of the CHI-STL route. There was one line that said, with reference to the NS cars, that "delivery of those cars could be four years away," though it did not elaborate further.


----------



## afigg

9900 said:


> December update. More delays and signs of frustration....
> 
> ....
> 
> Hope the midwest likes their Amfleet's and Horizon's. Looks like they're going to be stuck with them for a long time. I'd be shocked if they get a funding deadline extension from the Trump administration.


The stimulus September, 2017 spending deadline is set in the ARRA appropriations bill and is not something that can be extended by the Trump administration even if wanted to, AFAIK. However, it was stated in multiple meeting minutes that the FRA and the states were going to get around the deadline. How was not explained, but part of the original funding for the 130 car order was not ARRA funds, but federal FY2010 HSIPR grants and CA state funds, neither of which is constrained by a mandated 2017 deadline. My guess is that the FRA is getting or planning to get around the ARRA deadline by shuffling the bi-level order ARRA funds with unspent FY2010 funds or other FY10 funded projects which have or will wrap up by Sept. 2017.

Remember the N-S bi-level bid came in well below the fed funded amount reserved for the 130 car order. At one point, the FRA and the states were planning to buy a bunch more cars with the unspent funds, but the delays in the contract killed that plan. At some point, there should be an explanation of how the FRA is getting around the ARRA deadline; well, that is if they pull it off.

As for the news on the delay on the Final Design Review, that is not good news. How serious it is, likely will have to wait to find out.


----------



## neroden

Parts of the federal Charger order were ARRA and parts were federal non-ARRA, if I remember correctly. Those can probably be swapped for the parts of the bilevel order which were ARRA.

I think Moline was entirely non-ARRA? Might be able to swap some funds into that.


----------



## Steve4031

Ridiculous. This is really frustrating. This country just falls farther and farther behind.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Steve4031 said:


> Ridiculous. This is really frustrating. This country just falls farther and farther behind.


It is ridiculous. And really frustrating.

But why blame "this country" when a Japanese company designs a new rail car that proceeds to crash-test FAIL?

This thread would be speculating about whether the first bi-levels would go into service first on Wolverines or in Lincoln service. Instead, we read about possible further delays, but it's not exactly the fault of this country.


----------



## jis

It has to do with the mindless lowest bidder requirement (and possibly incompetently put together specification) that is this country's contribution to this fiasco. This country did not have to select said Japanese Company. There was a French company for example that has a well known design that is known to have passed the buff strength test, which could be rejiggered. But the cost proposed by such if they bid at all was not the lowest cost. The one with zero experience of building center sill-less cars who had no idea what it actually costs, bid low and won. And here we are where we are!


----------



## west point

The big problem is if NS or CAF is pushed too much then the US company may file for bankruptcy and then where is Amtrak and California ? These rail cars RFPs need some kind of independent performance bond ?


----------



## jis

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/01/11-bilevel-car-order-no-show



> California is a no-show
> 
> State officials cancel bilevel presentation at conference, send statement instead
> 
> By Steve Sweeney | January 11, 2017
> 
> WASHINGTON — “Ongoing negotiations” are what stopped California rail officials from presenting information on a long-stalled bilevel car order at a national transportation conference on Tuesday. At the Transportation Research Board...


Full text is available to Trains subscribers only, so I am extracting a few pieces from it:

CalTrans' written statement in lieu of the planned presentation which did not take place



> “At this time, final design of the [Next Generation Equipment Committee]
> compliant cars has not yet been completed and approved. The contract is
> behind schedule and negotiations are currently underway to address the
> delays,” Steven Keck, CalTrans’ interim chief for rail wrote. “At this
> time no further information can be presented.”


Further background info



> Research Board panelists said there have been 243 design changes
> thus far on the cars, each taking as little as two weeks or as
> long as several months to be processed.


----------



## Blackwolf

The little pessimist on my shoulder is wondering if a contract cancellation could be looming at some (hopefully avoidable) point in this adventure. Years of work and not a single car to show for it is pretty abysmal.


----------



## A Voice

Blackwolf said:


> The little pessimist on my shoulder is wondering if a contract cancellation could be looming at some (hopefully avoidable) point in this adventure. Years of work and not a single car to show for it is pretty abysmal.


It appears your little pessimist could be on the right track.


----------



## frequentflyer

I can easily see a cancellation and it would hold up in court. My question is where would California go next. My guess, if this happens would be siemens. No they would not be bilevel, but Cali would have something that works and made in state.


----------



## frequentflyer

The more I think about it, I could the see the Midwest cancelling and going Siemens too, not as flashy as bilevels, but instead of cab cars, they could put another Charger on the end.


----------



## jis

The problem may be the not so well written specifications. The Siemens cars are sort of compliant. But who knows for sure? It was not a major issue for AAF. But it is for Midwest I presume. Siemens has already complained about certain aspects of the single level car specification.


----------



## A Voice

frequentflyer said:


> The more I think about it, I could the see the Midwest cancelling and going Siemens too, not as flashy as bilevels, but instead of cab cars, they could put another Charger on the end.


The interesting thing to watch about Siemens is the possibility some state(s) cannot do further business with them because of ongoing sanctions against Iran, where Siemens has a rail contract.


----------



## Steve4031

Jesus, these darn US specifications really screw up the process. I saw pictures of those seimans cars and they are nice.


----------



## A Voice

jis said:


> The problem may be the not so well written specifications. The Siemens cars are sort of compliant. But who knows for sure? It was not a major issue for AAF. But it is for Midwest I presume. Siemens has already complained about certain aspects of the single level car specification.


In theory, Talgo could be a possibility, with recently built train sets now to be used by California. Problem is, they no longer have an operating U.S. production facility. But with 20/20 hindsight, it may have been a better choice than the common bi-level design chosen.


----------



## jis

Each Talgo configuration requires a specific FRA waiver. It is not compliant with anything. So that could be managed with Siemens stuff too, and much easier since it does not require an FRA safety waiver. it only requires breaking the rule that "all cars henceforth shall be compliant with the grand specification", which of course Talgos aren't either.


----------



## neroden

frequentflyer said:


> I can easily see a cancellation and it would hold up in court. My question is where would California go next. My guess, if this happens would be siemens. No they would not be bilevel, but Cali would have something that works and made in state.


ADA. California has standardized on low platforms, for better or worse. If they get single-levels, big damn mess, end up having to replace all the platforms. Possibly a good idea, but... unlikely.

Siemens can make functional bilevels if they're asked to, for some price or other.

Or California can just go with one of the Chinese companies.


----------



## jis

Or they could get Alstom to dust off the known and working design of Surfliner cars and turn out a few more.


----------



## Steve4031

Even better. Tried and true.


----------



## Anthony V

Hmm, Nippon Sharyo is laying off workers again

http://www.wifr.com/content/news/100-jobs-cut-from-Nippon-Sharyo-410993125.html


----------



## fulham

Amtrak needs to cut the cord with this outfit. How long since this contract has been issued? N-S I do not think is capable of manufacturing these cars and I don't think ever will. The group involved with the specs for this order (NGER?) should be dissolved. Amtrak and the states involved with this have screwed up royally and it may mean the end of corridor service out of the Chicago hub. The Horizon fleet is wearing out, ridership is dropping due to all the track work, Republicans are in charge of many state governments (see issue with Missouri) and at the end of the day there is no new equipment to offer the customer that has had to deal with all the delays, bustitutions, etc. Sure, the Siemens Chargers may provide new power, but without new rolling stock, things will continue in a downward spiral. How Amtrak and the states involved could f*&k this up as much as they have is beyond me. People who were supposedly "experts" in passenger car design have seem to have put together a bid package that was unrealistic. Beyond sad!


----------



## A Voice

fulham said:


> Amtrak needs to cut the cord with this outfit. How long since this contract has been issued? N-S I do not think is capable of manufacturing these cars and I don't think ever will. The group involved with the specs for this order (NGER?) should be dissolved. Amtrak and the states involved with this have screwed up royally and it may mean the end of corridor service out of the Chicago hub. The Horizon fleet is wearing out, ridership is dropping due to all the track work, Republicans are in charge of many state governments (see issue with Missouri) and at the end of the day there is no new equipment to offer the customer that has had to deal with all the delays, bustitutions, etc. Sure, the Siemens Chargers may provide new power, but without new rolling stock, things will continue in a downward spiral. How Amtrak and the states involved could f*&k this up as much as they have is beyond me. People who were supposedly "experts" in passenger car design have seem to have put together a bid package that was unrealistic. Beyond sad!


Amtrak is not the one buying the cars; There is no cord to cut.

With respect, the suggestion this debacle could mean the end of Chicago regional service is ludicrous. Granted, this is turning into a textbook example of why design by committee is a disparaging term but Nippon-Sharyo's failure is not the end of the world.


----------



## fulham

OK...so what comes next? Will N-S ever come up with a prototype that actually passes the various tests? What about the funding issue? 2017 is when the stimulus funds run out, and there is still not a car to be seen. The Horizon fleet is rumored to have speed restrictions placed on them due to lateral movement issues. The states and Amtrak (Mr. Moorman) need to put laser like attention on this situation to find out a way to get new equipment and keep the Chicago corridors from falling apart. No one seems to know what is going on (or they are not saying), but relying on N-S to develop a car that will actually work seems like a losing proposition.


----------



## MikefromCrete

This is all up to the Midwest states and California. I suppose they could attempt to collect some kind of compensation from N-S over their failure to deliver a promised product. They could probably try to get Alstom (who I believe is the builder of the California/Surfliner cars) to come up with new version of a proven design (which is what should have been done in the first place, all this reinventing the wheel on every car order is a bit much). Or see if Siemens can come up with something in a hurry. In the meantime, the corridor services will continue with the Horizon/Amfleet consists they've used for years. There's nothing to indicate that these cars can't continue in service for the foreseeable future. Of course the one thing they can't do is to go to CAF, any cars built by them wouldn't be done until the 2100's at the earliest. This is a tough problem, but it will be solved. No need for hang-wringing.

By the way, Wick Moorman isn't the Messiah. He's not going to singlehandedly solve every problem in passenger railroading. He's a good railroad executive who will do his best with what he has. But the key is support from Congress, the new administration and the states. We'll see if Trump's capital improvements plan will be of help to Amtrak. It might just get us a bunch of privately-built toll roads.


----------



## A Voice

Latest update on the Nippon-Sharyo bi-level car procurement (meeting was yesterday), in the draft report at:

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20Exec%20Brd%20minutes%20-1-17-17%20DRAFT.doc

_"Essentially, things are in the same position as the last update – the contract is behind schedule and the parties are involved in negotiations – providing any further information would be inappropriate now." _


----------



## jis

fulham said:


> OK...so what comes next? Will N-S ever come up with a prototype that actually passes the various tests? What about the funding issue? 2017 is when the stimulus funds run out, and there is still not a car to be seen. The Horizon fleet is rumored to have speed restrictions placed on them due to lateral movement issues. The states and Amtrak (Mr. Moorman) need to put laser like attention on this situation to find out a way to get new equipment and keep the Chicago corridors from falling apart. No one seems to know what is going on (or they are not saying), but relying on N-S to develop a car that will actually work seems like a losing proposition.


The speed restrictions are on specific Horizon Cars that have the problem, not on the entire fleet. And as the cars go through level 2 maintenance they should return to full speed status.

At present there is zero chance of the Chicago Corridor falling apart due to this delay.

As for relying on N-S or not, terminating the work with N-S now and starting a new procurement process is unlikely to get a car any sooner than just getting N-S to complete their work.

As for the interesting Iran angle, pretty soon there may be no supplier available to buy equipment from  Most European companies have some dealing with Iran, as do most Asian companies.


----------



## neroden

Yeah, it's about time to revoke the stupid Iran restrictions. Nobody else in the world is interested in sanctioning Iran, so this just isolates the US and creates trouble for the US.


----------



## A Voice

jis said:


> As for the interesting Iran angle, pretty soon there may be no supplier available to buy equipment from  Most European companies have some dealing with Iran, as do most Asian companies.


The potential issues over state sanctions refer to Siemens and not Nippon-Sharyo and the bi-level car order.

There is a great deal that isn't yet clear about this, and obviously the regulations may vary greatly from one state to another (I _think_ at least Illinois, North Carolina, and California - probably others - all have something on the books). Just how long after a 'deal' would a particular company be ineligible for state business? What about existing contracts? At least EMD offers an alternative to the Charger locomotive.



neroden said:


> Yeah, it's about time to revoke the stupid Iran restrictions. Nobody else in the world is interested in sanctioning Iran, so this just isolates the US and creates trouble for the US.


Iran's human rights record, stance toward Israel, and nuclear ambitions are hardly 'stupid' matters, and not to be taken lightly.


----------



## jis

Even EMD has sold locomotives to Iran in the past.

EMD also seems to have become another CAF and N-S, considering that so far it has failed to get the F125 certified for operation from FRA.


----------



## A Voice

jis said:


> EMD also seems to have become another CAF and N-S, considering that so far it has failed to get the F125 certified for operation from FRA.


Hey, at least they have managed to actually _build_ one. That puts them light years ahead of Nippon-Sharyo.....  ​


----------



## frequentflyer

Though these cars look Superliners from the outside, were the N-S cars to built to higher crash standards than the California Cars from Alstrom?


----------



## jis

frequentflyer said:


> Though these cars look Superliners from the outside, were the N-S cars to built to higher crash standards than the California Cars from Alstrom?


No.


----------



## afigg

A Voice said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> EMD also seems to have become another CAF and N-S, considering that so far it has failed to get the F125 certified for operation from FRA.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, at least they have managed to actually _build_ one. That puts them light years ahead of Nippon-Sharyo.....  ​
Click to expand...

N-S did build at least 1 car. The car may not have been fully fitted out, but there was a complete frame. There are photos of it. The problem is that the car failed the required crush test. Oops. So back to the drawing board so to speak.


----------



## PRR 60

neroden said:


> Yeah, it's about time to revoke the stupid Iran restrictions. Nobody else in the world is interested in sanctioning Iran, so this just isolates the US and creates trouble for the US.


At least as it relates to the North Carolina, the restriction only applies to vendors who have or had investment activities with Iran's energy sector (natural gas, oil or nuclear). Locomotives and aircraft, in my opinion, would not fall into the restricted category. It appears that the management-level bureaucrats that make up the NGEC did not know that, and were unable to use Google. They likely paid a consultant to perform an investigation of the issue, who will later report their findings after spending $20,000 or so.

From a Q&A about the North Carolina act:



> The Act defines “investment activities in Iran” as providing $20 million or more in goods or services to the energy sector in Iran (developing petroleum, natural gas, or nuclear power); or  extending credit or financing of $20 million or more to anyone providing goods or services to the energy sector in Iran (this second activity is limited to financial institutions). Any person the State Treasurer identifies as engaging in either of these activities is subject to the Act’s prohibitions.


North Carolina’s Iran Divestment Act Q&A

The actual list of companies subject to the NC sanctions is relatively short and can be found HERE.


----------



## neroden

PRR 60 said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's about time to revoke the stupid Iran restrictions. Nobody else in the world is interested in sanctioning Iran, so this just isolates the US and creates trouble for the US.
> 
> 
> 
> At least as it relates to the North Carolina, the restriction only applies to vendors who have or had investment activities with Iran's energy sector (natural gas, oil or nuclear). Locomotives and aircraft, in my opinion, would not fall into the restricted category. It appears that the management-level bureaucrats that make up the NGEC did not know that, and were unable to use Google. They likely paid a consultant to perform an investigation of the issue, who will later report their findings after spending $20,000 or so.
> 
> From a Q&A about the North Carolina act:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Act defines “investment activities in Iran” as providing $20 million or more in goods or services to the energy sector in Iran (developing petroleum, natural gas, or nuclear power); or  extending credit or financing of $20 million or more to anyone providing goods or services to the energy sector in Iran (this second activity is limited to financial institutions). Any person the State Treasurer identifies as engaging in either of these activities is subject to the Act’s prohibitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> North Carolina’s Iran Divestment Act Q&A
> 
> The actual list of companies subject to the NC sanctions is relatively short and can be found HERE.
Click to expand...

Oh, good.    Thanks for checking.

I just hope other states don't have heavier restrictions.


----------



## rickycourtney

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/01/23-nippon-latest

More grim news...


----------



## seat38a

Maybe Trump will executive order away the dumb crash rule from the FRA that is causing all this headache. We can only hope.


----------



## jis

Unlikely. Trump may be a blowhard, but he is not stupid. The 800klb rule has been there since about 1945. It is hard to believe that suddenly in the 21st century it is not possible to build cars that meet it. There may be a problem with a bit of incompetent specification writing by the Next Generation Committee, which if so, should be fixed. It should not require a Presidential decree to fix stupid mistakes. And it certainly would be stupid to remove a basic rule that has been adequately modified now to allow CEM and all the goodies that it did not allow in the past. What buff strength do you suppose TGVs have to pass on the head end unit?


----------



## MikefromCrete

seat38a said:


> Maybe Trump will executive order away the dumb crash rule from the FRA that is causing all this headache. We can only hope.


You want to get rid of a safety rule? I hope you're never involved in a train crash with inadequate safety equipment.


----------



## seat38a

MikefromCrete said:


> seat38a said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Trump will executive order away the dumb crash rule from the FRA that is causing all this headache. We can only hope.
> 
> 
> 
> You want to get rid of a safety rule? I hope you're never involved in a train crash with inadequate safety equipment.
Click to expand...

Well the rest of the world seems to be operating fine without turning every railcar into a battle tank. There are safety rules and then there are OVERBOARD beyond ridiculous. Its not only in rail but with aircrafts. Because of ONE mistake, the FAA pretty much made Combi passenger aircrafts done and over with. Why can't they just dust off the same Superliner / Surfliner design without having to rejigger everything every new order? Are the Superliner / Surfliner's on the railroad so unsafe that we should remove them from the rails??


----------



## jis

seat38a said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seat38a said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Trump will executive order away the dumb crash rule from the FRA that is causing all this headache. We can only hope.
> 
> 
> 
> You want to get rid of a safety rule? I hope you're never involved in a train crash with inadequate safety equipment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well the rest of the world seems to be operating fine without turning every railcar into a battle tank. There are safety rules and then there are OVERBOARD beyond ridiculous. Its not only in rail but with aircrafts. Because of ONE mistake, the FAA pretty much made Combi passenger aircrafts done and over with. Why can't they just dust off the same Superliner / Surfliner design without having to rejigger everything every new order? Are the Superliner / Surfliner's on the railroad so unsafe that we should remove them from the rails??
Click to expand...

In general cars built to old UIC standards do fall apart more spectacularly than those built to newer UIC standards which are more like the latest revised FRA standards, including both buff strength requirements and CEM, requiring only that the passenger carrying capsule remain intact while the rest of the car is allowed to crumple to dissipate energy. If you want to see how old UIC standard cars perform take a look at any derailment in India involving the old Schlieren design ICF coaches. See how they fold up into themselves, including spectacularly deforming the passenger compartment.

There is no safety standard difference (specifically the 800klb buff strength) between those that the Superliner/Surfliner adhere to and what is expected of the N-S cars. The big difference is that the N-S cars are required to be 20klb lighter with no one ever having validated that such a car can be vaibly built. We may know the answer to that question. Now one could ask why we do car structure research as part of a commercial car order instead of validating specification before publishing them and making them part of a commercial order, and that would be a legitimate question. but that isn't exactly FRA safety office's fault.

Nobody, including the FRA has said anything about the lack of safety of the Superliners, or that they are non compliant with any existing or new FRA safety standards, hence the last sentence in the quoted text is at best a red herring.

The next Generation Car specification is not an FRA safety project but it is a commercial project supposedly targeted to reducing car acquisition costs by facilitating multiple agencies to place orders together to produce consolidated large orders. As for safety specifications it merely points to the FRA safety standards in CFR

And the FAA part of the rant has zero relevance to the subject of FRA safety specifications. Unlike the FRA, FAA is considered to be the gold standard of safety standards, and most world aviation safety governance organizations take the cue from the FAA, not the other way round.


----------



## PVD

Without getting into a discussion on whether or not the crush standard is a good or bad thing relative to the different approaches used in various parts of the world, this standard is not new, and has been met many times before. The problem is not the standard, it is the execution........


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> Without getting into a discussion on whether or not the crush standard is a good or bad thing relative to the different approaches used in various parts of the world, this standard is not new, and has been met many times before. The problem is not the standard, it is the execution........


Yes. The much maligned 800klb buff strength standard has been on the books in some form or another since 1945, so even the original Santa Fe Hi-Levels adhered to it.


----------



## ScouseAndy

It's hardly surprising that different countries have different methods of protecting passengers and differing safety criteria. The US have the one of safest and strongest vehicles on the rails for passengers some I personally think Europe would do well considering to replicate to some degree but our trains are generally more separated from the environment they travel thru the US trains.

The problem is it seems is you choose a supplier with little or no experience of building cars to US safety specs and clearly not up to the job. It's a sad state of affairs when the corridors are in need of new rolling stock and I'm sure we could all find examples world wide where modern rolling stock has increased ridership


----------



## jis

Scouse you are mostly correct. There is an additional nuance to the N-S affair. N-S has actually built plenty of US standards compliant cars and delivered them to various outfits. The thing is, they were all cars with center sills to support the buff strength. This is the first order of cars without a center sill that they have taken on. They were further hamstrung by the 20klb weight reduction when compared to Superliner/Surfliners that was thrown at them by the Next Gen Committee, which had never researched what the effect of such would be on buff strength and cost of the car. So there is enough blame to go around.

Perhaps PRR can give more details since he is more conversant with the actual contents of the next gen specs than I am.


----------



## PVD

Actually they have produced US market compliant product, just not this particular style of car. That's the saddest part of the story.

Everything comes with a price or penalty....you can usually make something stronger, that comes with a weight or price penalty, and stronger and lighter (like titanium) usually comes with a big price penalty(along with increased complexity of fabrication).

Companies are not always smart, I worked for a company that was so intent on winning a contract that they agreed to penalty clauses for response times to emergencies, and ignored the fact that the site was on an island where you had to wait for a ferry. Luckily the equipment was very solid.


----------



## west point

The Capitol corridor business plan seems to give a high probability of no cars before 2020 and highly likely NS insolvency.


----------



## A Voice

west point said:


> The Capitol corridor business plan seems to give a high probability of no cars before 2020 and highly likely NS insolvency.


Unbelievable, but hardly unexpected at this point.


----------



## Ziv

Too bad Amtrak didn't bin the stipulated 20k pound weight reduction and call it a day after the buff test failure. Or reduce the weight reduction to 10k pounds and see if NS could have strengthened the cars sufficiently.


----------



## keelhauled

Ziv said:


> Too bad Amtrak didn't bin the stipulated 20k pound weight reduction and call it a day after the buff test failure. Or reduce the weight reduction to 10k pounds and see if NS could have strengthened the cars sufficiently.


Not Amtrak's call to make.


----------



## Ziv

Thanks for the reminder. Is it Caltran and IDOT that are in the drivers seat on this deal?

Could they have made that call to eliminate or reduce the weight reduction, or is the contract kind of a mutual suicide pact if the cars can't be delivered at the price contracted for? Reduced weight would have been useful, but wasting this many years and having nothing to show for it is a huge disappointment.



keelhauled said:


> Ziv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad Amtrak didn't bin the stipulated 20k pound weight reduction and call it a day after the buff test failure. Or reduce the weight reduction to 10k pounds and see if NS could have strengthened the cars sufficiently.
> 
> 
> 
> Not Amtrak's call to make.
Click to expand...


----------



## jis

I believe the funding legislation binds the contract(s) funded by it, to the NGC specification.


----------



## CraigDK

I think one thing worth noting is the margin by which the crush test was failed. It was missed only by about a 1/4 of a percent (if my math and memory are correct).

Does that show that a weight reduction is possible? Yes. Are the weights called for in the contract significant enough to be worth the effort? Someone else might be able to answer that. Can it be made within the specs? Possibly. The previous test hopefully provided enough data to answer the prior question.


----------



## jis

Engineering is the art of balancing contradictory requirements to produce something constructable for a price that is affordable. Of course way more weight reduction than 20klb is possible too, say if Titanium were used as the metal for the frame construction. but why add all that cost?

My main beef is that the writers of the spec really did not apparently have a clue about what cost tradeoffs they were making in just putting down a weight number just because it felt right to them.

Then add to that the fact that a company with zero experience in building sill-less cars came in with the lowest bid, possibly because of ignorance, and underbid outfits that actually had experience building such cars, and that bid was accepted because it was the lowest and vaguely credible. Wonders of bureaucracy. And well..... here we are...


----------



## Ziv

I always thought this was a John Glenn quote, but apparently Alan Shepard said it first.

It's a very sobering feeling to be up in space and realize that one's safety factor was determined by the lowest bidder on a government contract.

Alan Shepard 
I hope manufacturing a rail car would be a trifle less involved that a spacecraft, though.



jis said:


> Engineering is the art of balancing contradictory requirements to produce something constructable for a price that is affordable. Of course way more weight reduction than 20klb is possible too, say if Titanium were used as the metal for the frame construction. but why add all that cost?
> 
> My main beef is that the writers of the spec really did not apparently have a clue about what cost tradeoffs they were making in just putting down a weight number just because it felt right to them.
> 
> The add to that the fact that a company with zero experience in building sill-less cars came in with the lowest bid, possibly because of ignorance, and underbid outfits that actually had experience building such cars, and that bid was accepted because it was the lowest and vaguely credible. Wonders of bureaucracy. And well..... here we are...


----------



## Thirdrail7

It looks like 130 is turning out to be an unlucky number. Maybe they should merge with CAF.


----------



## jis

Thirdrail7 said:


> It looks like 130 is turning out to be an unlucky number. Maybe they should merge with CAF.


LOL! 13 x 10!


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Ziv said:


> It's a very sobering feeling to be up in space and realize that one's safety factor was determined by the lowest bidder on a government contract.
> 
> Alan Shepard
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> My main beef is that the writers of the spec really did not apparently have a clue about what cost tradeoffs they were making ,,,
> 
> Then add the fact that a company with zero experience in building sill-less cars came in with the lowest bid ... Wonders of bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

Apparently Amtrak had the big say on the committees that drew up the Next Gen specs, so it certainly shares some blame.

But the lowest bidder requirement comes from Congress, not from any bureaucracy.

Meanwhile, if I were king, like -- OK, keep politics out of it -- I'd have declared that by rounding off the 1/4 of 1%, the 798,000 lb level basically met the crash test requirement.

I mean, 800,000 has been the rule since at least 1945, they say. Has anything changed since then? Railroads are spending a Billion dollars or more on Positive Train Control to avoid crashes. And since 1945, probably a half zillion or so grade crossings have already been eliminated, or upgraded with four-quadrant barriers, flashing lights, and warning sounds, with more fixed every year. My fearless forecast is that the number and rate of crashes will continue to decline in future years. (And nobody wants to even experiment with "not invented here" life-saving and injury-minimizing measures like seat belts and air bags.) We simply don't need 1945's exactly and precisely 800,000 lb level of safety, and 798,000 lbs should do easily, or even 750,000 lbs.

Actually, seems as a nation we embraced the simplistic hard line -- zero tolerance, mandatory minimums, etc -- as if that would help anything. It didn't and it doesn't. So let the school principal have discretion about the pocket knife found in the glove compartment of a pick-up in the school parking lot, give back the sentencing power to judges when they know the details of individual cases and Congress can't, and allow IDOT, or even Amtrak, to make the calls on the two-penny stuff like whether $8.00 is the absolute mandatory minimum or whether $7.98 is close enuff.


----------



## jis

I suppose if it did not fail popping parts flying all over the place and collapse into a heap, there may have been a case for some consideration. However, a catastrophic failure is what happened, and I would be very uncomfortable giving a pass on that.

Proposing that such failures be given a pass is either disingenuous or an act of ignorance IMHO.


----------



## StriderGDM

And for all the grade crossings eliminated and the like, I give you this: http://i.imgur.com/vZ8qJ1C.gif Still happening here folks.


----------



## RPC

OTOH, in 1945 passenger cars were not sharing the rails with 286,000 lb. freight cars and (all too often) 53 ft. tractor-trailers...


----------



## WoodyinNYC

StriderGDM said:


> And for all the grade crossings eliminated and the like, I give you this: http://i.imgur.com/vZ8qJ1C.gif Still happening here folks.


You did notice that the crossing apparatus failed: The barriers were up and no lights were on. AFTER the crash the barriers came down.


----------



## Gulfwind2

While I agree that the existing regulations on passenger car manufacturing in the US today are over-reaching and in some ways are a hindrance to new passenger cars being put into service, we are absolutely going to have to get cozy with them because President Protectionist is not within a million years going to direct the FRA or Congress to re-examine _Buy America_. The rules regarding 800klb are what I would expect to be an easier thing to reconsider in the real world. The fact is that it does't matter how heavy modern day freight trains are. You are still far less likely to be on a passenger train which will ever collide with a freight train today as oppose to 1945. Car weight has got nothing to do with that. Car weight does however impact the rate at which track conditions deteriorate over time and the frequency of maintenance which a mainline will demand. This is the reason for why a shared-use corridor in the US cannot realistically go seek out the same passenger equipment which a country like Switzerland uses for a similarly-trafficked line. Swiss trains tippy-toe like ballerinas over a fine wood floor whereas US unit freight trains which use cars in deplorable condition are more like a gang of sumo wrestlers attempting their art on a similar surface. Again I do not feel this justifies the 1945 rule remaining in effect- but until we change right-of-way usage en masse in this country, we are not going to see the US passenger car building revolution that we have all been waiting for.


----------



## PVD

Buy American and the FRA standard are 2 separate issues. BuyAmerican waivers can be issued for prototypes to be built overseas with the bulk of production done here, the prototypes need to show regulatory compliance before full production is normally ok'd.


----------



## jis

Gulfwind2 said:


> While I agree that the existing regulations on passenger car manufacturing in the US today are over-reaching and in some ways are a hindrance to new passenger cars being put into service, we are absolutely going to have to get cozy with them because President Protectionist is not within a million years going to direct the FRA or Congress to re-examine _Buy America_. The rules regarding 800klb are what I would expect to be an easier thing to reconsider in the real world. The fact is that it does't matter how heavy modern day freight trains are. You are still far less likely to be on a passenger train which will ever collide with a freight train today as oppose to 1945. Car weight has got nothing to do with that. Car weight does however impact the rate at which track conditions deteriorate over time and the frequency of maintenance which a mainline will demand. This is the reason for why a shared-use corridor in the US cannot realistically go seek out the same passenger equipment which a country like Switzerland uses for a similarly-trafficked line. Swiss trains tippy-toe like ballerinas over a fine wood floor whereas US unit freight trains which use cars in deplorable condition are more like a gang of sumo wrestlers attempting their art on a similar surface. Again I do not feel this justifies the 1945 rule remaining in effect- but until we change right-of-way usage en masse in this country, we are not going to see the US passenger car building revolution that we have all been waiting for.


We can take advantage of car weight only on exclusive passenger usage tracks. All the light passenger cars are going to do nothing for the quality of track as long as it is regularly getting pounded by 286klb freight cars, which is the case for most of the nation's railroad tracks, including significant parts of the Amtrak owned NEC.

Having said that, what matters really is axle load. Where the weight in passengers trains kill is in the locomotives, specially diesel locomotives. If we are able to electrify our tracks and keep 286k and 312k freight cars off of the passenger tracks, that will go way further in improving track condition than worrying about 20k weight reduction on a 175k (Superliner) passenger car, that is pulled by a 270k locomotive on tracks where the primary frequent traffic is that of 286k+ drags of freight cars.

The FRA rules have recently been changed to allow significant weight reduction by using CEM and preserving the itnegrity of only the passenger carrying compartment rather than the entire car. It is quite within the realm of possibilities now to be compliant with FRA and yet order more or less off the shelf equipment with very minor changes. Siemens delivered their Viaggio derived cars to Brightline with relatively small and mostly cosmetic changes. And yet they failed to meet the Next Gen weight requirements. So now we are in a situation that we cannot order the Next Gen compliant cars because they are too light and the European manufacturers are baulking at the spec, case in point Siemens.


----------



## Steve4031

This may have been answered earlier, so sorry in advance. What is the difference between a centered sill car and one with no sill? I am not sure I'm even using the correct terminology so please forgive me in advance.


----------



## jis

Without getting too technical, typically a car that has a lower level that hangs between the two trucks, does not have a center sill. Cars that have a level full length floor above the trucks have a center sill under that floor. Think of the sill as a beam under the floor.


----------



## MattW

So if the 800k rule has been around since 1945, the question is, has it ever been seriously reexamined? Just because we've always done something some way, doesn't automatically make it the best way. Technology changes, rapidly. When my mom bought her Ford Crown Victoria in 2002, it had all good ratings by the IIHS. By now, the ratings have dropped a bit compared to the more recent models.


----------



## Steve4031

Ok so California cars, superliner cars and the commuter cars in Toronto are examples of this type of construction. The Metra bilevels on routes out of oglive and union station are not examples.

Thank you Jishnu


----------



## west point

With what rules are being changed in DC who knows what "might" happen to the 800k rule ??


----------



## A Voice

west point said:


> With what rules are being changed in DC who knows what "might" happen to the 800k rule ??


_What_ rule changes?


----------



## Ryan

You may have noticed that we have a new President, and he seems to be hell bent on making quite a few changes.  Who knows what might be next?


----------



## neroden

A Voice said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the interesting Iran angle, pretty soon there may be no supplier available to buy equipment from  Most European companies have some dealing with Iran, as do most Asian companies.
> 
> 
> 
> The potential issues over state sanctions refer to Siemens and not Nippon-Sharyo and the bi-level car order.
> 
> There is a great deal that isn't yet clear about this, and obviously the regulations may vary greatly from one state to another (I _think_ at least Illinois, North Carolina, and California - probably others - all have something on the books). Just how long after a 'deal' would a particular company be ineligible for state business? What about existing contracts? At least EMD offers an alternative to the Charger locomotive.
> 
> 
> 
> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's about time to revoke the stupid Iran restrictions. Nobody else in the world is interested in sanctioning Iran, so this just isolates the US and creates trouble for the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iran's human rights record, stance toward Israel, and nuclear ambitions are hardly 'stupid' matters, and not to be taken lightly.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are stupid matters to be taken lightly. Don't fall for the propaganda.

Israel has a worse human rights record than Iran (this is uncontested -- at least everyone in Iran is a citizen, whereas Israel has second-class "stateless persons"), it already *has* illegal nuclear weapons (this is uncontested), and its stance towards Iran is truly frightening. But we don't have sanctions against Israel, do we? No, we don't.

Mods: as an exception to my normal rules on moderation, do not delete this post unless you also delete the post to which it is responding. Thank you.


----------



## PRR 60

neroden said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the interesting Iran angle, pretty soon there may be no supplier available to buy equipment from  Most European companies have some dealing with Iran, as do most Asian companies.
> 
> 
> 
> The potential issues over state sanctions refer to Siemens and not Nippon-Sharyo and the bi-level car order.
> 
> There is a great deal that isn't yet clear about this, and obviously the regulations may vary greatly from one state to another (I _think_ at least Illinois, North Carolina, and California - probably others - all have something on the books). Just how long after a 'deal' would a particular company be ineligible for state business? What about existing contracts? At least EMD offers an alternative to the Charger locomotive.
> 
> 
> 
> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's about time to revoke the stupid Iran restrictions. Nobody else in the world is interested in sanctioning Iran, so this just isolates the US and creates trouble for the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iran's human rights record, stance toward Israel, and nuclear ambitions are hardly 'stupid' matters, and not to be taken lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are stupid matters to be taken lightly. Don't fall for the propaganda.
> 
> Israel has a worse human rights record than Iran (this is uncontested -- at least everyone in Iran is a citizen, whereas Israel has second-class "stateless persons"), it already *has* illegal nuclear weapons (this is uncontested), and its stance towards Iran is truly frightening. But we don't have sanctions against Israel, do we? No, we don't.
> 
> Mods: as an exception to my normal rules on moderation, do not delete this post unless you also delete the post to which it is responding. Thank you.
Click to expand...

I'll keep this as is, but recognize that you responded to an off-topic aspect of a post from nine days ago, referencing a non-rail issue that does not even apply to this order. If you or anyone wants to argue the relative human rights record of Iran, Israel, Iraq, Ireland, Iceland, or any other country starting with the letter "I," take it to random discussions. That forum was established for the purpose of providing an opportunity for members to vent about whatever subjects they want (with no personal attacks), while taking those sorts of discussions away from topics like this where they add nothing. People come here to find out what is going on with the bi-level car order, not for this stuff.


----------



## jis

Ryan said:


> You may have noticed that we have a new President, and he seems to be hell bent on making quite a few changes.  Who knows what might be next?


While all that is true, I sill be very surprised if he delves into the FRA or FAA safety regulations. It has very little positives to boost his ego. 

I am still of the opinion that he is not stupid (devious yes, but stupid probably not), but admittedly it is getting harder and harder to continue holding that opinion.


----------



## 9900

Stick a fork in this project. It's done.


----------



## CCC1007

9900 said:


> Stick a fork in this project. It's done.


Not till the contract is cancelled...


----------



## Thirdrail7

I wonder if this will diminish the likelihood of continued train service in some of the states.


----------



## 9900

In the last 60 days we've learned:

-Nippon postponed the Final Design Review to a later date unknown.

-Nippon has layed off another 100 workers

-California no-showed at a National transportation Conference, citing on going "negotiations". Most likely to end the contract. California is fed up. They need cars NOW.

It's been almost a year and a half since the crush test failure. Almost zero progress has been made.


----------



## A Voice

9900 said:


> In the last 60 days we've learned:
> 
> -Nippon postponed the Final Design Review to a later date unknown.
> 
> -Nippon has layed off another 100 workers
> 
> -California no-showed at a National transportation Conference, citing on going "negotiations". Most likely to end the contract. California is fed up. They need cars NOW.
> 
> It's been almost a year and a half since the crush test failure. Almost zero progress has been made.


Worst of all, perhaps, is the time lost that someone else could have been working on a new design. Right now, we're years away from anything (hence the 2020 rumors; Hope that's not optimistic...).

There are few if any good options, and not many sources at all, for spare cars around the nation which California (or anyone) could rebuild as an interim solution. Maybe a handful in the Amtrak wreck-repair line, and a motley assortment of museum pieces from various car brokers.


----------



## Blackwolf

Don't count out the resources of California in this adventure. A contract pull-out is very possible at this point, but not certain. And California could use the funds returned from the contract with N-S to negotiate a no-bid agreement with a company like Alstrom to produce more Surfliners. Its an off-the-shelf design at this point. Heck, I could see California leasing the remaining sidelined fleet of Metrolink's Bombardier cars to jump-start things. They'd interlink with the Comet fleet at that point and resolve the trap issue there, since they could place Comet cars in with Bombardier cars and not worry about ADA issues any more. Only thing additional they'd need is more Cabbages. Not impossible.

At this point, I'd say anything is possible. But one thing is certain, California needs (and WILL get) more cars. The midwest needs more cars too, but they're in a much weaker negotiating position.


----------



## seat38a

Blackwolf said:


> Don't count out the resources of California in this adventure. A contract pull-out is very possible at this point, but not certain. And California could use the funds returned from the contract with N-S to negotiate a no-bid agreement with a company like Alstrom to produce more Surfliners. Its an off-the-shelf design at this point. Heck, I could see California leasing the remaining sidelined fleet of Metrolink's Bombardier cars to jump-start things. They'd interlink with the Comet fleet at that point and resolve the trap issue there, since they could place Comet cars in with Bombardier cars and not worry about ADA issues any more. Only thing additional they'd need is more Cabbages. Not impossible.
> 
> At this point, I'd say anything is possible. But one thing is certain, California needs (and WILL get) more cars. The midwest needs more cars too, but they're in a much weaker negotiating position.


Yup, I've been saying that the States should have stuck with the Surfliner design instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. The California Cars were not so great, but as far as I know, the Surfliner cars addressed all those issues and have had no issues that I know of. If anything, the midwest should piggyback off any California order for Surfliner cars and be done with it.


----------



## afigg

The NGEC executive committee posted draft minutes for a January 31, 2017 meeting. While there is positive news on the Charger locomotives, there is zilch on the N-S bi-levels. The minutes say only:



> Bi-Level procurement updates are tabled until new information is available and appropriate to share.


A news or information blackout typically does not result in good news later.


----------



## keelhauled

afigg said:


> The NGEC executive committee posted draft minutes for a January 31, 2017 meeting. While there is positive news on the Charger locomotives, there is zilch on the N-S bi-levels. The minutes say only:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bi-Level procurement updates are tabled until new information is available and appropriate to share.
> 
> 
> 
> A news or information blackout typically does not result in good news later.
Click to expand...

For curious people, the full minutes can be found here.


----------



## west point

If California finally has to cancel the order the financial implications could be big. If CA cancellers the possibility of Chapter 11 bankruptcy is highly possible. That would mean little or no return of funds from NS. Then it would be up to CA to recover money from any performance bond ( if there is one ) that is in the contract. Then there are the question of damages.


----------



## 9900

Mark yer calendars!

Feb. 24, 2107: Washington D.C.

NGEC Annual meeting. Gonna be interesting.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

I hope that NS doesn't go belly up because they are a regional employer here.


----------



## Blackwolf

Question regarding original bidders. Did Seimens place a bid on this order, or did they sit this one out? Could have implications should N-S go belly-up and a rapid rebid is required.


----------



## jis

I could be wrong but AFAIR Siemens did not bid on this.


----------



## west point

jis said:


> I could be wrong but AFAIR Siemens did not bid on this.


Maybe Siemens did not like or even thought the 20,000 # reduction impossible without very expensive materials ?


----------



## WoodyinNYC

9900 said:


> Mark yer calendars!
> 
> Feb. 24, 2107: Washington D.C.
> 
> NGEC Annual meeting. Gonna be interesting.


I think you must mean that the cars from Nippon-Sharyo will be delivered in 2107. But the meeting is in 2017.

Srsly, any news, or did the meeting disappoint like the builder?


----------



## A Voice

WoodyinNYC said:


> 9900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark yer calendars!
> 
> Feb. 24, 2107: Washington D.C.
> 
> NGEC Annual meeting. Gonna be interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you must mean that the cars from Nippon-Sharyo will be delivered in 2107. But the meeting is in 2017.
> 
> Srsly, any news, or did the meeting disappoint like the builder?
Click to expand...

From the most recent report on the website, they state Caltrans is "working out some contract issues" with Nippon-Sharyo and there is expected to be nothing to report for some time. So they removed the item from their (bi-weekly?) meeting agendas.

What I'm wondering about is why no (draft) minutes from the annual meeting have been posted; It's been a month. Shouldn't there have also been one or more meetings this month?


----------



## jis

That would usually be indicative of something serious brewing. So we will just have to wait and see.


----------



## Steve4031

Really, it's been a big problem for quite sometime. Quite honestly I can't see this even going through to completion. Wish it was possible to get rid of Nippon Sharyo and get the Siemens bright line equipment. At least that's going to run some day.


----------



## A Voice

Minutes from the NGEC annual meeting and the March 14th monthly meeting have _finally_ (today or within the past few days, at most) appeared on the AASHTO website. Concerning questions over the Nippon-Sharyo car procurement, the response was somewhat obscure:



> One question was asked – “What is the status of the Bi-Level Cars procurement?”
> 
> 
> The response from the Chair was that the NGEC’s role is to address proposed changes to the control documents for each of our specifications. Since currently there is only one vehicle requesting changes that is the only one on the agenda today, and that is the only one we will be addressing.


I'm not sure exactly how that qualifies as an answer (even if technically correct) to the question asked, certainly it tells us nothing. In fairness, a final answer probably does not yet exist; Still it it a pertinent question if the bi-level order is salvageable and if that is the objective of reported "negotiations". And from the monthly report:



> The subcommittee continues to review relevant Bi-Level Specification changes that may pertain to the Single Level Specification Revision A, and will revise as appropriate through the DCR process.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

A Voice said:


> Minutes from the NGEC annual meeting and the March 14th monthly meeting _..._ [are] on the AASHTO website. Concerning ... the Nippon-Sharyo car procurement, the response was obscure:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One question was asked – “What is the status of the Bi-Level Cars procurement?”
> 
> 
> The response from the Chair was that the NGEC’s role is to address proposed changes to the control documents for each of our specifications. Since currently there is only one vehicle requesting changes that is the only one on the agenda today, and that is the only one we will be addressing.
> 
> 
> 
> ... a pertinent question if the bi-level order is salvageable ... And from the monthly report:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The subcommittee continues to review relevant Bi-Level Specification changes that may pertain to the Single Level Specification Revision A, and will revise as appropriate ...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Am I getting this wrong? They could change the specs for the bi-level cars, for example, to allow more weight, to make them able to survive the crush test. But then really, how much can they revise the specs without one of the losing bidders raising hell about the unfairness of it all?


----------



## A Voice

Without looking it up (it's getting late tonight.....) I_ think_ the annual meeting minutes mentioned something like 243 design changes to the bi-level specification.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

> The subcommittee continues to review relevant Bi-Level Specification changes that may pertain to the Single Level Specification Revision A, and will revise as appropriate through the DCR process.


In short there just checking if any of the changes are good enough that they should be applied to the all type of equipment. If there is a different safety equipment that was add to the bilevel, and if it should be add to the single level fleet too.

Government talk with not much meaning.

One of the Amtrak designer engineers was at EPSA 2017. Interesting talk but it was all nuts and bolts of how multiple agency work together to write spec out.

.


----------



## PRR 60

I read those minutes also.

During past annual meetings, they had slick PowerPoint presentations touting the progress of both the locomotive and bi-level orders. This year, the locomotive order got the PowerPoint treatment, but they seemed to do the best they could to not even mention the bi-level order (Bi-levels? What bi-levels?).

Reading the draft of the March Exec meeting, it appears the first draft of the annual meeting minutes did not even mention that a question about the bi-levels had been asked by some un-named person. Someone reviewing the annual meeting draft minutes picked up on that omission and complained. The wording about the question, and the unresponsive response to that question was added.

By the way, pick up on the little nugget that Amtrak and the states still do not have a lease agreement for the locomotives? They have been hashing that out for months. I think I'm having flashbacks to my working days.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

PRR 60 said:


> By the way, pick up on the little nugget that Amtrak and the states still do not have a lease agreement for the locomotives? They have been hashing that out for months.


Not surprised, just surprised the States did not have a breakdown of cost. At some point a State would look at new engine, new cars, or OB services. With a breakdown of the cost, a state could quickly see where to save money. Of course Amtrak was not going to provide that, but the State could of required it during the contract phase.

.


----------



## Steve4031

I think this whole bilevels thing is going to fall through. Lots of money lost and time list and know equipment.


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

Here's a link to the Glass Door website with some comments about Nippon Sharyo. You need to keep in mind that the most recent comments were posted around the time in January when 100 employees were laid off. The comments are still interesting to read.

https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/NIPPON-SHARYO-Reviews-E8190.htm


----------



## Anthony V

Even more layoffs were just announced today.

http://www.wrex.com/story/35372003/2017/05/08/nippon-sharyo-announces-more-layoffs


----------



## Steve4031

Thank you for the update. It's looking gloomy for this project.


----------



## bretton88

I would not be surprised if a cancellation of the contract is forthcoming. They just have to negotiate the settlement​.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

The last paragraph in the Metra press release has information about Nippon Sharyo. NS lost an "add-on order" for 21 more commuter cars.

https://metrarail.com/about-metra/newsroom/metra-seek-proposals-new-cars-engines


----------



## jis

DSS&A said:


> Hi,
> 
> The last paragraph in the Metra press release has information about Nippon Sharyo. NS lost an "add-on order" for 21 more commuter cars.
> 
> https://metrarail.com/about-metra/newsroom/metra-seek-proposals-new-cars-engines


This has nothing to do with the car order that is held up due to buff strength test failure. This is a completely different set of cars and orders involving VRE and METRA.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

DSS&A said:


> ... Metra press release ...
> 
> https://metrarail.com/about-metra/newsroom/metra-seek-proposals-new-cars-engines


I'd never thought about this problem, and how new equipment can improve air quality in the station(s). But of course.



> Metra would expect ... delivery of the first locomotive in 2020. New locomotives ... to replace outdated diesel locomotives serving Chicago Union Station with *modern, cleaner-burning engines, significantly improving air quality* for the 120,000 passengers who travel *through the station* each day.


So I'm glad to see a beginning. In 2020.

Now if only someone had a plan to invest a Trillion dollars in infrastructure.


----------



## frequentflyer

Someone on the Trains mag forum is stating that the contract will be cancelled and the Midwest states will rebid for single level cars.

If true, my thinking is the states see Brightline about to start in Florida and will order similar equipment. Would not be surprised to see Siemens coaches all over the Midwest.


----------



## jis

WoodyinNYC said:


> Now if only someone had a plan to invest a Trillion dollars in infrastructure.


Specially if $800 Billion of that was not smoke and mirror.


----------



## Thirdrail7

That will add years to the process. Hopefully, the Horizons, Amfleets and Comets can keep up the good work.


----------



## jis

What is an interesting side issue is what happens to the committee developed specification that appears to be unmanufacturable (is that a word?)


----------



## frequentflyer

The only problem going with single cars in the Midwest is a change in operations. Siemen single level cars do not have cabs. So if they Midwest went that route, they would have to bookend the consists with Charger locomotives.


----------



## A Voice

This really isn't much of a surprise, and if its the same post I've seen, it also notes the order will be re-bid *if* they can get an extension on funding. Assuming they're still hoping for the expiring federal stimulus funds, that's a big_ if._

I'd expect the unworkable "design by committee" specification to be quietly forgotten and swept under the rug. That said, I wonder if California will also opt for a single-level car when basically everything else except interim solutions (Horizon/Amfleet and rebuilt Comets) are bi-level and set up for low level boarding.

The Siemens design (we can't just assume they'll get the contract, though they are likely in a good position) would already require modifications for either Midwest or California use (traps, for one thing); A cab car addition should be possible.

Just thinking out loud, but there is one single-level design extant for which two trainsets could be delivered within weeks or months of contract signing date. I would expect them to bid also.


----------



## R30A

Single level high floor equipment would be a nightmare from an accessibility perspective. Bilevels or Talgos really are the only practical existing designs


----------



## RPC

Yes, this could be Talgo's foot in the door. OTOH, the committee design would probably be workable without the weight reduction requirement - without that it's essentially a Surfliner with LED lighting.


----------



## Karl1459

Expect the next round of bidding to have three results:

1. Bid to specifications, with an unrealistic higher price (N-S obviously underbid). Perhaps proposing titanium underframes, lol.

2. Bids with exceptions to weight requirement.

3. Bids with exceptions to buffer requirements.


----------



## PVD

depends how the specs are written, many times exceptions are expressly forbidden for certain items

someone correct if wrong, but the strength requirement is FRA, not committee spec and would require change or waiver, not exception


----------



## Steve4031

Taglgos are tried and true. They do work in the Pacific Northwest. They will have automatic doors which allow boarding at all doors. Not sure about push pull operations.

The Chicago hub could be modernized into a Talgo hub for MidWest corridor trains.

This would be a pretty fast process compared to starting over.


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> depends how the specs are written, many times exceptions are expressly forbidden for certain items
> 
> someone correct if wrong, but the strength requirement is FRA, not committee spec and would require change or waiver, not exception


Yep, the buff strength requirement is a very very old one and there are literally many hundreds of cars that meet that requirement running around today - read that as all cars in commercial operation. So no one is going to relax that one, except for what is allowed with CEM in the modified standard.

I think what will change is the weight requirement, since that is basically just a made up one. Having worked in many standards committees I have watched aghast many times as completely pointless requirements were added in because it was the favorite hobby horse of the guy on the committee who had never built anything in his/her life and got it to work.  It happens. In most cases they are harmless twiddles that fall by the wayside. Sometimes not.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Wouldn't going single level require longer platforms in some cases (obviously a lot of the Illinois services and Hiawatha's are single level at the moment)?


----------



## MisterUptempo

With it looking more and more like the N-S contract is going down in flames, and any chance of extending the deadline on funding might require acquiring rolling stock that will be the fastest to get onto the rails, not necessarily the best product for the job, what happens next?

Looking long-term, if the mission of the NGEC is still a valid one (an attempt to standardize railcars), and, in most cases, manufacturers are unwilling to commit the resources necessary to develop new rolling stock for US markets themselves, wouldn't it make sense for the NGEC to seek out funding to contract out with a railcar manufacturer (Siemens, CAF, N-S) to design, develop, and produce proof-of-concept prototypes of bi-level and single level cars, and run them on routes to shake out the bugs? The designs would be owned by the NGEC and any entity (Amtrak, state DOT) looking to build cars could utilize them (perhaps with a licensing fee) and just issue an RFP for bids to fabricate them.

Obviously, pursuing this idea comes far too late for the CalTrans/IDOT order, but the current order was meant to mark the beginning of the NGEC's implementation, not its end. Amtrak and state DOTs will still need rolling stock in the future. It might help next time to know that the committee's standards, revised or otherwise, are achievable.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> Yep, the buff strength requirement is a very very old one and there are literally many hundreds of cars that meet that requirement running around today - read that as all cars in commercial operation. So no one is going to relax that one, except for what is allowed with CEM in the modified standard.


...and the part everyone complained about about that is that it didn't allow for CEM (i.e. meeting the "buff strength" rule was less safe than modern European trains), so now that CEM is allowed instead, that's OK.



> I think what will change is the weight requirement, since that is basically just a made up one. Having worked in many standards committees I have watched aghast many times as completely pointless requirements were added in because it was the favorite hobby horse of the guy on the committee who had never built anything in his/her life and got it to work.  It happens. In most cases they are harmless twiddles that fall by the wayside. Sometimes not.


The weight requirement was clearly not driven by the track weight limits, structure weight limits, or financial requirements for operational cost.
Then again, the 1940s buff strength rule wasn't driven by anything at all, it's just made-up. You can tell how arbitrary the number is by how round it is. A coherent CEM specification is designed so that people in the people-carrying part of the structure are not injured when the largest, fastest plausible crash happens, and the forces you'd expect from that crash can be figured. It won't come out nice and round.


----------



## Tarm

Steve4031 said:


> Taglgos are tried and true. They do work in the Pacific Northwest. They will have automatic doors which allow boarding at all doors. Not sure about push pull operations.
> 
> The Chicago hub could be modernized into a Talgo hub for MidWest corridor trains.
> 
> This would be a pretty fast process compared to starting over.


Well, what goes around comes around. I can remember posting on another forum that the smartest thing to do when Gov. Walker killed the Madison train was to take the grant money and buy 40Talgo trains sets. My gosh the US factory was all ready up and running. If the powers to be had done that we would be riding them now in the Midwest.

Take a Talgo train set, hook on a Charger locomotive and you have a modern, energy efficient, low emission, ADA accessible passenger train.

Can anyone give me a reason not to just buy off the shelf Talgo trains sets for corridor service?


----------



## PRR 60

Tarm said:


> Steve4031 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taglgos are tried and true. They do work in the Pacific Northwest. They will have automatic doors which allow boarding at all doors. Not sure about push pull operations.
> 
> The Chicago hub could be modernized into a Talgo hub for MidWest corridor trains.
> 
> This would be a pretty fast process compared to starting over.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what goes around comes around. I can remember posting on another forum that the smartest thing to do when Gov. Walker killed the Madison train was to take the grant money and buy 40Talgo trains sets. My gosh the US factory was all ready up and running. If the powers to be had done that we would be riding them now in the Midwest.
> 
> Take a Talgo train set, hook on a Charger locomotive and you have a modern, energy efficient, low emission, ADA accessible passenger train.
> 
> Can anyone give me a reason not to just buy off the shelf Talgo trains sets for corridor service?
Click to expand...

Despite the assembly being in the US, too many of the components for the Talgo's came from overseas. The product did not meet the Buy America requirements of the FRA stimulus funding. Also, the multi-state group that put together the specification for the car purchase standardized on a bi-level car for the both the California and midwest trains. Between the Buy America issue (that maybe could have been overcome) and the midwest states deciding to go for bi-level rather than single level, Talgo was doomed.

There are operational issues as well. Talgo's are fixed trainsets. There is no easy way to add or subtract cars, so the trainset and passenger capacity is what you have every day regardless of demand. If there is a problem with one car, the entire set has to be taken out of service. Plus, there was still the need to build a maintenance facility and stock parts just for Talgo. That was the problem that resulted in Wisconsin not taking possession of their two trainsets, Michigan passing, and now maybe California passing as well. The Milwaukee maintenance facility would have cost over $60 million. Originally, the maintenance facility was included in the federal grant for the Madison extension. When Wisconsin pulled out of the Madison project, the FRA killed funding for the Talgo maintenance facility as well. With having to pay an additional $60 million to build a facility to maintain two trainsets, Wisconsin refused to take possession of the two Talgo's. Wisconsin settled with Talgo for $9 million.

One interesting possibility if the bi-level car order goes down the drain is Wisconsin joining in with a purchase of whatever replaces that order. Wisconsin is a member of the multi-state group, and if there is any federal funding for the car purchase, could be in line to get a share.


----------



## bretton88

I'm sure if talgo got a large scale order, they would figure out the whole Buy American issue. The bigger issue is the talgo maintenance requirements, probably necessitating several maintenance bases around the Midwest to be built.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve4031

They only have one talgo maintenance base in Seattle iirc for the entire northwest operation.

They would need a bigger one in Chicago. The train sets would just have to cycle through for maintenance. As far as Thanksgiving maybe extra frequencies or couple two sets together and double spot at the shorter platforms.


----------



## Eric S

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought that although the 2 Wisconsin Talgo trainsets, purchased with state funds, did not meet Buy America requirements, the 2 Oregon trainsets, purchased with federal funds, did meet the requirements. I do recall hearing a Talgo official state at a WisARP meeting that Talgo would meet Buy America requirements for the 2 additional trainsets Wisconsin planned to buy for the Madison extension.


----------



## frequentflyer

Why are we discussing Talgo when a world renowned producer of high speed rail named Siemens has already delivered modern single level cars on time to a customer and is ready NOW?


----------



## Ryan

Because if a new order is going to be placed, it's going to go out for competitive bid, and Tango may be one of the bidders?


----------



## jis

Ryan said:


> Because if a new order is going to be placed, it's going to go out for competitive bid, and *Tango *may be one of the bidders?


It does take two to Tango afterall


----------



## PVD

It's is not always a function of who the vendor is, sometimes it is a result of what you are asking them to build, and under what conditions.


----------



## Steve4031

frequentflyer said:


> Why are we discussing Talgo when a world renowned producer of high speed rail named Siemens has already delivered modern single level cars on time to a customer and is ready NOW?


Siemans was discussed earlier in this thread. The issue that came up was that the sieman cars did not have traps for low level platforms. Thus the discussion wandered over to Talgo.


----------



## west point

It would never happen but if Siemens could take over the CAF plant and properly manage the production of V-2s Amtrak could get a decent delivery schedule.. Then Amtrak would get the needed single level passenger cars of all types that it desperately needs.


----------



## Ryan

Seimens may build good railcars, but viewing them as a savior that can step in and make everything right is probably a bit over the top.


----------



## jis

Maybe the solution lies in Amtrak abandoning the strategy of trying to find a manufacturer for the late eighties, early nineties Viewliner design? I have now pulled on my thrice charmed chain mail, for those that are familiar with D&D versions. 

I can almost bet that Siemens will decline to take on CAF's contract even if CAF were to go for such.


----------



## A Voice

If more Viewliners are ever to be built I would strongly suspect it will be CAF who gets the contract; They now have some experience with the process and they're just late; They haven't bungled the design and/or production to the level of Bombardier or Nippon-Sharyo.

The Siemens car design allows for modification for traps, but the Brightline cars do not have them. You would still have the problem of level boarding (no high platforms in the Midwest, and it would cost much more than the car order itself to build them). That is an advantage with Talgo, but as stated with a new contract we don't really know who will even bid. let alone assume who the winner might be.



jis said:


> Maybe the solution lies in Amtrak abandoning the strategy of trying to find a manufacturer for the late eighties, early nineties Viewliner design? I have now pulled on my thrice charmed chain mail, for those that are familiar with D&D versions.
> 
> I can almost bet that Siemens will decline to take on CAF's contract even if CAF were to go for such.


There is nothing inherently wrong with the basic Viewliner design, and aesthetically would be the best choice for eastern long-distance trains. That's a bit like saying we shouldn't build modern bi-level cars because the Superliner design dates from the 1970's (and originated with the hi-level cars over two decades earlier).


----------



## A Voice

jis said:


> Having worked in many standards committees I have watched aghast many times as completely pointless requirements were added in because it was the favorite hobby horse of the guy on the committee who had never built anything in his/her life and got it to work.  It happens. In most cases they are harmless twiddles that fall by the wayside. Sometimes not.


Well, there are valid reasons why 'design by committee' is a derogatory term.....


----------



## jis

A Voice said:


> There is nothing inherently wrong with the basic Viewliner design, and aesthetically would be the best choice for eastern long-distance trains. That's a bit like saying we shouldn't build modern bi-level cars because the Superliner design dates from the 1970's (and originated with the hi-level cars over two decades earlier).


Actually not at all. The Superliner design is very very different from the HIlevel Santa Fe cars including very different dimensions and different structural design. The Surfliners are again considerably different due to bigger openings for two doors at the lower level. So while visually they look similar they are technically significantly different.

In Viewliners there are some possibly unnecessary cost increasing features inherent in the design. One is the inherent lack of consideration for using modern sealed airconditioning units that can be swapped out easily, instead of tinkering around with different parts in different cabinets. But that could possibly be fixed somehow. I am also not convinced that the whole business about replaceable modules has really worked out. To date nobody has ever changed out a module successfully with any less effort than if they were just built using other techniques used in car building. So while theoretically a nice idea I am not sure how practical it is. The net result of all this is that instead of using standard mass produced body shells and furnishing them, we have to do these small orders of special stuff that is not off the shelf and consequently get to pay a lot extra for them. I am not sure we are getting anything in return to justify the extra cost and pain.


----------



## A Voice

jis said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing inherently wrong with the basic Viewliner design, and aesthetically would be the best choice for eastern long-distance trains. That's a bit like saying we shouldn't build modern bi-level cars because the Superliner design dates from the 1970's (and originated with the hi-level cars over two decades earlier).
> 
> 
> 
> Actually not at all. The Superliner design is very very different from the HIlevel Santa Fe cars including very different dimensions and different structural design. The Surfliners are again considerably different due to bigger openings for two doors at the lower level. So while visually they look similar they are technically significantly different
Click to expand...

So, we can do a technically different bi-level car but not a more mechanically modern Viewliner?

Obviously there are major mechanical design and technological differences from the Superliner to Surfliner, but they share the same _basic_ design (doors aren't really a fundamental difference.....) of a bi-level railcar. And on the contrary, the 1970's design of the original Superliner did indeed owe much to the original Santa Fe Hi-level equipment (read what was said at the time). There was - and remains - simply no need to reinvent the wheel (the NGEC should have just learned a similar lesson).

There are no "standard mass produced body shells" for bi-level equipment to buy 'off-the-shelf' and furnish. They simply do not exist.


----------



## jis

The point is that Viewliner was an unnecessary reinvention of the wheel and we are still paying dearly for it. We cannot buy mass produced cars based on well established shell designs, something that has been explicitly enabled by the change in FRA rules, simply because we for unknown reasons, happen to be married to Viewliners. possibly there is an element of NIH there.

My original comment was only about single level Viewliners, and had nothing to do with bi-levels. It was part of a subthread which was suggesting that Siemens could take over the CAF order etc.


----------



## Steve4031

Some of the sleeping car trains in Europe and Japan apply a more modern approach to sleeping cars. I am not sure these would transfer well to the United States.

I like the rooms and window in a viewliner, perhaps the modular designs and AC/heating systems need to be rethought on the long distance coach design.

Siemens could probably produce a better single level long distance coach product than anybody else. Wonder how they could design a sleeper using the brighline type cars. I'm thinking long term in replacing superliners as well as single level coach cars. One standardized car design would make for easier and perhaps cheaper maintenance.


----------



## PerRock

Siemens does also manufacture over in Europe double-deck cars. Their doors look to be lower that standard European high-platform doors, but higher than our low-level. I don't think any of their double-deck trains are sleepers however.

peter


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Siemens cars are tri-level in Europe. City Night Line had tri-level sleeper, rebuild from coachs. OOB might still be use some of those on its now branded NightJet service.


----------



## Steve4031

I've seen pictures and these cars look pretty nice. I'm Sure they don't meet safety standards needed in USA.

Since the bright line cars have already passed US standards and tests, it would make sense to use them.


----------



## R30A

The Brightline cars do not allow for level boarding in the midwest and west, and so it does not make sense to use them. 

If you were looking for new NEC cars, Brightline based siemens cars with traps likely would make sense.


----------



## MisterUptempo

Just found a curious note in the July, 2017 newsletter from the Indiana Passenger Rail Alliance, which can be viewed/downloaded at the following URL - http://www.indianahighspeedrail.org/docs/2017/201707aai.pdf

If one scrolls down to page 7 of the newsletter, the following entry is found-



> A joint effort of California, Illinois, Michigan and Missouri led to an award to Nippon Sharyo, USA, for rail cars, with delivery expected to start in *2020*.


I e-mailed IPRA, in hopes of getting confirmation as to the validity, and perhaps the source, of the statement. I have yet to receive a reply.

I posted this in hopes that someone on this board is either a member of IPRA or knows someone who is, just so we can find out whether the information comes from a reliable source, or whether the entry is coming from an overly optimistic railfan, or even just someone wishing to engage in a little chain yanking.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> Maybe the solution lies in Amtrak abandoning the strategy of trying to find a manufacturer for the late eighties, early nineties Viewliner design? I have now pulled on my thrice charmed chain mail, for those that are familiar with D&D versions.


There's nothing wrong with the Viewliner design.
All reports are that the problem is with the Elmira workforce. I recall a specific complaint about that from someone inside Amtrak (privately), actually -- he said they couldn't get people who could read a blueprint (and implied that they couldn't even train them to do so).

It's very hard to attract good employees to live in Elmira! And *of course it is*; it's not a very attractive place to live. (There are things I like about Elmira, but it's a small town and it's shrinking; there's not much there.) Move the factory even as close as Syracuse (you know, somewhere which has passenger train service connecting it to the rest of the world) and you'd get a better result.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> In Viewliners there are some possibly unnecessary cost increasing features inherent in the design. One is the inherent lack of consideration for using modern sealed airconditioning units that can be swapped out easily, instead of tinkering around with different parts in different cabinets. But that could possibly be fixed somehow. I am also not convinced that the whole business about replaceable modules has really worked out. To date nobody has ever changed out a module successfully with any less effort than if they were just built using other techniques used in car building. So while theoretically a nice idea I am not sure how practical it is. The net result of all this is that instead of using standard mass produced body shells and furnishing them, we have to do these small orders of special stuff that is not off the shelf and consequently get to pay a lot extra for them. I am not sure we are getting anything in return to justify the extra cost and pain.


I believe this is inaccurate. I have been told that swapping a defective module in a Viewliner, while still an involved process, is much less involved than replacing anything in a Superliner sleeping car. The Superliner I retrofit program was cancelled because of the excessive cost, I am told, while Viewliner module replacement is still considered viable.

As noted before, the Viewliner design is fine. The problem is trying to build them in Elmira. (And I say this as someone who lives 60 miles from Elmira.) If you were trying to build a standard Siemens car in Elmira you'd have the same problems. If you were building the Viewliners in Sacramento they'd be fine.


----------



## Blackwolf

neroden said:


> As noted before, the Viewliner design is fine. The problem is trying to build them in Elmira. (And I say this as someone who lives 60 miles from Elmira.) If you were trying to build a standard Siemens car in Elmira you'd have the same problems.* If you were building the Viewliners in Sacramento they'd be fine.*


I have to agree here. I don't think CAF itself as a company is the real problem; location of the factory really is. Its unfortunate that the politics of job creation may well have made a viable and profitable contract the sluggish mess this has become.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Blackwolf said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> As noted before, the Viewliner design is fine. The problem is trying to build them in Elmira. (And I say this as someone who lives 60 miles from Elmira.) If you were trying to build a standard Siemens car in Elmira you'd have the same problems.* If you were building the Viewliners in Sacramento they'd be fine.*
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree here. I don't think CAF itself as a company is the real problem; location of the factory really is. Its unfortunate that the politics of job creation may well have made a viable and profitable contract the sluggish mess this has become.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree, but CAF is to blame for not doing their homework on the Factory Location, for the Bid and now for the Delays,it sure isn't Amtrak's Fault this mess is never ending!


----------



## PVD

Quite a bit of rail work has been done there in the past. Lack of skilled fabricators is a problem in the manufacturing sector all over the country. Many years ago the US made a decision that vocational education should be downplayed, and we sold people on the moronic notion that the only good work is white collar work. Lots of the remaining people with welding and fabrication skills ran out to the oil fields when that boom hit, making it even harder to attract local talent. Its about 65 miles to Alstom in Hornell, and plenty of Orion bus folks 2+ hours away in Oriskany were potentially available. But if I don't pay better than someone else, and have poor management that doesn't know how to run a factory creating a c-f-k atmosphere, how successful would you be wherever you put your factory.


----------



## Ryan

Yep. The shipbuilder runs into problems trying to keep quality aluminum welders at the shipyard in Alabama. The big money from the oil fields is just too much to compete with, and the supply of decent workers is vanishingly small.


----------



## Eric S

MisterUptempo said:


> Just found a curious note in the July, 2017 newsletter from the Indiana Passenger Rail Alliance, which can be viewed/downloaded at the following URL - http://www.indianahighspeedrail.org/docs/2017/201707aai.pdf
> 
> If one scrolls down to page 7 of the newsletter, the following entry is found-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A joint effort of California, Illinois, Michigan and Missouri led to an award to Nippon Sharyo, USA, for rail cars, with delivery expected to start in *2020*.
> 
> 
> 
> I e-mailed IPRA, in hopes of getting confirmation as to the validity, and perhaps the source, of the statement. I have yet to receive a reply.
> 
> I posted this in hopes that someone on this board is either a member of IPRA or knows someone who is, just so we can find out whether the information comes from a reliable source, or whether the entry is coming from an overly optimistic railfan, or even just someone wishing to engage in a little chain yanking.
> 
> Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I can't recall seeing 2020 as a delivery date anywhere else. I've also not read past issues of IPRA newsletters, so I'm not sure how well this issue has been covered in the past. The lack of any mention of the delays with this project really makes me wonder whether 2020 was just pulled out of, uh, let's say a hat.


----------



## jis

I agree. Absent anything from any official source or a citation to one, this date quoted by IPRA is at best considered to be a figment of someone's imagination.


----------



## MisterUptempo

jis said:


> I agree. Absent anything from any official source or a citation to one, this date quoted by IPRA is at best considered to be a figment of someone's imagination.


Was doing a little nosing around and found something that might qualify as official information.

On May 22, 2017, the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission made a presentation to Congressional staffers in Washington, D.C. That presentation can be found at the following URL - http://miprc.org/Portals/7/pdfs/MIPRC%20presentation%20for%20congressional%20staff_052217_final.pdf?ver=2017-06-02-161342-390 

Acquisition of new bi-levels is discussed, and mentions that Nippon-Sharyo will start to deliver those new bi-levels starting in 2020.

Here is the slide in question-







img src - miprc.org

Some of the members of MIPRC are employed by the state DOTs involved in the bi-level purchase; some also sit on the NGEC. A little more official than a rail enthusiast's newsletter. May be something, may be nothing. Just thought it warranted mentioning.


----------



## jis

Interesting find!


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

At this point, I think most of us would be very happy if bi-level cars could actually be delivered in 2020.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## Eric S

Thanks for finding that!


----------



## neroden

Blech. Given the state of Congress, there's no way the ARRA money will be extended to pay for those. California's cars were mostly coming out of state funds anyway, and Illinois was using a bundle of state funds as well (in addition to probably being able to reallocate funding between the cars and their often-state-funded track work), but the other Midwestern states... will pretty much just lose their grant money. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Missouri are unlikely to replace the lost grant funds with state funds and don't have a "fungible" state-funded contract to move the federal money to.

So if they ever come out, they really will be "Surfliner IIIs". They'll probably be owned entirely by California and Illinois.


----------



## Anthony V

neroden said:


> Blech. Given the state of Congress, there's no way the ARRA money will be extended to pay for those. California's cars were mostly coming out of state funds anyway, and Illinois was using a bundle of state funds as well (in addition to probably being able to reallocate funding between the cars and their often-state-funded track work), but the other Midwestern states... will pretty much just lose their grant money. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Missouri are unlikely to replace the lost grant funds with state funds and don't have a "fungible" state-funded contract to move the federal money to.
> 
> So if they ever come out, they really will be "Surfliner IIIs". They'll probably be owned entirely by California and Illinois.


I disagree with that statement because Illinois successfully got an extension on the ARRA funding for the proposed Chicago-Quad Cities route, and is now seeking another one due to ongoing engineering and construction delays for that project. If Congress was willing to grant the Quad Cities route a funding extension due to the extenuating circumstances, they might be willing to grant an extension for the bi level equipment funding as well. All Illinois (the lead state in the order) has to do is ask Congress to do it.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Guess you haven't heard. Congress is doing Nothing this year!

And now the Debt Ceiling and,Budget is looming and Herr Trumpff is threating to Shut down the Government if Congress doesn't heel and pay for his Wall!


----------



## Scuba_Steve

Bob Dylan said:


> Guess you haven't heard. Congress is doing Nothing this year!
> 
> And now the Debt Ceiling and,Budget is looming and Herr Trumpff is threating to Shut down the Government if Congress doesn't heel and pay for his Wall!


I thought Mexico was paying for it....


----------



## Green Maned Lion

How Is this rail related?


----------



## PRR 60

Green Maned Lion said:


> How Is this rail related?


It's not. So, let's get back on topic.


----------



## afigg

Anthony V said:


> I disagree with that statement because Illinois successfully got an extension on the ARRA funding for the proposed Chicago-Quad Cities route, and is now seeking another one due to ongoing engineering and construction delays for that project. If Congress was willing to grant the Quad Cities route a funding extension due to the extenuating circumstances, they might be willing to grant an extension for the bi level equipment funding as well. All Illinois (the lead state in the order) has to do is ask Congress to do it.


The $177 million HSIPR grant for the Chicago to Quad Cities corridor came from FY2010 funding, which does not have the Sept, 2017 deadline that the ARRA stimulus grants did. Congress, AFAIK, did nothing to extend a funding extension for the Quad Cities grant, it was done by the US DOT and the FRA within their administrative authority.

As for the Nippon-Sharyo contract, the funds came from a mix of ARRA, FY2010, California state funding, although if I recall, ARRA made up the largest portion of the original funding. if Nippon-Sharyo is still indeed under contract and now scheduled to deliver the cars starting in 2020, would be nice to get additional information on how the FRA got around the ARRA deadline, whether N-S is still planning to deliver 130 bi-levels rather than a portion, and why the delay to 2020?

OK, so the test bed bi-level failed the crush test and the fix was a major re-design. But 3 to 4 years for a re-design? There have be other reasons for taking 8 years to deliver after contract award. That is even later than the CAF Viewliner IIs, provided CAF delivers the remainder in the next year or so (Viewliner II contract award was in 2010). What other contracts does the N-S plant have? Does N-S have other production contracts with 2018 and 2019 deliveries that were supposed to ramp up after the 130 bi-levels were going out the door in 2017?

Where is the railroad industry trade press on this story? This is a major contract, if the states and the NGEC board are not talking, surely Trains Magazine, Railway Age, etc or even major Illinois or Southern California newspapers could investigate and report on what is going on with the N-S contract.


----------



## A Voice

afigg said:


> Where is the railroad industry trade press on this story? This is a major contract, if the states and the NGEC board are not talking, surely Trains Magazine, Railway Age, etc or even major Illinois or Southern California newspapers could investigate and report on what is going on with the N-S contract.


_*That*_ is a very good question. We're not hearing the whole story, that much is obvious, and while not true in every case it is usually a bad sign when people (namely, the NGEC) stop talking. I've heard the '2020' date mentioned before, but took it as an unofficial "if we have to start over, it'll be 2020 before we see any cars". But are the states really going to fund the (revised) order on their own dime now?


----------



## MikefromCrete

The lack of coverage of this issue is disconcerting. This is a major problem, yet little has been published about the reasons for the continuing delay or if the contract will be completed. The only news seems to come from the local Rochelle paper on layoffs at the plant. Obviously, something must be going on or the contract would have been cancelled long ago. IDOT and the other state agencies need to come clean on the matter and let the public know what is going on.


----------



## PRR 60

I suspect the lack of public information is due to a discussion of contract requirements and responsibilities - items that could end up in court. This could be a complicated deal.

Essentially, the spec called for a bi-level car that met the strength requirements of a SuperLiner or California Car, but had to come in at about 20,000 pounds less weight than either of those cars. Obviously, the initial design attempt by N-S failed to meet the strength requirements, and it appears that subsequent design attempts have analytically been determined to be inadequate. It appears that, at least in N-S's opinion, it can't be done.

There can be two sides to this, from a legal perspective. One, N-S bid this work, knew the requirements, and thus incurs the responsibility to build cars meeting the spec or be held in default. The other side is that N-S can claim that they bid the work in good faith under the presumption that the states and Amtrak had done due diligence to determine that a car could be designed and built to meet the spec, and that it has now been determined that the spec was faulty and not buildable. The fact that Siemens looked at the single-level spec and told the NGEC that they could not design and build a car that met the weight and strength requirements of that spec could provide some credence to what might be the N-S claim.

If you have conflicting claims like that, then you have a sensitive situation for negotiating a path out. If the contract is canceled, N-S is going to demand compensation for the work done to date. The states are not going to want to pay N-S for useless work just to have them start over with a car design closer to the weight of a California Car. If all my speculation is close to accurate, they are going to have to meet somewhere in the middle in order to hit the reset button and start over. Those sorts of discussions are not typically public.


----------



## PVD

One manufacturer looking at a spec and saying it can't meet it so it won't bid it that way does not help someone who looked at a spec and agreed to build it. It is a contracts case, either the groups reach an agreement, or the lawyers and courts will.What NS and the consortium agreed to in writing will determine how this goes. It is why companies pay lawyers to draft contracts, and you pay them to review them before you sign them. In most RFP based acquisitions, if you don't specifically exclude or indicate you can't meet a provision or term of an RFP, you own it.


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> One manufacturer looking at a spec and saying it can't meet it so it won't bid it that way does not help someone who looked at a spec and agreed to build it. It is a contracts case, either the groups reach an agreement, or the lawyers and courts will.What NS and the consortium agreed to in writing will determine how this goes. It is why companies pay lawyers to draft contracts, and you pay them to review them before you sign them. In most RFP based acquisitions, if you don't specifically exclude or indicate you can't meet a provision or term of an RFP, you own it.


Siemens AFAIK was never involved in the bilevel spec or its evaluation. Their comment was regarding the single level spec in the context of "what would it take to build a version of the Brightline Car but compliant with the spec in all respects". They basically gave a laundry list of changes that would be required before they could do something like that. Their position may simply be because they do not see a business case for the cost involved in meeting those requirements that in their opinion adds neither to safety nor to comfort. We don't know for sure. In any case, we are really talking about two different specs possibly put together by two entirely different group of individuals. So it is not that cut and dried.

However, the problem remains that there was apparently no vetting of the design in the form of a proof concept validation or even a model based validation of the buildability of either of those two specs. IMHO if all that is true then it was remarkably irresponsible of whoever that put those as mandatory, non-negotiable requirements in an RFP, and they should be found liable.

I hasten to add, that neither I, nor I suspect anyone else on this board in a position to disclose any details without breaking confidentiality agreements, knows what has actually transpired. We just know bits and pieces of information and are trying to connect the dots. So a pinch of salt is appropriate about conclusions that come out of such speculation.

The core issue remains, that for most car builders the US market at present is not large enough to bother bending over backwards to meet requirements et by groups that are apparently considered to be somewhat amateurish by the industry. Notice that none of the really large orders from the huge commuter agencies say anything about these paper specs. They bypass the entire thing when they place orders of many hundred cars.

The likes of Siemens and Alstom e.g. are dealing with multi-thousand cars per year orders manufactured in house or under license by others world-wide. A few hundred cars here and there is worthwhile only if their is prospect of getting to a thousand plus car market. Until US gets really serious about passenger rail, that is an unlikely eventuality, and everyone knows it. It becomes even less attractive when that requires meeting onerous, hard to justify technical requirements.


----------



## frequentflyer

So what are saying here? That the 2020 date is just arbitrary? Its not known if NS will attempt or complete the order?


----------



## Ryan

We're saying here that the answers to that question aren't public knowledge, nor are they likely to be until some public action (we start seeing cars, public announcement of cancellation, etc) is finally taken.


----------



## Steve4031

The explanation about why we don't know more is helpful to me. I was wondering about that too.


----------



## PVD

It is usually the responsibility of the party responding to an RFP to determine the feasibility of whether or not they can achieve a requested level of performance and either ask for an exception, or decline to respond. No one forces a company to respond/bid, and a well written RFP and contract document shifts molst of the burden to the respondent. That is one reason why so many large projects require performance bonds.


----------



## A Voice

Per discussion on another board, it looks like there is something behind the rumors of the states switching to a single-level design:

https://www.illinois.gov/cpo/dot/Documents/Bi-level%20Railcar%20Procurement.pdf

This would also fit the reports of delivery by 2020 (24-34 months). Of course, there are indeed both logistical and potential legal hurdles over a switch to single-level cars built by Siemens.


----------



## Steve4031

Interesting. They will have to modify the design of the single level cars to include traps.


----------



## jis

Steve4031 said:


> Interesting. They will have to modify the design of the single level cars to include traps.


Indeed. That though will be the least of the headaches IMHO. Putting in traps is trivial since these are Tier I cars with continuous center sill, and do not require the extra strength that was originally specified for Tier II cars that required continuous side sills, as in the Acela sets. I don't believe even the Tier III specs actually state the requirement of continuous side sills, and does allow collision energy management structures instead.

This is indeed a very significant find. Thanks for digging it up Voice!

So now there will be an ADA issue at all stations! The requirement for continuous high level platform to the exclusion of a wheelchair lift based solution was always a bit over the top for low density routes anyway IMHO. Also Siemens has the auto-deployed bridge plate technology. With a bridge plate that is a foot longer they could do set back high level platforms (or at least mini highs, so that Superliner/Surfliners can be accommodated at the same platforms. I have no idea if it is even possible to have traps and auto deployed bridge plates at the same door either. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.


----------



## stappend

A Voice said:


> Per discussion on another board, it looks like there is something behind the rumors of the states switching to a single-level design:
> 
> https://www.illinois.gov/cpo/dot/Documents/Bi-level%20Railcar%20Procurement.pdf
> 
> This would also fit the reports of delivery by 2020 (24-34 months). Of course, there are indeed both logistical and potential legal hurdles over a switch to single-level cars built by Siemens.


Digging into the document, it seems real. It was created on May 30th, 2017 by Etemadi, Sannaz the who is the Assistant Chief Counsel for IDOT.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Two questions:

1. Wasn't the crush test on the N-S bilevels only like 50 lbs off spec? (in other words fifty pounds below spec out of several thousand)

2. I thought that the Brightline base model was already available with traps?


----------



## MisterUptempo

Metra Electric Rider said:


> Two questions:
> 
> 1. Wasn't the crush test on the N-S bilevels only like 50 lbs off spec? (in other words fifty pounds below spec out of several thousand)


During the 800,000 lb. crush test, the N-S design failed at the 798,000 lb. point.

So, the question is...Was the N-S design 99.75% successful or a 100% failure? Apparently, the powers that be decided it was the latter.


----------



## frequentflyer

Scary when government entities actually made a decision grounded in common sense. The same Siemens factory that is delivering locomotives on time can also make pax car too? Decision a no-brainer.


----------



## jis

frequentflyer said:


> Scary when government entities actually made a decision grounded in common sense. The same Siemens factory that is delivering locomotives on time can also make pax car too? Decision a no-brainer.


It is already making passenger cars for Brightline, in case someone did not notice.


----------



## frequentflyer

The Viaggio-Twin looks to fit the bill if the single levels causes too much legal red tape.


----------



## Scuba_Steve

California will need cab cars as well.


----------



## jis

Scuba_Steve said:


> California will need cab cars as well.


The Viaggio stable has one of those ready to roll with a bit of US style spiffying up with more robust collision posts and such, I am sure.


----------



## bretton88

Interesting, I notice that the notice calls for the exact same quantity of single level cars as bi-levels. That seems like a bad capacity reduction. Having said that, if they are switching to the brightline cars, that is a really good move. Siemens can probably get a slightly modified design of those cars rolling with fairly low lead time.

One interesting note that might be overlooked, Sumitayo (I think that's how you spell it) is still the prime contractor. They have just agreed to subcontract Siemens to build the cars. In this way there's no need to void and re-bid the existing contract. It's essentially a change order and hiring Siemens as a sub.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Do we actually know what "they" are doing yet? Is it at all possible that N-S has resolved the design and is going with that or there was an exemption or settlement or...?


----------



## jis

Apparently they came up with an estimate of 60 months for redesign and delivery, as hinted in the letter.

Of course a more recent document would be even more useful. But the notifications appears to be pretty firm about modifying the contract and the parameters of such. I am almost certain that we would hear about a safety exemption if one were to take place. I doubt it will. What the document alludes to in effect is the shape of a settlement between the prime contractor, Sumitomo and the lead purchaser CalDOT, to go ahead and fulfill the (modified) order on a modified schedule.


----------



## MisterUptempo

bretton88 said:


> Interesting, I notice that the notice calls for the exact same quantity of single level cars as bi-levels. That seems like a bad capacity reduction. Having said that, if they are switching to the brightline cars, that is a really good move. Siemens can probably get a slightly modified design of those cars rolling with fairly low lead time.
> 
> One interesting note that might be overlooked, Sumitayo (I think that's how you spell it) is still the prime contractor. They have just agreed to subcontract Siemens to build the cars. In this way there's no need to void and re-bid the existing contract. It's essentially a change order and hiring Siemens as a sub.


But isn't it a little more complicated than that? As was discussed on "another board" (and let's just mention it was railroad.net), the original procurement process for the order required bi-level railcars that adhered to PRIIA Section 305/NGEC specs. If I recall (and I'm kicking myself for not saving the document), some manufacturers were dismissed out of hand because they presented bids for product that did not comply with Sec. 305.

And now Caltrans/IDOT plan to just allow Sumitomo to contract with Siemens, to build a single-level railcar that likely won't adhere to Sec. 305 single-level standards, much less bi-level?

I question Siemens' ability to meet Sec. 305 because, as was pointed out at the other board, Siemens has already prepared a presentation explaining why the Brightline Viaggio Comforts don't follow Sec. 305 in some areas. You'll find that presentation here- http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/brightline-Coach-Siemens-2.pdf

The original RFP was awfully specific. Isn't it possible (likely, perhaps) that there would need to be a new RFP process, as Sumitomo is looking to deliver a product that is nothing like what was asked for? Short of doing that, I foresee legal teams from all the railcar manufacturers not named Siemens or Sumitomo/N-S lining up to file suit.

ETA - Another question - I remember that some of the losing bidders complained that N-S was lowballing their bid to get the contract. If this substitution is allowed to continue, and the costs of the Siemens single-level are greater than the original N-S bi-level costs, who pays the difference?


----------



## jis

It is indeed time to settle down with some Popcorn and Beer.

Of course meanwhile, the US passenger rail service will sink deeper and deeper into disrepair, except for those who stayed clear of the 305 crap and just went ahead and pragmatically ordered whatever they could get off the shelf.

Meanwhile, I wonder how difficult it would be to substitute the more expensive to maintain toilet and water system and GSC or Pioneer trucks, and fit it out with slim lightweight airline Coach style seats to meet weight requirements to force it to be compliant with 305, but have an inferior product.  That would be the ultimate victory of bureaucracy over pragmatism at the cost of the customers' experience.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

If this is a firm settlement, it would be one of expedience. Other manufacturers certainly couldn't meet the time being of the essence, and would therefore be irrelevant. Who besides Seimans has a ready to go intercity rail car for American use?


----------



## neroden

The ADA issue is severe.

California is already running a mixed single-level / bilevel fleet, so they'll just have to deal with the slower boarding time on the single-level trains. (I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they come up with something convoluted like swapping the single-levels to Caltrain in exchange for Caltrain's bilevels while Caltrain raises its platforms, since Caltrain is planning to raise its platforms.)

The Midwest, however, has larger issues. Unless they somehow manage to schedule one Superliner train on each route (har har) they're actually going to have to start raising the platforms. It's now not legal to have all the trains board higher than the platform.

Perhaps the most likely solution is the modular retractable high-level platform tested at Ann Arbor; I suppose they could put this all along the Michigan line, for example.


----------



## Steve4031

They could raise a portion of each platform with ramp access. Then there would be level boarding for some cars. The specs show that the brightline cars have retractable bridge plates.


----------



## west point

Comments. Correct about ADA. Have any of you seen the ADA requirements for restrooms ? It will blow your mind. That is a reason so many builders and designers of bathrooms especially male get it wrong. How may have urinals do you se that defy attempts to prevent spilling on floor ?

It may be that this subbing of Brightline type cars mirrors the desperate need for more rolling stock that many agencies expect ?


----------



## GiantsFan

Single level cars in CA? ... With all low level platforms!

I don't see how this is a great solution. One would think they would just order more cars based on the surfliner car...


----------



## PerRock

GiantsFan said:


> One would think they would just order more cars based on the surfliner car...


That was the initial idea... but no one could make cars that worked.

peter


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Steve4031 said:


> They could raise a portion of each platform with ramp access. Then there would be level boarding for some cars. The specs show that the brightline cars have retractable bridge plates.


I think that was done in Milwaukee. The architect of the new station actually has their offices upstairs in my office building, but they aren't very friendly, so I can't really ask them that question - which was why was it partially raised. That may have been done by a consultant anyways - they are a very small firm anyhow.


----------



## Steve4031

It was done in Dallas on the Dart system. I enjoyed using the raised platform to board with my spinner suitcase.


----------



## bretton88

MisterUptempo said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, I notice that the notice calls for the exact same quantity of single level cars as bi-levels. That seems like a bad capacity reduction. Having said that, if they are switching to the brightline cars, that is a really good move. Siemens can probably get a slightly modified design of those cars rolling with fairly low lead time.
> 
> One interesting note that might be overlooked, Sumitayo (I think that's how you spell it) is still the prime contractor. They have just agreed to subcontract Siemens to build the cars. In this way there's no need to void and re-bid the existing contract. It's essentially a change order and hiring Siemens as a sub.
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't it a little more complicated than that? As was discussed on "another board" (and let's just mention it was railroad.net), the original procurement process for the order required bi-level railcars that adhered to PRIIA Section 305/NGEC specs. If I recall (and I'm kicking myself for not saving the document), some manufacturers were dismissed out of hand because they presented bids for product that did not comply with Sec. 305.
> And now Caltrans/IDOT plan to just allow Sumitomo to contract with Siemens, to build a single-level railcar that likely won't adhere to Sec. 305 single-level standards, much less bi-level?
> 
> I question Siemens' ability to meet Sec. 305 because, as was pointed out at the other board, Siemens has already prepared a presentation explaining why the Brightline Viaggio Comforts don't follow Sec. 305 in some areas. You'll find that presentation here- http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/brightline-Coach-Siemens-2.pdf
> 
> The original RFP was awfully specific. Isn't it possible (likely, perhaps) that there would need to be a new RFP process, as Sumitomo is looking to deliver a product that is nothing like what was asked for? Short of doing that, I foresee legal teams from all the railcar manufacturers not named Siemens or Sumitomo/N-S lining up to file suit.
> 
> ETA - Another question - I remember that some of the losing bidders complained that N-S was lowballing their bid to get the contract. If this substitution is allowed to continue, and the costs of the Siemens single-level are greater than the original N-S bi-level costs, who pays the difference?
Click to expand...

Single level cars are supposed to be cheaper than bi-levels, so they're adjusting for the costs by producing the same # of single level cars. In theory that pool of money should have bought more single level cars than bi-levels.
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## frequentflyer

https://www.wsj.com/articles/delays-may-derail-stimulus-funding-for-amtrak-railcars-1460308921


----------



## Eric S

frequentflyer said:


> https://www.wsj.com/articles/delays-may-derail-stimulus-funding-for-amtrak-railcars-1460308921


I'd note that the article is from April 2016.


----------



## jis

Eric S said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/delays-may-derail-stimulus-funding-for-amtrak-railcars-1460308921
> 
> 
> 
> I'd note that the article is from April 2016.
Click to expand...

IOW much water has passed under the bridge and over the dam since then


----------



## frequentflyer

Eric S said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/delays-may-derail-stimulus-funding-for-amtrak-railcars-1460308921
> 
> 
> 
> I'd note that the article is from April 2016.
Click to expand...

Thank you, I should have noticed that.


----------



## Eric S

frequentflyer said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/delays-may-derail-stimulus-funding-for-amtrak-railcars-1460308921
> 
> 
> 
> I'd note that the article is from April 2016.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you, I should have noticed that.
Click to expand...

At this point, with so little news coming out the last couple years or so, I'd imagine more than a few of us would jump at what appeared to be something in the media relating to this order.


----------



## dlagrua

The Budd Company is still in business but their railroad assembly plant was closed years ago. They are still a big company and could probably make railroad cars again if they wanted to, but probably not at the price Amtrak is willing to pay.

ACF Industries the successor to American Car and Foundry in Milton, PA still makes railroad cars but they are concentrating on freight cars only. They have a facility that is large enough to make passenger cars but they have not done any of this work for years. Like Budd a long shot for passenger work.

Then there is Bombardier USA , one of the original Superliner manufacturers still in the passenger rail business. .AFAIK, Amtrak ( or the states) were not pushing for their double level equipment so they ended up with a manufacturer that has no idea how to meet specs. Are passengers cars that difficult to make or is it just a price issue????


----------



## bretton88

At this point we're not at the manufacturer not being able to meet specs, NS is a very experienced car builder. We're at the point of realizing the spec, which was designed by a government committee, isn't workable. Siemens themselves said up front they thought the weight spec couldn't be met, especially since their lighter European stock is still over the PRIAA weight spec.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Dutchrailnut

your fired : https://www.illinois.gov/cpo/dot/Documents/Bi-level%20Railcar%20Procurement.pdf


----------



## Ryan

You got beaten by a few days...



A Voice said:


> Per discussion on another board, it looks like there is something behind the rumors of the states switching to a single-level design:
> 
> https://www.illinois.gov/cpo/dot/Documents/Bi-level%20Railcar%20Procurement.pdf
> 
> This would also fit the reports of delivery by 2020 (24-34 months). Of course, there are indeed both logistical and potential legal hurdles over a switch to single-level cars built by Siemens.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Of course that page is taken down now.


----------



## Ryan

Good catch. It was just up when I posted 30 minutes ago.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

dlagrua said:


> The Budd Company is still in business but their railroad assembly plant was closed years ago. They are still a big company and could probably make railroad cars again if they wanted to, but probably not at the price Amtrak is willing to pay.
> 
> ACF Industries the successor to American Car and Foundry in Milton, PA still makes railroad cars but they are concentrating on freight cars only. They have a facility that is large enough to make passenger cars but they have not done any of this work for years. Like Budd a long shot for passenger work.
> 
> Then there is Bombardier USA , one of the original Superliner manufacturers still in the passenger rail business. .AFAIK, Amtrak ( or the states) were not pushing for their double level equipment so they ended up with a manufacturer that has no idea how to meet specs. Are passengers cars that difficult to make or is it just a price issue????


The Budd company is gone, it only exist as funding agency for its retirees , ACF sold their passenger plans, and as such are usually excluded from re-entering such business .

Budd Company became part of Budd Thyssen in 1978 and in 1999 a part of ThyssenKrupp Budd. Body and chassis operations were sold to Martinrea International in 2006. No longer an operating company, Budd filed for bankruptcy in 2014. It currently exists to provide benefits to its retirees.[4]


----------



## jis

I don't understand this obsession with companies that have failed many years back, and have nothing to do with passenger railroad now, and have lost all their institutional knowledge and expertise, when there are dozens of companies that actually have current expertise and are willing to enter the market in the US.

Get used to the fact that Budd, ACF and Pullman are history and they are not coming back. Let us look forward instead of perpetually wallowing in past glories.


----------



## jphjaxfl

jis said:


> I don't understand this obsession with companies that have failed many years back, and have nothing to do with passenger railroad now, and have lost all their institutional knowledge and expertise, when there are dozens of companies that actually have current expertise and are willing to enter the market in the US.
> 
> Get used to the fact that Budd, ACF and Pullman are history and they are not coming back. Let us look forward instead of perpetually wallowing in past glories.


Great analogy! I agree 100%. Some of the focusing on past has gotten the passenger rail system in the situation it is today.


----------



## GBNorman

With the source material from IDOT having been withdrawn, we have to conclude at this time such represented "Fake News".

I'm guilty myself as I reported such at another site.

Had it been solid, and could possibly still turn-out to be, it would have been a win-win. The funding under ARRA09 set to expire Sep 30, would have been protected as well as the single level cars would have been from a proven design (AAF and many, many, overseas).

So stay tuned, but until confirmed by another source, best consider such unfounded, or in newspeak, "Fake News".


----------



## jis

It is a rumor with some basis in facts, which in my mind is a little different from Fake News. I consider something to be Fake News when something has absolutely no basis on anything and is completely cooked up out of thin air. This clearly is not one of those. It is based on a document that is known to exist suggesting that a change is being negotiated. however, there is no guarantee that such a possible change has been finalized.

overuse of the term "Fake News" itself is a problem IMHO.


----------



## A Voice

GBNorman said:


> With the source material from IDOT having been withdrawn, we have to conclude at this time such represented "Fake News".
> 
> I'm guilty myself as I reported such at another site.
> 
> Had it been solid, and could possibly still turn-out to be, it would have been a win-win. The funding under ARRA09 set to expire Sep 30, would have been protected as well as the single level cars would have been from a proven design (AAF and many, many, overseas).
> 
> So stay tuned, but until confirmed by another source, best consider such unfounded, or in newspeak, "Fake News".





jis said:


> It is a rumor with some basis in facts, which in my mind is a little different from Fake News. I consider something to be Fake News when something has absolutely no basis on anything and is completely cooked up out of thin air. This clearly is not one of those. It is based on a document that is known to exist suggesting that a change is being negotiated. however, there is no guarantee that such a possible change has been finalized.
> 
> overuse of the term "Fake News" itself is a problem IMHO.


Indeed, while we cannot regard this as confirmed by any stretch (and even plans correct at the time of posting can always change), it is hardly fake news. The original source was legitimate, appearing on an Illinois state website; It was not made up or a fake/forged document. Actual fake news, on the other hand, is either "made-up" (fictitious) or deliberately and greatly exaggerated and/or presented in a misleading manner. We can be pretty certain this document was never intended for public release, at least at this time, hence the removal.

Eventually an announcement will be made, which may confirm these reports or plans may again change further.


----------



## Ryan

Concur with all - the withdrawal means (to me) that this was not quite ready for public dissemination, either because the decision wasn't final or because the interested parties had yet to be notified.

Time will tell, and we'll know when a public announcement is made.

But yes, #fakenews definitely oversells is and is qualified for the most over- and inappropriately-used word of the year.


----------



## frequentflyer

For all we know N/S may have agreed to the terms but did not want to make it public yet.

On another note, parts are about to get a whole lot cheaper for Brightline when it comes to mx on its pax cars. More volume means lower prices.


----------



## frequentflyer

This is Brightline's specs.

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/brightline-Coach-Siemens-2.pdf

On another site (railroad.net) someone posted the Siemens cars are a similar weight to Amfleet I.


----------



## keelhauled

While I don't remember the exact wording (and unfortunately the Wayback Machine does not seem to have snagged a copy of the page), I seem to remember it reading to the effect of Sumitomo had "proposed" replacing NS as the subcontractor with Siemens as of May. Long way to go from there to a signed contract with all parties.

Actually as it happens the latest Section 305 monthly summary was posted today, and retains the boilerplate "working out some contract issues with the contractor [and] there will be nothing to report for now" language, so everyone getting their hopes up about shiny new Siemens cars may want to come back down to Earth for a little while.


----------



## jis

frequentflyer said:


> This is Brightline's specs.
> 
> http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/brightline-Coach-Siemens-2.pdf
> 
> On another site (railroad.net) someone posted the Siemens cars are a similar weight to Amfleet I.


This link to the slideset was posted a dozen messages up this thread in http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/51197-nippon-sharyo-contract-for-130-bi-levels/?p=722245


----------



## MisterUptempo

keelhauled said:


> While I don't remember the exact wording (and unfortunately the Wayback Machine does not seem to have snagged a copy of the page), I seem to remember it reading to the effect of Sumitomo had "proposed" replacing NS as the subcontractor with Siemens as of May. Long way to go from there to a signed contract with all parties.
> 
> Actually as it happens the latest Section 305 monthly summary was posted today, and retains the boilerplate "working out some contract issues with the contractor [and] there will be nothing to report for now" language, so everyone getting their hopes up about shiny new Siemens cars may want to come back down to Earth for a little while.


I don't wish to confuse matters, but since the .pdf in question has touched off the debate it has, I'm posting a .jpg version of the document, for those who may have joined the party late.







This is clearly not fake news. This was posted at a state-level governmental website for the sake of transparency. Documents like this don't get posted just for the hell of it. Usually, the opposite is the case; getting government agencies to post relevant information can sometimes be a real struggle. This was not some hacked e-mail of suspicious origin or validity, in which some bureaucrat was merely spitballing with a co-worker. Sumitomo made a proposal of substituting N-S bi-levels with Siemens single-levels, and, according to the document, Caltrans and IDOT agreed to it.

Did the deal fall apart? Were the possible legal ramifications too large a risk to proceed? Did the possibility of acquiring Siemens railcars that were admittedly outside Section 305 specs and/or well outside the guidelines of the original RFP jeopardize the extension of federal funding? Was the extension of funding denied, period? Who the hell knows. But, if nothing else, this document, its sudden disappearance, and the overall lack of transparency of this procurement needs to be addressed.


----------



## jis

keelhauled said:


> Actually as it happens the latest Section 305 monthly summary was posted today, and retains the boilerplate "working out some contract issues with the contractor [and] there will be nothing to report for now" language, so everyone getting their hopes up about shiny new Siemens cars may want to come back down to Earth for a little while.


And similarly all those that want to ignore the posting just because a monthly report has a boilerplate are of course free to live in their own world too. 

The real thing at this point admittedly is to worry more about whether there will be any car or not. Given that the official document claims "contract issue" are being worked in an ongoing process, it is reasonable for any rational person to believe that the brief glimpse that we got was of the ongoing "contract issues" the official boilerplate alludes to. Whether any of it will come through is a different matter, as we have learned also about officially signed and sealed contracts that were at one point officially touted as the best thing since sliced bread, based apparently on very unstable foundation. Afterall that is why we are still here in this thread.


----------



## Ryan

Nice catch, I was hopeful someone still had a copy open.

We'll just have to see what falls out the other side, I'm not taking the disappearance of the document as a sign of anything.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Very interesting development(s). Personally I wouldn't mind the single level cars, especially if they are similar to the Brightline cars - they look modern (of course, the new bi-levels at least _looked_ good in the renderings) and will attract people to take the train. But yes, the ADA issues are going to be a problem.


----------



## keelhauled

jis said:


> keelhauled said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually as it happens the latest Section 305 monthly summary was posted today, and retains the boilerplate "working out some contract issues with the contractor [and] there will be nothing to report for now" language, so everyone getting their hopes up about shiny new Siemens cars may want to come back down to Earth for a little while.
> 
> 
> 
> And similarly all those that want to ignore the posting just because a monthly report has a boilerplate are of course free to live in their own world too.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, certainly. All I was trying to point out was that regardless of the IDOT memo nothing has moved forward to the point of being made public this summer, so whatever is happening seems to doing so, much like the rest of this sorry saga, slowly.


----------



## frequentflyer

I think the PDF is big. Many here speculated why not move to the Siemen's coach and from this disaster of somebody's (N/S or the entity writing the specs) making. While they are a myriad of details to work out, the memo indicates a bunch of pax rail enthusiasts ramblings on some forums were not that far off the mark. The powers that be are thinking the same too. Whether can legally pull it off is a different story.

As an aside, to a politician, he has some fancy new locomotives that were so supposed to be pulling some fancy new cars (makes for some great political ads). The locomotives were delivered, but that politician still wants his or her fancy new cars and could care less now if they are single or bi level. If going this expedites it, so be it.................at least to the politician.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

The Siemens cars are certainly modern and far better than what exists now, but I still believe bi-level cars are the better option for the Midwest and California until I can be provided with additional evidence to counter that claim. If it is true that a single-level car could be ready in 2 years while a bi-level would take 5, that is a tough decision. The Siemens cars are obviously not going to meet all of the specs, so would it be possible to remove a few specs so that the NS bi-levels could pass the required tests? If not, is it possible to order an established model of bi-levels such as Surfliners or modified low-platform commuter equipment? I am not necessarily opposed to switching to single-level, but I think all of the possibilities for bi-level cars should be explored first. Bi-level cars may take longer to be delivered, but they would provide level boarding, higher capacity, and in certain cases more compatibility with present equipment (especially in California).

Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## Hotblack Desiato

I would think dwell times alone would be reason enough to prefer Bi-Levels (to say nothing of capacity).

Multiple sets of wide, trainlined doors with level boarding make a huge difference for dwell times.

Then there's the question of bike accommodation, which is a very big deal in California.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

#Fake News is news which was created or posted or spun in a manner *intended* to deceive. All other inaccurate news is #Wrong or #Stupid.

The factual accuracy of the IDOT page is debateable. But it was not created with intent to deceive. In fact, since it took all of you desperate for such information months to find, not only was it not likely intended to deceive; it was probably not intended to be found.

I suspect it's deletion reflects that.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Green Maned Lion said:


> #Fake News is news which was created or posted or spun in a manner *intended* to deceive. All other inaccurate news is #Wrong or #Stupid.
> 
> The factual accuracy of the IDOT page is debateable. But it was not created with intent to deceive. In fact, since it took all of you desperate for such information months to find, not only was it not likely intended to deceive; it was probably not intended to be found.
> 
> I suspect it's deletion reflects that.


IDOT scavenger hunt? I wonder if it was because it's been posted recently (not that I care all _that_ much to delve deeper).


----------



## Steve4031

What is the capacity of the Siemens single level car and the bi-level.


----------



## Caesar La Rock

Steve4031 said:


> What is the capacity of the Siemens single level car and the bi-level.


Between 40-86 seats according to PDF on the Viaggio Comfort. Not sure on the bi-levels.


----------



## MisterUptempo

Caesar La Rock said:


> Steve4031 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the capacity of the Siemens single level car and the bi-level.
> 
> 
> 
> Between 40-86 seats according to PDF on the Viaggio Comfort. Not sure on the bi-levels.
Click to expand...

As a means of comparison, the California/Midwest bi-levels were supposed to adhere to Section 305 specs, which are as follows-

Coach - 89 Revenue Seats & 1 Wheelchair Parking Location

Cab/Baggage - 74 Revenue Seats & 1 Wheelchair Parking Location

Cafe/Lounge - 33 Revenue Seats, 1 Wheelchair Parking Location, 21 Lounge Area Seats (non-revenue), & 4 Crew Workstation Seats


----------



## frequentflyer

MisterUptempo said:


> Caesar La Rock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve4031 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the capacity of the Siemens single level car and the bi-level.
> 
> 
> 
> Between 40-86 seats according to PDF on the Viaggio Comfort. Not sure on the bi-levels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As a means of comparison, the California/Midwest bi-levels were supposed to adhere to Section 305 specs, which are as follows-
> 
> Coach - 89 Revenue Seats & 1 Wheelchair Parking Location
> 
> Cab/Baggage - 74 Revenue Seats & 1 Wheelchair Parking Location
> 
> Cafe/Lounge - 33 Revenue Seats, 1 Wheelchair Parking Location, 21 Lounge Area Seats (non-revenue), & 4 Crew Workstation Seats
Click to expand...

Brightline select car 46

Smart car 66

http://gobrightline.com/brightline-reveals-first-trainset/

Those concerned about bike racks look at the link.


----------



## Steve4031

Similar equipment us used on the railjet service in Austria.

I shared a link. The stairs in the entry way are not as steep as amfleet and horizon cars. Could still present a slipping hazard in wet or winter weather when pax track snow onboard.


----------



## GBNorman

I sincerely appreciate how the members here recognize that I, as a fairly new member around here. did not willfully post "fake news". There appears unanimous consensus that something was posted to an official Illinois DOT site.

That such was removed is of course a mystery.

Thanks to all for their understanding.

GBN


----------



## PaulM

frequentflyer said:


> Those concerned about bike racks look at the link.


Positively un-American.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Steve4031 said:


> What is the capacity of the Siemens single level car and the bi-level.


Viaggio Twin seating capacity is listed as 80 to 130.

Viaggio Single seating capacity is listed as 48 to 90.

The link is to a PDF form Siemens give you tons of options.

https://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/SiteCollectionDocuments/en/rail-solutions/passenger-coaches/viaggio-imagebroschuere-en.pdf


----------



## Ziv

I am not a regular here, but I wouldn't worry too much, GBNorman. From what I have seen, this can be a fairly harsh crowd, but I think their bark is worse than their bite. ;-)



GBNorman said:


> I sincerely appreciate how the members here recognize that I, as a fairly new member around here. did not willfully post "fake news". There appears unanimous consensus that something was posted to an official Illinois DOT site.
> 
> That such was removed is of course a mystery.
> 
> Thanks to all for their understanding.
> 
> GBN


----------



## Blackwolf

Well now, NARP has this following information in this week's Hotline mailer:



> *The California Department of Transportation **announced they will be substituting Siemens equipment** for the Midwest passenger railcar procurement of 130 bi-level passenger railcars, replacing current manufacturer Nippon Sharyo. *
> 
> Since Siemens does not produce bi-level equipment, the procurement will be amended to 130 single-level railcars. While this will reduce the total number of seats, it will shorten the delivery frame for the railcars from approximately 5 years for a bi-level railcar to 24-34 months for a single level railcar.
> 
> The procurement is led by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in joint agreement with the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), which represents a coalition of Midwestern states. The bi-levels were to be manufactured in Sharyo’s new manufacturing plant in Rochelle, Illinois. However, the Japanese company hit problems early in the manufacturing process, unable to meet the requirements for high structural rigidity, which are unique to the U.S. passenger rail market.
> 
> “We support the decision to substitute Siemens’ equipment, since it has become clear that Nippon Sharyo is not going to be able to deliver the equipment to meet Federal Railroad Administration requirements,” said NARP’s Jim Mathews. “Giving the advanced age of Amtrak’s existing fleet, and surging demand for passenger train service, the top priority is acquiring new rolling stock as soon as possible. As we move forward, we hope the FRA and state transportation officials use this incident to bring U.S. rail safety regulations more in-line with international best practices, which will lower procurement costs, expand capacity, and save lives by allowing more Americans to choose train travel.”


----------



## keelhauled

Now NARP has said in their latest Hotline News release (https://www.narprail.org/news/hotline/hotline-1-031-amtrak-and-metro-houston-suspend-service-officials-find-a-way-forward-for-new-equipment-for-california-and/) that Caltrans has announced the switch to Siemens, but Caltrans does not have a press release on their website. Did NARP jump the gun on an announcement?

Edit: I see I am too slow at typing.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

no announcement from Nippon Sharyo, no announcement from Siemens, nothing in railpace, nothing in progressive railway,nothing from Railway age and links keep going dead ????

Kind of like that top secret GE engine test deal ???


----------



## MisterUptempo

> Since Siemens does not produce bi-level equipment...








img src - siemens.com

I guess it will come as quite a shock to Siemens when they find out that they haven't been producing these bi-levels that they've been selling all this time.


----------



## Blackwolf

The Viaggio Twin looks considerably smaller and crazy claustrophobic when compared against the current fleet of Superliner-inspired California Cars.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Blackwolf said:


> The Viaggio Twin looks considerably smaller and crazy claustrophobic when compared against the current fleet of Superliner-inspired California Cars.


Part of that is because the Viaggio Twin has very large windows. Is it confirmed that the Brightline style cars have been chosen over the Viaggio Twin? I know the article stated single-level, but it also claimed that there are no bi-level Siemens cars which is obviously false. It they both meet FRA requirements and would take equal production time, it seems to me as though the Viaggio Twin would be the better choice for the Midwest (unless they just want replicas of Brightline sets for some reason[emoji6]).
Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## frequentflyer

The arrangement makes sense to me, do not know why some would be against this. The calls for Alstom to remake some Superliner cars must not be feasible. You got to think N/S thought of that one long before we did and it fell like a dud. This way forward is the 'fastest" way of getting suitable rail cars.


----------



## frequentflyer

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Blackwolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Viaggio Twin looks considerably smaller and crazy claustrophobic when compared against the current fleet of Superliner-inspired California Cars.
> 
> 
> 
> Part of that is because the Viaggio Twin has very large windows. Is it confirmed that the Brightline style cars have been chosen over the Viaggio Twin? I know the article stated single-level, but it also claimed that there are no bi-level Siemens cars which is obviously false. It they both meet FRA requirements, it seems to me as though the Viaggio Twin would be the better choice for the Midwest (unless they just want replicas of Brightline sets for some reason).
> Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app
Click to expand...

I think the twin is more of a commuter rail car not a intercity one like the Viaggio Comfort


----------



## MisterUptempo

Blackwolf said:


> The Viaggio Twin looks considerably smaller and crazy claustrophobic when compared against the current fleet of Superliner-inspired California Cars.


The Viaggio Twin is 15ft 2in in height, 9ft 2in in width. The California Car is 16ft 2in in height, 10ft 2in in width. But the Twin does have the capacity that Caltrans/IDOT was searching for and a has low-floor variant, for easier boarding in low platform territory.

There is also the Viaggio Light, which is a single-level, and has a low-floor variant as well.







Both the Comfort and the Light are narrower than the Horizons they might be replacing.

The problem with the Siemens line is crashworthiness vs. total car weight. The only Siemens Viaggio product known to be in compliance with US crashworthiness and crash energy management standards at present is the Brightline Comforts. The problem is that the US-ready Comforts are heavier than Section 305 allows. It may be possible that getting the Twin and Light to US specs would have the same effect. If an exception is given to Siemens on the weight issue to get this procurement finished, it would be right to wonder whether the N-S bi-level would have passed buff strength testing had the firm been given the extra weight to work with.

ETA - something else to keep in mind - If Caltrans/IDOT does OK substituting Comforts, there is still the issue of Siemens having to re-engineer the doors to accommodate traps, which would, more than likely, add even more weight to the already-too-heavy Comforts.


----------



## MisterUptempo

Here is a slide from a presentation by Siemens than I referenced earlier in the thread, which explains why the Comforts came in heavier than Section 305 standards-






img src - siemens.com

ETA - just a note - Siemens lists the European specs for the Comfort with a tare weight (type-dependent) of 45.5 metric tons, which is 100,310 lbs., and a total weight (type-dependent) of 61 metric tons, which is 134,482 lbs. That's not counting the extra weight loaded on for the Brightline cars to get them to US specs.

Section 305 dictates that single-level coaches are supposed to be no heavier than 104,000lbs, cabbages 108,000 lbs., and cafe cars 111,000lbs.


----------



## MisterUptempo

Here's yet another thing to consider-

Section 305 requires that all single-level coaches that have two doors on each side (which the Comforts do) need to have a wheelchair lift located on at least one door of each side of each coach. In addition, single-levels must have at least one wheelchair parking position in every coach that is adjacent to an ADA-compliant bathroom. Each coach must also have a second, non-compliant bathroom as well.

Here is a layout of the two classes of Brightline coaches -






img src - gobrightline.com

Provided this layout is still accurate (and there is no reason to believe that it isn't), even more weight would have to be slapped onto the US-spec'ed Comforts, to accommodate a second bathroom. That would also have the effect of cutting down on the number of revenue seats available in each coach. I also don't know whether there are any lifts on the Brightline cars, as they have level boarding at their stations, or whether they would just keep them at the stations themselves if needed. This could mean even any potential Midwest/Cali Comforts would be heavier still than the Brightline cars.


----------



## PerRock

MisterUptempo said:


> ETA - something else to keep in mind - If Caltrans/IDOT does OK substituting Comforts, there is still the issue of Siemens having to re-engineer the doors to accommodate traps, which would, more than likely, add even more weight to the already-too-heavy Comforts.


It's not that big of a re-engineering, the RailJet (as seen in the video posted above), which is also a Viaggio Comfort has traps.

peter


----------



## Train_Freak

MisterUptempo said:


> ETA - something else to keep in mind - If Caltrans/IDOT does OK substituting Comforts, there is still the issue of Siemens having to re-engineer the doors to accommodate traps, which would, more than likely, add even more weight to the already-too-heavy Comforts.


If I remembered correctly, Siemens designed the cars with the possibility of having traps, so they shouldn't have to re-engineer that. The only problem that they might have is if the states want the automatic gap filler that the Brightline cars have as they are located where the trap door would be, unless if they could be somehow implemented into the trap door.


----------



## MisterUptempo

PerRock said:


> MisterUptempo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ETA - something else to keep in mind - If Caltrans/IDOT does OK substituting Comforts, there is still the issue of Siemens having to re-engineer the doors to accommodate traps, which would, more than likely, add even more weight to the already-too-heavy Comforts.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that big of a re-engineering, the RailJet (as seen in the video posted above), which is also a Viaggio Comfort has traps.
> 
> peter
Click to expand...

Understood, and a hopeful sign. I was looking at the trap problem more as one of the many "what ifs" that might contribute to the Comfort's unacceptable weight.


----------



## Ryan

From the presentation linked a few pages ago....



MisterUptempo said:


> I question Siemens' ability to meet Sec. 305 because, as was pointed out at the other board, Siemens has already prepared a presentation explaining why the Brightline Viaggio Comforts don't follow Sec. 305 in some areas. You'll find that presentation here- http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/brightline-Coach-Siemens-2.pdf


----------



## west point

Saw a diagram of Brightline cars that already have provisions for traps . Cannot find Siemens source.


----------



## Brian_tampa

MisterUptempo said:


> Here's yet another thing to consider-
> 
> Each coach must also have a second, non-compliant bathroom as well.


Are you sure? I looked at the PRIIA section 305 specs for a single level coach, specifically section 9.5.2 for an optional unisex toilet room (UTR in Amtrak parlance LOL), and it appears that only one toilet room (the accessible toilet room, or ATR) is required for each single level coach. It doesn't make sense to have two toilets in each coach car to be honest. A lot of wasted space for sure. And why would the PRIIA specs go beyond the requirements of the ADA? Obviously the Brightline cars meet the ADA requirements. Perhaps this is part of the problem with PRIIA - the specifications are too demanding and just unworkable? Maybe that is why Brightline and Siemens deviated from them in order to actually build a viable train car...

I did a google search on "priia section 305 single level pdf" and found the pdf doc from highspeed-rail.org for the single level pax rail cars.


----------



## frequentflyer

The Viaggio is about the same weight of an Amfleet I coach, but I am wandering if the Amfleet coach is longer. Amfleet seats 72 high density format. Before Capstone it had seating for 80.


----------



## MisterUptempo

Brian_tampa said:


> MisterUptempo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's yet another thing to consider-
> 
> Each coach must also have a second, non-compliant bathroom as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure? I looked at the PRIIA section 305 specs for a single level coach, specifically section 9.5.2 for an optional unisex toilet room (UTR in Amtrak parlance LOL), and it appears that only one toilet room (the accessible toilet room, or ATR) is required for each single level coach. It doesn't make sense to have two toilets in each coach car to be honest. A lot of wasted space for sure. And why would the PRIIA specs go beyond the requirements of the ADA? Obviously the Brightline cars meet the ADA requirements. Perhaps this is part of the problem with PRIIA - the specifications are too demanding and just unworkable? Maybe that is why Brightline and Siemens deviated from them in order to actually build a viable train car...
> 
> I did a google search on "priia section 305 single level pdf" and found the pdf doc from highspeed-rail.org for the single level pax rail cars.
Click to expand...

This is from a copy of the PRIIA 305-003 specs that I found-






Maybe I read that wrong, but that looks to me like one ADA restroom and one non-ADA restroom per coach.


----------



## Brian_tampa

MisterUptempo said:


> Brian_tampa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterUptempo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's yet another thing to consider-
> 
> Each coach must also have a second, non-compliant bathroom as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure? I looked at the PRIIA section 305 specs for a single level coach, specifically section 9.5.2 for an optional unisex toilet room (UTR in Amtrak parlance LOL), and it appears that only one toilet room (the accessible toilet room, or ATR) is required for each single level coach. It doesn't make sense to have two toilets in each coach car to be honest. A lot of wasted space for sure. And why would the PRIIA specs go beyond the requirements of the ADA? Obviously the Brightline cars meet the ADA requirements. Perhaps this is part of the problem with PRIIA - the specifications are too demanding and just unworkable? Maybe that is why Brightline and Siemens deviated from them in order to actually build a viable train car...I did a google search on "priia section 305 single level pdf" and found the pdf doc from highspeed-rail.org for the single level pax rail cars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is from a copy of the PRIIA 305-003 specs that I found-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I read that wrong, but that looks to me like one ADA restroom and one non-ADA restroom per coach.
Click to expand...

The specs are confusing. Section 1.4.9 (referencing section 9) says each car (except the cafe car) shall have two toilet rooms. Yet section 9 implies that each must have an accessible toilet room and mentions an optional unisex toilet room as if it were up to the customer to decide to add it. Maybe you are right about two toilets on each car, but that seems like an outrageous waste of valuable space to me.
ETA - but then again section 1.4 adds the disclaimer that where discrepancies exist between the summary in 1.4 and the actual chapters, the verbiage in those chapters will be used. Talk about CYA haha


----------



## MisterUptempo

I see the section where you got the information regarding an optional second restroom. Thank you for providing it. There is obviously conflicting language in the specs. Just goes back to the lack of clarity throughout this entire process.

I've been questioning every aspect of this substitution because I'm concerned that this will just end up a bigger mess than it already is, and the cars that get delivered will be the product of expediency and face saving, instead of an acquisition that provides the best solution for all involved.

I hope I'm all wrong about this, but I can already hear the squawking a few years from now from those who will wonder why the hell California and the Midwest accepted this deal, instead of just waiting a couple more years to get what best suited their needs.


----------



## Ryan

Spec reading and writing isn't rocket surgery, it just requires some thought and basic reading comprehension.

Langauge about "in case of a conflict, this is the authoritative source" is pretty common, it's easy for a spec to get out of sync with itself over a lifetime of revisions. If you go to Section 9.3, it's obvious that the second restroom is optional...


----------



## Brian_tampa

My impression is that in order to retain the funding from the federal government, the states of CA and IL had to make some sort of deal with the FRA guaranteeing that they could actually obtain any train cars in a reasonable time frame. It's obvious now that Nippon-Sharyo cannot meet their contractual obligations. Siemens is the only Buy-America compliant manufacturer with a train car that can be built now for service in the USA and complete the order in a short length of time. At this point, it is either a less than ideal solution with a single level car or nothing for probably another 10 years. I'm not surprised the state DOT's took this action.


----------



## jis

Blackwolf said:


> The Viaggio Twin looks considerably smaller and crazy claustrophobic when compared against the current fleet of Superliner-inspired California Cars.


They are about a foot shorter than Superliners and have a rounder roof profile to conform to UIC loading gauge. 
Changing the profile is certainly within the realm of possibilities too.


----------



## seat38a

Well kind of funny. I suggested this exact thing couple of weeks ago and it got moved to the "Amtrak's Future" section but now if the rumors are true, then I'm SOOOO glad that Caltrans is doing the most sensible thing and going with Simens. Personally, after looking at the Brightline trains, the Charger engines look so much better on a lower level train.


----------



## west point

Capacity is needed now not in a few years. The statement that NS would deliver bi levels in 2020 is suspect. None of the agencies can really wait 3 or more years for additional capacity. Even Amtrak may have to bite the bullet if CAF cannot finish the V-2s and start building coaches. Too many "IFs". Another if is how much can Siemens increase their production rate ? Any one know their current worker schedules ? one main shift or more / 24 - 7 ?


----------



## seat38a

west point said:


> Capacity is needed now not in a few years. The statement that NS would deliver bi levels in 2020 is suspect. None of the agencies can really wait 3 or more years for additional capacity. Even Amtrak may have to bite the bullet if CAF cannot finish the V-2s and start building coaches. Too many "IFs". Another if is how much can Siemens increase their production rate ? Any one know their current worker schedules ? one main shift or more / 24 - 7 ?


Well if it was my business, and multiple States including the State with the most money for rail comes knocking and if that State has already stated that they will buy off the shelf equipment for the HSR AND your production facility is located in the State and in the Capitol of the State, you better believe it that I'm going to do everything possible to make it work. Especially if they are looking to buy something that I already have and am producing.


----------



## Ngotwalt

west point said:


> Capacity is needed now not in a few years. The statement that NS would deliver bi levels in 2020 is suspect. None of the agencies can really wait 3 or more years for additional capacity. Even Amtrak may have to bite the bullet if CAF cannot finish the V-2s and start building coaches. Too many "IFs". Another if is how much can Siemens increase their production rate ? Any one know their current worker schedules ? one main shift or more / 24 - 7 ?


The CAF Viewliner order has no Coaches in it. 70 Baggage cars, 25 Diners, 25 Sleepers, 10 Bag Dorms. Option for seventry more cars including 10 diners, 10 sleepers, 35 Baggage Dorms, and 15 Baggage Cars. New single level coaches will come from the single level coach procurement. Amfleet II will be retired first, with Amfleet Is bumped to the long distance trains as new coaches come online. I suspect bilevel long distance cars will be Superliner knockoffs.

Nick


----------



## Steve4031

Could Siemens coaches be used in a consist with viewliner dinners and sleepers? Wouldn't be the worst thing if amtrak could standardize it's fleet. Obviously Siemens coaches on long distance trains would have to have seats for long distance travel.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Ngotwalt said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capacity is needed now not in a few years. The statement that NS would deliver bi levels in 2020 is suspect. None of the agencies can really wait 3 or more years for additional capacity. Even Amtrak may have to bite the bullet if CAF cannot finish the V-2s and start building coaches. Too many "IFs". Another if is how much can Siemens increase their production rate ? Any one know their current worker schedules ? one main shift or more / 24 - 7 ?
> 
> 
> 
> The CAF Viewliner order has no Coaches in it. 70 Baggage cars, 25 Diners, 25 Sleepers, 10 Bag Dorms. Option for seventry more cars including 10 diners, 10 sleepers, 35 Baggage Dorms, and 15 Baggage Cars. New single level coaches will come from the single level coach procurement. Amfleet II will be retired first, with Amfleet Is bumped to the long distance trains as new coaches come online. I suspect bilevel long distance cars will be Superliner knockoffs.Nick
Click to expand...

As I understand it, the first Amfleet replacement coaches will replace the Amfleet IIs as you stated. However, the new coaches will likely operate on the long-distance trains and the Amfleet Is will likely remain on the regional trains until their replacement. Otherwise, LD legroom would be greatly reduced in addition to no longer having a legrest or large windows unless the Amfleet Is were rebuilt. The regional coaches also do not operate as many miles, so it really wouldn't make any sense for the Amfleet II replacements to operate on regional trains.


Steve4031 said:


> Could Siemens coaches be used in a consist with viewliner dinners and sleepers? Wouldn't be the worst thing if amtrak could standardize it's fleet. Obviously Siemens coaches on long distance trains would have to have seats for long distance travel.


The Siemens coaches can operate with Amfleets and Viewliners, but not Superliners in the absence of a transition car. I would not be surprised at all to see Siemens chosen for Amfleet replacements, although bi-level cars will likely be chosen for a future Superliner replacement.
Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## west point

"IF" The Siemens cars start being built we may see a long run. The various agencies need capacity and probably will want Siemens built to meet immediate demand. Until a replacement bi-level is designed, proven, and a significant number built every month the Siemens cars will keep coming off production line. Then once any new bi-level proves reliable and can be produced then the western agencies may not order any more Siemens. They may still be used or transferred to other agencies maybe new ones.

For single level cars Amtrak may get some single levels replacement cars "IF" the Siemens cars can be delivered to the Midwest / west agencies. As well "IF" Amtrak cannot get CAF to build V-2 coaches in a significant number then maybe it will order Siemens cars ( V-3s ? ) to supplement and replace AM-2s on existing eastern LD routes and possible new single level routes. How many and what routes would depend on the need for new Superliner routes and supplements for existing routes.

Replaced AM-2s might supplement NEC trains that do not get the mileage present AM-2s get.

So with all the many "IFs" speculation is just only that.


----------



## StriderGDM

The only real if.... is IF Congress will ever fund any replacements. I'm not hopeful.

Folks we need to get on our Congresscritter's cases here.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> Blackwolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Viaggio Twin looks considerably smaller and crazy claustrophobic when compared against the current fleet of Superliner-inspired California Cars.
> 
> 
> 
> They are about a foot shorter than Superliners and have a rounder roof profile to conform to UIC loading gauge.
> Changing the profile is certainly within the realm of possibilities too.
Click to expand...

How 'bout the Viewliner profile, which is supposedly the largest profile which will fit through every tunnel on Amtrak's system.


----------



## Steve4031

I think the larger windows will help address the claustrophobia issue. Iirc the floor to the car is lower, closer to the rails.


----------



## MattW

Initially, I was going to post something of a rant of how unbelievable this all is, but now I'm starting to wonder if there hasn't been some backroom dickering between the States and Amtrak. Here's what I think: we are about to get the Amfleet II replacement order constructed, they'll just serve the midwestern routes first. Then Amtrak's AMF-II replacement can just buy the midtwestern cars at reduced cost (since they'll be "used" equipment) while working to get a BiLevel order done.

Wild? Maybe. Giving politicians and Amtrak upper management too much credit? Maybe that too.


----------



## A Voice

MattW said:


> Initially, I was going to post something of a rant of how unbelievable this all is, but now I'm starting to wonder if there hasn't been some backroom dickering between the States and Amtrak. Here's what I think: we are about to get the Amfleet II replacement order constructed, they'll just serve the midwestern routes first. Then Amtrak's AMF-II replacement can just buy the midtwestern cars at reduced cost (since they'll be "used" equipment) while working to get a BiLevel order done.
> 
> Wild? Maybe. Giving politicians and Amtrak upper management too much credit? Maybe that too.


Occam's Razor; The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

It is much easier to believe Nippon-Sharyo bungled the execution of the contract for a poorly designed bi-level specification (the derogatory "design by committee" would also seem to apply).


----------



## MikefromCrete

MattW said:


> Initially, I was going to post something of a rant of how unbelievable this all is, but now I'm starting to wonder if there hasn't been some backroom dickering between the States and Amtrak. Here's what I think: we are about to get the Amfleet II replacement order constructed, they'll just serve the midwestern routes first. Then Amtrak's AMF-II replacement can just buy the midtwestern cars at reduced cost (since they'll be "used" equipment) while working to get a BiLevel order done.
> 
> Wild? Maybe. Giving politicians and Amtrak upper management too much credit? Maybe that too.


Honest to God, do you think that Amtrak and the states could pull off such a conspiracy? N-S screwed up. The states are trying to make the best of a bad situation. That's all there is to this.


----------



## RPC

While i doubt it was deliberate, I don't think it would be a bad idea. I'd imagine the state consortium really wants bilevels. If they have to settle for single level cars, why not configure them for long distance service and sell them off to Amtrak once they have a source for bilevels? (The existence of the Surfliners indicates building FRA compliant bilevels is possible, albeit with some waivers from the NGEC spec.)


----------



## Dutchrailnut

and still no official announcement ?? all business sources are not reporting the Siemens deal ????


----------



## PRR 60

I cannot see how the states could legally change this contract, that was competitively bid to s particular set of requirement, to another materially different set of requirements without rebidding the work. This is not a private purchase. This is government purchase. If I were one of the other vendors who were invited to bid on 130 bi-level cars (including several that no-bid), I'd be very unhappy about the successful bidder forcing a change to a single level car because they could not make a compliant bi-level car. This the the kind of shenanigans that lands DOT's in court.

And then, simply handing this work to Siemens, even under the guise of being a subcontractor to N-S, smells like a sole-source purchase to me. Another big no-no for government at this price point. Alstom and others could easily say they could match the price and quality of the Siemens product if given the chance to bid that product.


----------



## PVD

They may not want to. If NS is taking a hit for the delays, as well as paying the extra money to Siemens, and the consortium is not spending any extra money, nobody else is likely to be able to provide cars at anywhere near that cost. Not so common with Fed dollars, but not uncommon in state and local purchasing is RFP/response, and/or negotiated acquisition in lieu of straight bidding. MTA-NY does it all the time on large bus and car purchases.


----------



## neroden

You don't have to worry about bidding issues. I expect this is going to be constructed legally as a *settlement* for breach of contract by N-S/Sumitomo. Instead of settling in cash, they will settle in Siemens cars. There's no requirement that that go to bid at all.

The states have more of a problem with the ADA because the ADA rules apply to anything put into service, regardless of how they ended up with it.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

While the ADA issue is a big deal, in and of itself this deal isn't so bad, at least to me. Illinois service is mostly single level cars, the Siemens cars will be new and sleek, which will impress people. But we'll see what happens....


----------



## MisterUptempo

Two small snippets of info-

First, from the Section 305/NGEC Technical Subcommittee meeting minutes of August 24, 2017, just a confirmation that Sumitomo did make a proposal to Caltrans, though no specifics are mentioned. Link to the minutes - http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20tech%20sc%20minutes%208-24-17%20final.doc







img src - highspeed-rail.org

Then, from the same subcommittee, the minutes from September 7, 2017 meeting, but, again, nothing very specific. The minutes can be found at the following link - http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20tech%20sc%20minutes%209-7-17%20draft.doc






img src - highspeed-rail.org

Not much, but I believe this is the first time that the NGEC has made mention of a different subcontractor taking N-S's place.


----------



## MisterUptempo

The IDOT memo is back, albeit in a revised form.

This new memo was issued on August 31, 2017, by Jennifer Bastian, who is Section Chief of Passenger Rail Rolling Stock at IDOT. The wording of the memo now jibes with the information presented at the Section 305 Technical Subcommittee meetings of 08/24/2017 and 7/7/2017. Caltrans & IDOT are reviewing Sumitomo's proposal to turn to Siemens as a new subcontractor, who will manufacture 130 single-level railcars in place of the 130 bi-level railcars that were supposed to be built by the original subcontractor, Nippon-Sharyo.






The memo can be found at the following URL - https://www.illinois.gov/cpo/dot/Documents/Railcar%20Procurement%20Subcontractor.pdf


----------



## rickycourtney

While I’m happy to see that *something* is happening behind the scenes... it’s far from a perfect solution:

• Single-level railcars inherently will have fewer seats than a similarly equipped bi-level car. Replacing 130 bi-level cars with 130 single-level cars will mean a reduction in capacity. Nippon Sharyo would need to deliver at least 30 more coach cars to match the passenger carrying capacity.

• These single-level cars will not be compatible with California’s existing bi-level cars. Having two incompatible fleets will create complexity, which means additional costs.

• Unless some sort of novel approach is developed these “high floor” cars will take additional time to load at low platforms. That will add time to the schedules and increase costs.

None of these are deal breaking problems, but I hope that behind the scenes California is demanding some sort of compensation (like additional cars) to mitigate the impact of the switch.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## frequentflyer

rickycourtney said:


> While I’m happy to see that *something* is happening behind the scenes... it’s far from a perfect solution:
> 
> • Single-level railcars inherently will have fewer seats than a similarly equipped bi-level car. Replacing 130 bi-level cars with 130 single-level cars will mean a reduction in capacity. Nippon Sharyo would need to deliver at least 30 more coach cars to match the passenger carrying capacity.
> 
> • These single-level cars will not be compatible with California’s existing bi-level cars. Having two incompatible fleets will create complexity, which means additional costs.
> 
> • Unless some sort of novel approach is developed these “high floor” cars will take additional time to load at low platforms. That will add time to the schedules and increase costs.
> 
> None of these are deal breaking problems, but I hope that behind the scenes California is demanding some sort of compensation (like additional cars) to mitigate the impact of the switch.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


On another site, it was stated the midwest states were had cooled to the idea of bilevels and was only going bilevel because California wanted them. The midwest states may be just fine with single levels.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

This is effectively a compromise to get any cars at all. SCOA can declare bankruptcy in a situation like this, liquidate, give what little assets they have left (the money already given to them has surely been largely spent!) and leave us with no rail cars at considerable expense.

NS would never build another car here, because nobody would trust them, but that is basically already the case here anyway. By offering this substitution, SCOA is offering a fair compromise by delivering most of what it had agreed to, as opposed to nothing at all.


----------



## sechs

rickycourtney said:


> These single-level cars will not be compatible with California’s existing bi-level cars. Having two incompatible fleets will create complexity, which means additional costs.


California is already running single-level trainsets due to the need for capacity. It's not going to get any more complex.

One could argue that it would be worse to wait for bi-levels.


----------



## frequentflyer

Whatever legal maneuvering was done so that Siemens could possibly complete the contract, could it not be done to have Alstrom or whoever completed the previous California Cars to restart production? How long would it take to restart or recreate the supply chain?


----------



## PVD

California cars are a pretty old design, and were considered trouble prone. After their rebuild, they have been better. The next set of cars built which are the ones you are probably thinking of are actually the "Surfliners" They were rated for 90 mph, that would not be acceptable for many of the proposed uses, that would likely mean a major redesign in suspension, and braking, notwithstanding the whole supply issue for a GSI-70 type truck. HVAC and electrical would have to be all new based on "the march of time" Not sure if the frame and shell would need any major changes, I'm sure there are some folks who can shed some light on that. The whole project has been a disaster, but having the substitute cars built in California and not in NY at least softens the blow from a pr standpoint.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Siemens is currently tooled up to build single level intercity cars, as they are currently doing so for Brightlne. Anyone else would have to do extensive tooling and design work to manufacture such cars.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Let me go a bit further on that the Simmons car is currently being built in the United States for bright line. As such the tooling for this car is currently available for production. This vehicle has been built in Europe for many years and has been used in Russia and other places in all kinds of applications including sleeping dining etc. etc. etc. Simmons has proven something completely unique to the American market in the past few years namely that they can deliver cars on budget and on time. We should be happy that we are going to be getting a proven design in the form of the Viaggio comfort, and not some unproven design that has to be modified To meet current standards and has to have tooling set up for it and is going to take years and years and years for The ordering states to take delivery.

The older cars do not have production line set up and Alstom will have to start all over again in order to produce the bilevel cars that were produced for surfline or use a few years ago. On the other hand Simmons not only has been building Viaggio comfort cars in the United States for bright line, but has been producing the Viaggio Comfort in Europe for all kinds of different applications, and likely already has a large supply or base for producing things like windows doors interior components and so on.

Going the route of the Simmons Viaggio comfort cars will result in a rapid delivery of cars and likely completion of this order in something approaching a reasonable time frame. Going for the absolutely perfect idea of a bilevel superliner style intercity car as it was originally planned will result in cars being delivered many years from now if at all. Building a real car is not as simple as unrolling the designs from previous build in a factory somewhere in pointing to the workers and say build it. Their certifications tooling designs and all kinds of other complicated and difficult to produce things that will have to be happen before even car one starts being built . Aside for the inclusion of traps for low-level boarding the Simmons Viaggio comfort cars as produced for Bright line are already ready for US applications

I apologize for any in accuracies this is my first use of a voice type application and I have not really gone over the post carefully for corrections


----------



## Andrew

Green Maned Lion said:


> Let me go a bit further on that the Simmons car is currently being built in the United States for bright line. As such the tooling for this car is currently available for production. This vehicle has been built in Europe for many years and has been used in Russia and other places in all kinds of applications including sleeping dining etc. etc. etc. Simmons has proven something completely unique to the American market in the past few years namely that they can deliver cars on budget and on time. We should be happy that we are going to be getting a proven design in the form of the Viaggio comfort, and not some unproven design that has to be modified To meet current standards and has to have tooling set up for it and is going to take years and years and years for The ordering states to take delivery.
> 
> The older cars do not have production line set up and Alstom will have to start all over again in order to produce the bilevel cars that were produced for surfline or use a few years ago. On the other hand Simmons not only has been building Viaggio comfort cars in the United States for bright line, but has been producing the Viaggio Comfort in Europe for all kinds of different applications, and likely already has a large supply or base for producing things like windows doors interior components and so on.
> 
> Going the route of the Simmons Viaggio comfort cars will result in a rapid delivery of cars and likely completion of this order in something approaching a reasonable time frame. Going for the absolutely perfect idea of a bilevel superliner style intercity car as it was originally planned will result in cars being delivered many years from now if at all. Building a real car is not as simple as unrolling the designs from previous build in a factory somewhere in pointing to the workers and say build it. Their certifications tooling designs and all kinds of other complicated and difficult to produce things that will have to be happen before even car one starts being built . Aside for the inclusion of traps for low-level boarding the Simmons Viaggio comfort cars as produced for Bright line are already ready for US applications
> 
> I apologize for any in accuracies this is my first use of a voice type application and I have not really gone over the post carefully for corrections


Maybe Amtrak could go with ordering the Siemens' Viaggio cars if and when it decides to replace it's heavily used Amfleet coaches. (A business case should be made soon).


----------



## PVD

When and if Amtrak orders single level cars, it is likely to be a conventional RFP process in keeping with past and present Federal practice. A strong business case for car replacement already exists, funding sources are the major missing pieces.


----------



## jis

Some photos of the Siemens Viaggio derived Brightline cars that are mentioned above. I took these at the Brightline West Palm Beach maintenance facility on Saturday last while on a visit there with the FECRS.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10214953387373390&set=pcb.10214953390853477&type=3&theater

Hopefully these are visible to all. I think I did set the privacy setting properly to make it so.


----------



## frequentflyer

Green Maned Lion said:


> Let me go a bit further on that the Simmons car is currently being built in the United States for bright line. As such the tooling for this car is currently available for production. This vehicle has been built in Europe for many years and has been used in Russia and other places in all kinds of applications including sleeping dining etc. etc. etc. Simmons has proven something completely unique to the American market in the past few years namely that they can deliver cars on budget and on time. We should be happy that we are going to be getting a proven design in the form of the Viaggio comfort, and not some unproven design that has to be modified To meet current standards and has to have tooling set up for it and is going to take years and years and years for The ordering states to take delivery.
> 
> The older cars do not have production line set up and Alstom will have to start all over again in order to produce the bilevel cars that were produced for surfline or use a few years ago. On the other hand Simmons not only has been building Viaggio comfort cars in the United States for bright line, but has been producing the Viaggio Comfort in Europe for all kinds of different applications, and likely already has a large supply or base for producing things like windows doors interior components and so on.
> 
> Going the route of the Simmons Viaggio comfort cars will result in a rapid delivery of cars and likely completion of this order in something approaching a reasonable time frame. Going for the absolutely perfect idea of a bilevel superliner style intercity car as it was originally planned will result in cars being delivered many years from now if at all. Building a real car is not as simple as unrolling the designs from previous build in a factory somewhere in pointing to the workers and say build it. Their certifications tooling designs and all kinds of other complicated and difficult to produce things that will have to be happen before even car one starts being built . Aside for the inclusion of traps for low-level boarding the Simmons Viaggio comfort cars as produced for Bright line are already ready for US applications
> 
> I apologize for any in accuracies this is my first use of a voice type application and I have not really gone over the post carefully for corrections


Thank you for the informative post.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Excellent info Lion, thanks for sharing!


----------



## Green Maned Lion

PVD said:


> When and if Amtrak orders single level cars, it is likely to be a conventional RFP process in keeping with past and present Federal practice. A strong business case for car replacement already exists, funding sources are the major missing pieces.


sThis is true, however Seimens record of timely production and delivery can be highly weighted when considering RFPs. There have certainly been more slanted RFPs in the world, my hometown specifying a 116" wheelbase and 4.6 liter engines for police vehicle contracts... which made Ford's Crown Victoria Police Interceptor the only option.

Contracts don't have to be lowest bidder only, if you can articulate a good reason why. CAF, NS, Hyundai-Rotem and Kawasaki have all demonstrated a consistent pattern of a complete ineptitude in timely delivery of quality products. That is a perfectly acceptable reason for disqualification. Seimens has demonstrated that every rail item ordered from them in the past ten years has been delivered on budget, roughly on time, and with much less teething issues than any other roll out I can think of. That is an excellent reason for bidder preference.


----------



## PVD

That depends on what rules the contracts are covered under which is usually part of the funds source package. NY MTA often uses negotiated acquisitions after RFP evaluation rather than straight low bid for large purchases. It is much more difficult to do that under Federal procurement rules.


----------



## MisterUptempo

If I may, I am doing a copy/paste from a post I made at railroad.net regarding the procurement process for the bi-levels, which might help explain the process by which Sumitomo (and thus N-S) won the contract issued by Caltrans/IDOT. It was in response to a question regarding domestic content. I'd post the original question, but wouldn't do so without the poster's permission. Hope it helps.



> Ideally, the Caltrans/IDOT RFP was seeking 100% US-sourced components for the bi-levels, but it is a little more complex than that.
> 
> The bidding procedure, as far as I've been able to discern, went this way:
> 
> When the RFP was released, 7 railcar manufacturers formally expressed interest in bidding. They were as follows-
> 
> -Alstom
> -Bombardier
> -CAF
> -Hyundai Rotem
> -Kawasaki
> -Siemens
> -Sumitomo
> 
> Because California was the lead purchaser of the bi-levels, California procurement procedures had to be followed. As such, the bidders first had to submit a draft proposal to Caltrans/IDOT. Hyundai Rotem dropped out without submitting a draft proposal.
> 
> After draft proposals from the 6 remaining bidders were received, they were evaluated, and each bidder attended confidential meetings with Caltrans/IDOT to discuss compliance issues each bidder had that may affect their chances of winning the contract. After the meetings, all 6 bidders were invited to submit a final proposal for evaluation. Bombardier chose to drop out without submitting a final proposal.
> 
> Caltrans/IDOT received final proposals from the 5 survivors. Despite whatever compliance issues were discussed with Siemens and Alstom during the draft proposal evaluation meetings, Caltrans/IDOT determined that those issues had not been properly addressed. Siemens' and Alstom's bids were disqualified for non-compliance.
> 
> The 3 compliant bids were evaluated and scored between 0-100 points, with the highest scoring bid winning the contract.
> 
> The Technical Proposal portion of the bid was worth a maximum of 70 points. Points were assigned as follows-
> 
> Technical Elements 30 points
> Experience/References 7 points
> Project Management 8 points
> Schedule/Rate of Production 10 points
> Buy America - Domestic Content 10 points *
> Standardization 5 points
> Maximum Possible Score 70 points
> 
> *A Buy America Worksheet, which lists all major railcar components, was submitted as part of each bid. Each component on the worksheet was assigned a weighted point value. For every component that the bidder would source domestically, the point value for that component was added to their worksheet score. A maximum of 80 points could potentially be awarded from the worksheet, provided every component was US-sourced. (Final assembly of the railcars in the US *was *an absolute)
> 
> If a bidder had received 76-80 points on the worksheet, they'd receive the full 10 points for Buy America - Domestic Content in the Technical Proposal portion of the bid evaluation. 71-75 points on the worksheet won the bidder 7 points, 65-70 worksheet points won the bidder 3 points. A worksheet score of 64 or less resulted in 0 points.
> 
> The Buy America worksheet can be viewed in the RFP itself which can be found at the following URL-
> https://www.illinois.gov/cpo/dot/Documents/RailcarRFP.pdf
> In my .PDF reader, the form can be found on pages 47-49.
> 
> Any bidder with a score of at least 56 points (80% of total possible points) in its Technical Proposal would then have its Price Proposal evaluated and scored. Maximum possible score for the Price Proposal was 30 points.
> 
> This is what I meant by "more complex" earlier. 100% domestic content was not an absolute, but a greater ratio of American-built components resulted in a better overall score. A manufacturer could source everything offshore, get 0 domestic content points, then have to be nearly perfect in every other aspect of the Technical Proposal to move onto the Price Proposal.
> 
> The three compliant proposals were scored as follows-
> 
> Sumitomo - 90.369 out of a possible 100 points
> CAF - 86.463 out of a possible 100 points
> Kawasaki - 85.242 out of a possible 100 points
> 
> By points, Sumitomo won the bid.
> 
> ETA - Did Sumitomo's reported lowballing on the price win them enough points in the Price Proposal portion of the bid evaluation process, possibly compensating for a weaker Technical Proposal, to win the contract, or would Sumitomo have won anyway, but with a slimmer margin than they eventually had? Perhaps a FOIA request may be in order.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

I liked GML's response, but got a chuckle from the typo and am picturing a PosturePedic Coach and BeautyRest Sleeper...


----------



## jis

It is telling that three of the most reliable and most experienced in the US market, car builders dropped out. Would be interesting to see why Alstom and Siemens were reluctant to make the required compliance related changes. Mind you that the required compliance was to a specification that had never been validated apparently by any successful PoC. Seems suspiciously like the triumph of bureaucracy over common sense.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Green Maned Lion

While I dont disagree with you, as you pointed out, Alstom and Siemens both backed away saying they could not do it. One of the points of a reliable bidder is backing away from impossible, near impossible, or stupid work. Which would disqualify Bombardier with their $10 million dualmodes and MPV powercars.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

While I dont disagree with you, as you pointed out, Alstom and Siemens both backed away saying they could not do it. One of the points of a reliable bidder is backing away from impossible, near impossible, or stupid work. Which would disqualify Bombardier with their $10 million dualmodes and MLV powercars.


----------



## Steve4031

I enjoyed the photos jishnu. Thank you. These will be a huge improvement in the Midwest.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## PVD

Thank you for the photos. It is nice to see so many of the little things people mention incorporated into a real car. center armrests, flippable aisle armrests, better lighting, usb and power ports, bigger windows, grab handles for aisle travel, (lots more) as well as the under skin mechanical improvements in a modern car


----------



## Blackwolf

No idea how this will effect the Seimens sub-contract, but it seems that both Siemens and Alstrom's rail divisions are now merged.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/business/dealbook/siemens-alstom-rail-merger.html?mcubz=0


----------



## jis

The logo might change. Other than that it is unlikely that there will be any major change in ongoing projects. Going forward, there will be more sharing of technologies between the two arms of the new company. It takes a while for such things to settle down.


----------



## PRR 60

Blackwolf said:


> No idea how this will effect the Seimens sub-contract, but it seems that both Siemens and Alstrom's rail divisions are now merged.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/business/dealbook/siemens-alstom-rail-merger.html?mcubz=0


The two boards have approved the merger, but regulatory approval is still pending.


----------



## neroden

Alstom's logo will be the survivor.


----------



## frequentflyer

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20activities%20report%20-%20monthly%209-30-17.docx

Posted on Railroad.net the minutes from a recent meeting. Ok d the change to the weight spec for single level cars.


----------



## PaulM

frequentflyer said:


> http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20activities%20report%20-%20monthly%209-30-17.docx





> Storage space in Chicago is limited, until the P-42 locomotives are re-deployed by Amtrak.


Will this lead to a reduction of the frequency of engine failures on LD trains?


----------



## PVD

In a word "Maybe" If availability of more spares allows units to be properly fixed or not sent out when they are borderline, yes. If a rebuild plan were put into p[lace where we could sacrifice more units over longer periods of time, yes. If they conduct business as it has been conducted, no, they will just have more spares to use as protects when the failures continue to occur. Better availability of protects doesn't cut failures to a great degree, but it would probably cut down on rentals. If a unit were acting troublesome, I guess having one available for a swap before it quits completely is probably a plus.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Bad maintenance practices and lazy employees is not solved by replacing equipment. I think some of the problem is that when Chicago maintenance is sending a unit out on a train, and they think something might be wrong, they cant be *bleep*ed to go to the trouble of swapping it out, or seeing if there is a quick fix they could implement that would give it a better chance of completing its run.

I dont think Amtrak actually has a performance evaluation metric that grades maintenance employees on the number of okd equipment that seppukus itself on a run- but they should.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Green Maned Lion said:


> ...
> 
> ... okd equipment that seppukus itself on a run


seppuku synonym = harikiri


----------



## PVD

Don't assume it is always on the workers. Very often management fails to create an environment where quality is possible, and sometimes quantity over quality is emphasized. You need to do x jobs in a week, regardless of whether the tools, parts, or capability exists. That is a common business practice.


----------



## A Voice

While poor maintenance practices are certainly a problem at Amtrak, in fairness you also have to recognize the chronic shortages of equipment which don't allow sufficient time "in the shop". Lack of proper mechanical attention naturally leads to more locomotive failures, and a lack of sufficient spares inevitably results in marginal units being sent out lacking needed work which, while not critical, really ought to have been done first.


----------



## west point

Amtrak's MPR page A 4.10 lists loco 457 as its 4 year compressor overhaul being cancelled at LAX. Stated reason is to save money and return the loco 457 back to the bank. That may mean all locos in that series are leased and will return as soon as required maintenance is missed or a major failure happens. From the entry appears 457 does not have to be returned to bank in operable condition ?

Time to start a F-59 sighting thread.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

A Voice said:


> While poor maintenance practices are certainly a problem at Amtrak, in fairness you also have to recognize the chronic shortages of equipment which don't allow sufficient time "in the shop". Lack of proper mechanical attention naturally leads to more locomotive failures, and a lack of sufficient spares inevitably results in marginal units being sent out lacking needed work which, while not critical, really ought to have been done first.


Irrelevant. Chicago Maintenance has been the laughingstock of the NA rail industry for years. I heard a rumor that NJTs Meadowlands Maintenence Complex does better work... and in NJT they themselves call it the Mickey Mouse Club.


----------



## jis

GML, I agree.

BTW, I met a bunch of refugees from the MMC who left NJT because they just could not deal with MMC management any more, so they decamped to Brightline. They have done a beautiful job setting up the new maintenance facility at West Palm Beach in collaboration with Siemens.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## MisterUptempo

frequentflyer said:


> http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20activities%20report%20-%20monthly%209-30-17.docx
> 
> Posted on Railroad.net the minutes from a recent meeting. Ok d the change to the weight spec for single level cars.


To clarify, and to get the thread back on topic, Caltrans issued a Document Change Request to have the weight limitations changed on the 305-003 single-level specs. The change has not been approved. According to the minutes of the October 24, 2017 Executive Board meeting, the Technical Subcommittee will vote on the DCR in November. If approved, it and a series of newly filed DCRs move on to the Executive Board and a recently reconvened Single-Level Specification Review Panel. Approved changes will be included in a Revision B of the 305-003 specs.

A "renewed interest by several entities to use the 305-003 single level car specifications" was cited as the reason for restarting the review panel.







The minutes from the October 24, 2017 Executive Board meeting can be found here - http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20Exec%20Brd%20minutes%20-10-24-17%20DRAFT.doc


----------



## jis

All this mumbo jumbo sounds so familiar, having worked a significant portion of my professional career on standards





Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## neroden

Green Maned Lion said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> 
> While poor maintenance practices are certainly a problem at Amtrak, in fairness you also have to recognize the chronic shortages of equipment which don't allow sufficient time "in the shop". Lack of proper mechanical attention naturally leads to more locomotive failures, and a lack of sufficient spares inevitably results in marginal units being sent out lacking needed work which, while not critical, really ought to have been done first.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. Chicago Maintenance has been the laughingstock of the NA rail industry for years.
Click to expand...

Decades. The stories date back before Penn Central to the Pennsy. Arguably Amtrak should never have absorbed that particular Pennsy shop.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Are the Midwest cars going to have a similar interior to those operated by Brightline? Although I still prefer a bi-level design, I was rather impressed with the Irish Rail Enterprise service on Tuesday (on my first European trip), which appears similar inside to a Brightline coach.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## jis

Unknown. Even the Siemens substitution is not a given thing. It has not been finalized yet and it may yet not happen. Or so we learned yesterday.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Steve4031

jis said:


> Unknown. Even the Siemens substitution is not a given thing. It has not been finalized yet and it may yet not happen. Or so we learned yesterday.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


Jis, what did you learn yesterday?

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jis

Steve4031 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unknown. Even the Siemens substitution is not a given thing. It has not been finalized yet and it may yet not happen. Or so we learned yesterday.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
> 
> 
> 
> Jis, what did you learn yesterday?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Click to expand...

That nothing is decided yet as final decision and it is pretty much up in the air. We were told by at least one (non-Amtrak) person who is knowledgable about what is actually going on but cannot give any details without endangering his source, that at present there is no reliable news to report. 

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## A Voice

jis said:


> Steve4031 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unknown. Even the Siemens substitution is not a given thing. It has not been finalized yet and it may yet not happen. Or so we learned yesterday.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
> 
> 
> 
> Jis, what did you learn yesterday?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That nothing is decided yet as final decision and it is pretty much up in the air. We were told by at least one (non-Amtrak) person who is knowledgable about what is actually going on but cannot give any details without endangering his source, that at present there is no reliable news to report.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Click to expand...

Interesting. I had assumed the uncertainty stemmed just from the fact nothing is yet finalized, not that there were really other options on the table.


----------



## MisterUptempo

The minutes from the November 2, 2017 meeting of the Section 305 Technical Subcommittee were just released. You can find them here - http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20tech%20sc%20minutes%2011-2-17%20draft.doc

I'm just going to copy/paste the minutes that pertain to the 305-003 weight change, and also note that the current 305-003 weight limitations for single-level railcars are as follows-

Coach: 104,000lbs.

Cab/Baggage: 108,000lbs.

Cafe/Lounge: 111,000lbs.


----------



## PRR 60

They can't approve using the Siemens cars unless they meet the NGEC specs. Since the Siemens cars do not and cannot meet the spec, the easy way out is change the spec to reflect the car. So, roughly a 20% increase in allowable weight. I have to wonder how the original weight limits were developed if the real world now shows those values to have been grossly low? A WAG maybe?

And, just reading the discussion, even this process appears a bit arbitrary. The 5800 pound reduction (from the originally proposed increase) seems to be have been approved because they "like" it. Gee, I hope there is more behind that number than finding a value that everyone "liked."


----------



## Green Maned Lion

More like a SWAG.


----------



## jis

Welcome to the world of arbitrary standards creation [emoji57]

And even after a standard is put in place arbitrary exceptions follow. Did you know that an exception allowed by FRA to the PTC requirements removed the requirement for knowing where the tail of the train is? [emoji849][emoji33]

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## CraigDK

http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/pr/2017/prs/17pr117.html

It would appear that single level cars will happen....


----------



## nti1094

CraigDK said:


> http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/pr/2017/prs/17pr117.html
> 
> It would appear that single level cars will happen....


What a disaster! Totally incompatible with the current equipment and infrastructure in CA, a big reduction in capacity and bicycle space, and we lose one of the best parts of the American railroad experience... The joys and comfort of riding in a Superliner (prone of the modern CA decedents). Even if this is a stopgap measure (like the 2 comet trainsets) the reality is without putting out another request for builders, it will be many years before any possible bi-level orders let alone cars are made.

The only hope I suppose is the eventual request from Amtrak to begin replacing the aging Superliner 1 cars that might come in a few years if funding is available. Perhaps CA could tag on to that order with a modified car like their current ones.

I don't understand why they didn't just ask Alsthom to dust off the designs from the Surfliner cars. It's not like they put it back out to bid... Sumitomo could just as easily asked them to bail them out instead of Siemens. don't get me wrong, Siemens makes fine equipment. But the order was for a comfortable spacious bi-level car designed for platforms 8" above the rail head.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Agent

Since this thread was about the Nippon-Sharyo bi-levels, should the Siemens coach order be covered in a new thread now that they seem to be officially happening?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

God, stop with the thread splitting. The organic conversation we should have!


----------



## A Voice

CraigDK said:


> http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/pr/2017/prs/17pr117.html
> 
> It would appear that single level cars will happen....


Thanks for the link.

Of particular interest is the timeline. There is no way we could have seen bi-levels for quite a while, so this is good news:

_The first cars are expected to begin production within the year._


----------



## jis

Green Maned Lion said:


> God, stop with the thread splitting. The organic conversation we should have!


Yeah, just fix the title of the thread to “Sumitomo Contract for 130 Cars” or some such to reflect reality [emoji57]

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## GiantsFan

nti1094 said:


> CraigDK said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/pr/2017/prs/17pr117.html
> 
> It would appear that single level cars will happen....
> 
> 
> 
> What a disaster! Totally incompatible with the current equipment and infrastructure in CA, a big reduction in capacity and bicycle space, and we lose one of the best parts of the American railroad experience... The joys and comfort of riding in a Superliner (prone of the modern CA decedents). Even if this is a stopgap measure (like the 2 comet trainsets) the reality is without putting out another request for builders, it will be many years before any possible bi-level orders let alone cars are made.
> 
> The only hope I suppose is the eventual request from Amtrak to begin replacing the aging Superliner 1 cars that might come in a few years if funding is available. Perhaps CA could tag on to that order with a modified car like their current ones.
> 
> I don't understand why they didn't just ask Alsthom to dust off the designs from the Surfliner cars. It's not like they put it back out to bid... Sumitomo could just as easily asked them to bail them out instead of Siemens. don't get me wrong, Siemens makes fine equipment. But the order was for a comfortable spacious bi-level car designed for platforms 8" above the rail head.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Click to expand...

I agree, this is a disaster ... there will be stairs to enter leading to longer dwell times, and there will be less seats per train.

+1, would have loved to see more of the surfliner cars made if they needed a stopgap until NEW cars were designed.



A Voice said:


> CraigDK said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/pr/2017/prs/17pr117.html
> 
> It would appear that single level cars will happen....
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> Of particular interest is the timeline. There is no way we could have seen bi-levels for quite a while, so this is good news:
> 
> _The first cars are expected to begin production within the year._
Click to expand...

I rather wait for equipment that works for our system than high floor cars that would be a downgrade any which way you look at it.


----------



## Ziv

I found this part surprising:

" The first cars are expected to begin production within the year. "

It is kind of surprising that they will start production of any sort within a year. If production starts within a year, we might see new cars relatively quickly. "Relatively" being a somewhat elastic word...


----------



## Train_Freak

Ziv said:


> I found this part surprising:
> 
> " The first cars are expected to begin production within the year. "
> 
> It is kind of surprising that they will start production of any sort within a year. If production starts within a year, we might see new cars relatively quickly. "Relatively" being a somewhat elastic word...


 How I take the phrase “within the year” is before 2017 ends, which is even more impressive. Only 52 days remaining!

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jis

They have a production line in place that just complete the Phase 1 order from Brightline. The California order will require only a few minor modifications. So it is no surprise that they can begin production almost immediately. The Brightline Phase 2 order is not due until 2019.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## PRR 60

jis said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> God, stop with the thread splitting. The organic conversation we should have!
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, just fix the title of the thread to “Sumitomo Contract for 130 Cars” or some such to reflect reality [emoji57]
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Click to expand...

Good tip. Done.


----------



## PRR 60

They're taking bets in Las Vegas. Will Siemens deliver the last of their 137 cars before CAF fulfills the Viewliner order? Even money?


----------



## neroden

CraigDK said:


> http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/pr/2017/prs/17pr117.html
> 
> It would appear that single level cars will happen....


They're going to have to start raising platforms.

The ADA requirements don't magically go away because of manufacturing issues, and nothing the state or federal government does can avoid the private lawsuits. They can put portable lifts everywhere, but they'll have to schedule good long station dwells for them, and there are already serious questions about whether they're actually nondiscriminatory...

Maybe Caltrans can do a swap with Caltrain or something, since Caltrain is *already* planning to raise their platforms. Or put the bilevels on the Surfliner route and move all the single-levels to the northern routes on freight-owned track where they can't raise the platforms due to freight operator interference.

The Midwest is stuck: they will simply have to raise their platforms. It would make the most sense to start with Michigan where the line has no freight.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

High level platforms do not restrict normal freight, only over dimensional, like high wide .

some of those lads can be moved by road or barge.


----------



## jis

There is one bizarre coincidence that occurred to me....

Gene Skorpowski, who was instrumental in setting up the Capitol Corridor, and the general setup of Amtrak California, then moved on to Florida to set up Brightline, including participating hands on in negotiating the design of the Brightline rolling stock with Siemens.

Coincidentally, the delivery of Phase I of the Brightline order was just completed by Siemens as the N-S contract collapsed. This appears to have caused the Gene instigated car design for Brightline to now get adopted for the previous Gene instigated Amtrak California world!

Incidentally, Gene was there at the Rail Nation shindig, and I had a nice conversation with him about Brightline. He has retired back in July, but still visits Brightline-land from time to time.


----------



## A Voice

GiantsFan said:


> I rather wait for equipment that works for our system than high floor cars that would be a downgrade any which way you look at it.


I'm not sure how its a downgrade when most of the equipment on the routes these cars will replace is already single-level, with comparable passenger capacity. Only in California are bi-level cars to be found, even there not exclusively, and while they were the entity seeking a bi-level design in the first place, California needs more cars now.



neroden said:


> They're going to have to start raising platforms.
> 
> The ADA requirements don't magically go away because of manufacturing issues, and nothing the state or federal government does can avoid the private lawsuits. They can put portable lifts everywhere, but they'll have to schedule good long station dwells for them, and there are already serious questions about whether they're actually nondiscriminatory...
> 
> Maybe Caltrans can do a swap with Caltrain or something, since Caltrain is *already* planning to raise their platforms. Or put the bilevels on the Surfliner route and move all the single-levels to the northern routes on freight-owned track where they can't raise the platforms due to freight operator interference.
> 
> The Midwest is stuck: they will simply have to raise their platforms. It would make the most sense to start with Michigan where the line has no freight.


Not going to happen; High platforms along the freight shared Midwest tracks are a pipe dream at best. If ADA accessibility were really such a major stumbling block, they could have called up Talgo instead of Siemens. They didn't.


----------



## Steve4031

Won’t these new cars have automatic doors and steps? If I understand correctly they aren't as high as the horizon and amfleet cars.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jis

Steve4031 said:


> Won’t these new cars have automatic doors and steps? If I understand correctly they aren't as high as the horizon and amfleet cars.


I don't know the specifics of these cars. But the Brightline cars are standard floor 4' above rail, cars using 4' above rail top platforms.

The Brightline cars have remotely operated doors with automatically deployed bridge plates. Brightline cars do not have traps. they Theya re designed to operate only from high level platform stations.

Of course, these cars will have traps. I have no idea what will be remotely operable and to what extent the steps will be self deploying. Most European cars appear to have steps that deploy automatically outside the car as the doors open. I guess we will have to wait to see what the details of that will be.


----------



## Steve4031

I rode equipment in Europewith boarding from low level platforms. The doors usually opened automatically with the push of a button from the inside or outside. The stairs did not open like the traps that we know. They were just there. The climb up from the platform did not seem as severe as it is here. Think turboliner or talgo.

When I first rode I these types of cars I was hesitant about pushing the button and waited for doors to open automatically. An impatient local would reach around and push the button. Then I would do so too.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

neroden said:


> CraigDK said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/pr/2017/prs/17pr117.html
> 
> It would appear that single level cars will happen....
> 
> 
> 
> They're going to have to start raising platforms.
> The ADA requirements don't magically go away because of manufacturing issues, and nothing the state or federal government does can avoid the private lawsuits. They can put portable lifts everywhere, but they'll have to schedule good long station dwells for them, and there are already serious questions about whether they're actually nondiscriminatory...
> 
> Maybe Caltrans can do a swap with Caltrain or something, since Caltrain is *already* planning to raise their platforms. Or put the bilevels on the Surfliner route and move all the single-levels to the northern routes on freight-owned track where they can't raise the platforms due to freight operator interference.
> 
> The Midwest is stuck: they will simply have to raise their platforms. It would make the most sense to start with Michigan where the line has no freight.
Click to expand...

I believe stations that have Superliner trains can continue without high level platforms. All of the Illinois stations with the exception of two on the Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg at least have Superliner trains operating through them, so if they begin stopping at those stations a high-level platform could be avoided. The same could be said for Wisconsin if the EB began stopping at Milwaukee Airport and Sturtevant. However, the Michigan Services and Missouri River Runner (with the exception of St. Louis and Kansas City) do not have LD trains operating through their stations. As of now, the Pere Marquette is the only of these trains to regularly use Superliners. I wouldn't be surprised if Amtrak found a way to use more Superliners in the Midwest (especially with the delay in the Gulf Coast service) and allocated the current Pere Marquette set strategically. For example, two sets could be used to cover a train on the Wolverine and Missouri River Runner with only the Pere Marquette and Blue Water east of Battle Creek stations requiring high-level platforms.
Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## jis

neroden said:


> The ADA requirements don't magically go away because of manufacturing issues, and nothing the state or federal government does can avoid the private lawsuits. They can put portable lifts everywhere, but they'll have to schedule good long station dwells for them, and there are already serious questions about whether they're actually nondiscriminatory...


It will be interesting to see what their plans are and how things will unfold.



> Maybe Caltrans can do a swap with Caltrain or something, since Caltrain is *already* planning to raise their platforms. Or put the bilevels on the Surfliner route and move all the single-levels to the northern routes on freight-owned track where they can't raise the platforms due to freight operator interference.


CalTrain does not require trailer cars. They are getting EMUs. So that is just a pipe dream that won't come to pass



> The Midwest is stuck: they will simply have to raise their platforms. It would make the most sense to start with Michigan where the line has no freight.


If they are on a freight line they probably will get away with doing nothing. On exclusive passenger lines or where it is feasible to put in gauntlet tracks or loops, slowly moving to HL platforms would make the most sense. Chicago union Station would be an interesting issue.

At least these cars will now be compatible with California HSR's high level platform stations.


----------



## PerRock

For the ADA requirements, we'll probably start seeing more split-level stations, like what Ann Arbor has. Just hopefully the staff use a boarding procedure that makes sense, last time I boarded at ARB, they were forcing everyone to enter via one door on the elevated platform & instructing people to walk back down the train X# of cars.

peter


----------



## frequentflyer

And didn't the midwest states start to reconsider the need for bilevels? This is a good outcome. The politicians get shiny new cars to go with the shiny new Locomotives.

I am curious what pax cars does will this free up for Amtrak?

To those who stated you rather wait for a new bilevel design, one must have a lot of faith that the funding will still be in effect six to seven years from now.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

frequentflyer said:


> And didn't the midwest states start to reconsider the need for bilevels? This is a good outcome. The politicians get shiny new cars to go with the shiny new Locomotives.
> 
> I am curious what pax cars does will this free up for Amtrak?
> 
> To those who stated you rather wait for a new bilevel design, one must have a lot of faith that the funding will still be in effect six to seven years from now.


Bi-levels would have been a better fit due to the higher capacity and low platforms of the Midwest, but I agree that single-levels in the near future are better than bi-levels many years away. These cars will free up Horizons, which may eventually be modified as single-level long distance cars.


----------



## jis

And if in the future a bi-level order were to materialize, these cars could easily be cascaded to Amtrak LD or even Corridor service with perhaps some minor change in furnishing.


----------



## jis

From the _Trains Magazine_ on this subject:

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/11/09-siemens-midwest


----------



## nti1094

Doesn't the bridge plate design on Brightline exist because the platforms are set back further than normal 4' platforms to allow for wide freight loading gauge? It was either that or install and use gauntlet tracks like one might find on the NJT Raritan line or the SMART training Marin and Sonoma.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jis

nti1094 said:


> Doesn't the bridge plate design on Brightline exist because the platforms are set back further than normal 4' platforms to allow for wide freight loading gauge? It was either that or install and use gauntlet tracks like one might find on the NJT Raritan line or the SMART training Marin and Sonoma.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


No. The Brightline platforms are not set back further than usual. The Bridge Plates are there to simply not have any gaps at any doors and making all doors ADA accessible without requiring deployment of additional Bridge Plates by train crew.

Brightline track layout isolates the platform tracks from freight operations. Brightline stations at Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach have separate freight bypass tracks around the station. All future stations will too. There will normally be no freight operation through platform tracks. No freight train will ever go to the Miami Central or Orlando Airport stations. The future station in Cocoa-Rockledge is also planned to have a freight bypass track.


----------



## CraigDK

No one has yet mentioned that California is getting an additional 7 cars while the Midwest States are only receiving the original base number. I am wondering if the Midwest States might have got something else in this revised deal... maybe Sumitomo is (at least partially) on the hook for station modifications to meet ADA requirements.


----------



## keelhauled

jis said:


> From the _Trains Magazine_ on this subject:
> 
> http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/11/09-siemens-midwest


In classic Trains fashion, they copied and pasted the press release. Sometimes I wonder why I pay them.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

You think lifts are burdensome? Than explain to me how NJT continues to order high-level busses, the only property to do so. I heard they had to pay more for the things.


----------



## Anthony V

The ADA requirements can be met with the single level cars by building ramps on a portion of every platform these trains will use as shown in the picture below of the Music City Star Riverfront Station in Nashville, TN. The bridge plates on the Siemens cars will rest on the level part of the ramps, allowing disabled access.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I thought music city star used ex-Metra gallery cars.


----------



## me_little_me

jis said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> God, stop with the thread splitting. The organic conversation we should have!
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, just fix the title of the thread to “Sumitomo Contract for 130 Cars” or some such to reflect reality [emoji57]
Click to expand...

The admins, like the California Department of Transportation, just rewrote the title and all is well


----------



## A Voice

Green Maned Lion said:


> I thought music city star used ex-Metra gallery cars.


It does. Former Amtrak F40PH diesels and ex-Metra Gallery Cars.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Whattathey need a mini high for?


----------



## Train_Freak

Green Maned Lion said:


> Whattathey need a mini high for?


Gallery Cars are essentially a regular single level car with a extra reduced height floor added, with a single middle entrance.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## PerRock

Train_Freak said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whattathey need a mini high for?
> 
> 
> 
> Gallery Cars are essentially a regular single level car with a extra reduced height floor added, with a single middle entrance.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Click to expand...

The doors on Gallery cars are also the traps. You have to climb up stairs inside to get to the car floor. This picture should illustrate:


----------



## CSXfoamer1997

Why would Siemens not want to build bi-levels? Bi-levels would mean more seating capacity per train. Plus, trains wouldn't have to be as long.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

... because nobody has bi-levels that meet NGECs absurd requirements.

The advantage to these single level Viaggio Comforts is we will get them fast with no engineering or horsepockey required.


----------



## PVD

If you can't meet the terms of a contract, don't sign it. Bidders knew what the specs were.


----------



## PerRock

PVD said:


> If you can't meet the terms of a contract, don't sign it. Bidders knew what the specs were.


NS-S thought they could... Almost all the other manufacturers, didn't think it was possible.

peter


----------



## Green Maned Lion

NS apparently made the mistake of assuming that when the NGEC turned out those specs, they had ensured they were feasible. Anyway, that is water under the bridge. This is the best we are gonna get. Frankly, some of you people are completely unreasonable in your expectations and desires for outcomes from this schonda.

New equipment will be coming as quickly as possible. Take the win already. I was convinced they were going to declare bankruptcy and walk away from our fustercluck of a market like a sane company, with no cars at all, and no remunerations.


----------



## jis

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Why would Siemens not want to build bi-levels? Bi-levels would mean more seating capacity per train. Plus, trains wouldn't have to be as long.


Being a company that has a good financial track record, and not one to satisfy all whims of clueless customers at any cost, they would tend to stay away from wishful thinking projects with low to negative financial returns for them. that is why.





And BTW, just in case someone insists on double decker, there is a twin double-decker in the Viaggio family. But that won't happen in a timely fashion.


----------



## neroden

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CraigDK said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/pr/2017/prs/17pr117.html
> 
> It would appear that single level cars will happen....
> 
> 
> 
> They're going to have to start raising platforms.
> The ADA requirements don't magically go away because of manufacturing issues, and nothing the state or federal government does can avoid the private lawsuits. They can put portable lifts everywhere, but they'll have to schedule good long station dwells for them, and there are already serious questions about whether they're actually nondiscriminatory...
> 
> Maybe Caltrans can do a swap with Caltrain or something, since Caltrain is *already* planning to raise their platforms. Or put the bilevels on the Surfliner route and move all the single-levels to the northern routes on freight-owned track where they can't raise the platforms due to freight operator interference.
> 
> The Midwest is stuck: they will simply have to raise their platforms. It would make the most sense to start with Michigan where the line has no freight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe stations that have Superliner trains can continue without high level platforms. All of the Illinois stations with the exception of two on the Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg at least have Superliner trains operating through them, so if they begin stopping at those stations a high-level platform could be avoided. The same could be said for Wisconsin if the EB began stopping at Milwaukee Airport and Sturtevant. However, the Michigan Services and Missouri River Runner (with the exception of St. Louis and Kansas City) do not have LD trains operating through their stations. As of now, the Pere Marquette is the only of these trains to regularly use Superliners. I wouldn't be surprised if Amtrak found a way to use more Superliners in the Midwest (especially with the delay in the Gulf Coast service) and allocated the current Pere Marquette set strategically. For example, two sets could be used to cover a train on the Wolverine and Missouri River Runner with only the Pere Marquette and Blue Water east of Battle Creek stations requiring high-level platforms.
> Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app
Click to expand...

You're basically correct. But it's not like Amtrak has a ready supply of Superliners. In addition, this looks like evasion of the intent of the law, which is never good, and retains all the boarding delays associated with stairs and manual lifts.

Perhaps most likely is that we'll see widespread deployment of the "Ann Arbor" retractable high level platform. Which is OK, for now. I personally think high-level platforms are advisable everywhere east of Chicago for compatibility anyway. (Chicago itself can manage to have some high-level and some low-level platforms.) Who knows, California may standardize on high-level platforms too; there seems to be a curious trend in that direction.


----------



## jis

I agree with neroden. Ideally one would eat the additional cost and put in high level platforms using separate loops or where space is restricted, gauntelet track in the eastern region.

As for what will happen in California, who knows? Specially if Caltrain decides to go with standard European EMUs with 55cm high platforms, that will throw an interesting additional twist into the mix. Also what floor height does CalHSR plan to use? So many choices and so many ways to screw the pooch!


----------



## PRR 60

There is a seemingly knowledgeable post at Trainorders that says the Viaggio USA design permits a car to have a low-level seating area located between the trucks with a door in this section for accessible boarding from low-level platforms. According to that report, one car of each trainset will have this design. If true, this car will provide the same level of accessibility as the lower level of a bi-level car without the need for any special lifts or mini-high-level platforms.


----------



## Ryan

That sounds like the "Viaggio Light" cars depicted in this PDF:

https://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/SiteCollectionDocuments/en/rail-solutions/passenger-coaches/viaggio-imagebroschuere-en.pdf

It claims that it can accommodate platform heights of 350-1060mm.


----------



## jis

Good catch!

This indeed provides a neat means for mixing and matching boarding requirements with a mix of high platform and low platform cars.

Needless to say, there is no NGEC Specification that this car would comply with, unless they can do some rapid footwork to copy stuff from Siemens specs into the NGEC Spec





If all this works out, the case for using Viaggio derivatives for future Amfleet replacement becomes even more persuasive, specially in terms of ability to deliver quickly and within budget.


----------



## bretton88

jis said:


> Good catch!
> 
> This indeed provides a neat means for mixing and matching boarding requirements with a mix of high platform and low platform cars.
> 
> Needless to say, there is no NGEC Specification that this car would comply with, unless they can do some rapid footwork to copy stuff from Siemens specs into the NGEC Spec [emoji14]
> 
> If all this works out, the case for using Viaggio derivatives for future Amfleet replacement becomes even more persuasive, specially in rems of ability to deliver quickly and within budget.


At this point I'm not even sure if the NGEC spec even matters, they'll just get it close and get a variance so it complies with the spec. The focus now is to get cars off the assembly line.
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## jis

bretton88 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good catch!
> 
> This indeed provides a neat means for mixing and matching boarding requirements with a mix of high platform and low platform cars.
> 
> Needless to say, there is no NGEC Specification that this car would comply with, unless they can do some rapid footwork to copy stuff from Siemens specs into the NGEC Spec [emoji14]
> 
> If all this works out, the case for using Viaggio derivatives for future Amfleet replacement becomes even more persuasive, specially in rems of ability to deliver quickly and within budget.
> 
> 
> 
> At this point I'm not even sure if the NGEC spec even matters, they'll just get it close and get a variance so it complies with the spec. The focus now is to get cars off the assembly line.
> Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Theoretically I suppose it matters since the original RFP said something about NGEC compliance, though that was to a different NGEC spec. I was just parroting something that PRR60 said a few posts back regarding the quick weight specification change thing that was made to the single level spec.

Of course I agree that the most important thing is get cars that pass the relevant FRA standards get delivered ASAP and at reasonable price.


----------



## frequentflyer

Ryan said:


> That sounds like the "Viaggio Light" cars depicted in this PDF:
> 
> https://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/SiteCollectionDocuments/en/rail-solutions/passenger-coaches/viaggio-imagebroschuere-en.pdf
> 
> It claims that it can accommodate platform heights of 350-1060mm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Screen Shot 2017-11-10 at 1.01.20 PM.png


This car makes no sense, why dip down the middle if there is no upper level? All of this just for ADA? And the Siemens Bilevel is not a inter city car but a commuter car, not designed for the work the states and Amtrak are going to use them for.


----------



## jis

frequentflyer said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like the "Viaggio Light" cars depicted in this PDF:
> 
> https://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/SiteCollectionDocuments/en/rail-solutions/passenger-coaches/viaggio-imagebroschuere-en.pdf
> 
> It claims that it can accommodate platform heights of 350-1060mm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Screen Shot 2017-11-10 at 1.01.20 PM.png
> 
> 
> 
> This car makes no sense, why dip down the middle if there is no upper level? All of this just for ADA? And the Siemens Bilevel is not a inter city car but a commuter car, not designed for the work the states and Amtrak are going to use them for.
Click to expand...

For operation in low platform environment. They are targeted primarily towards branch line operations and in configurations like tram-trains. They appear to make a lot of sense to those that have the money to shell out to buy them, and I suspect that is mostly what matters in Siemens' decision making, and not what a few of us might think at AU.





Siemens' bi-levels are not being considered for anything at all, so they are irrelevant at present. However, what furnishing one puts in a basic bi-level shell would be the thing that determines what they are suitable to use for rather than just the shape of the shell, I should think.

Meanwhile, the Midwest High Speed Rail Association has come out strongly in favor of single level cars for the Midwest:

https://www.midwesthsr.org/new-midwest-trains-will-be-modern-single-level-siemens-design


----------



## Ryan

Given that they operate outside the USA, the answer to "all of this just for ADA" would be a resounding "No".

The car makes perfect sense for people that care about level boarding at low platforms, for which there seems to be a decent market given the conversation upthread.


----------



## frequentflyer

jis said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like the "Viaggio Light" cars depicted in this PDF:
> 
> https://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/SiteCollectionDocuments/en/rail-solutions/passenger-coaches/viaggio-imagebroschuere-en.pdf
> 
> It claims that it can accommodate platform heights of 350-1060mm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Screen Shot 2017-11-10 at 1.01.20 PM.png
> 
> 
> 
> This car makes no sense, why dip down the middle if there is no upper level? All of this just for ADA? And the Siemens Bilevel is not a inter city car but a commuter car, not designed for the work the states and Amtrak are going to use them for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For operation in low platform environment. They are targeted primarily towards branch line operations and in configurations like tram-trains. They appear to make a lot of sense to those that have the money to shell out to buy them, and I suspect that is mostly what matters in Siemens' decision making, and not what a few of us might think at AU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siemens' bi-levels are not being considered for anything at all, so they are irrelevant at present. However, what furnishing one puts in a basic bi-level shell would be the thing that determines what they are suitable to use for rather than just the shape of the shell, I should think.
> 
> Meanwhile, the Midwest High Speed Rail Association has come out strongly in favor of single level cars for the Midwest:
> 
> https://www.midwesthsr.org/new-midwest-trains-will-be-modern-single-level-siemens-design
Click to expand...

I read that blog and from a financial point of view it makes sense which is scary. Yes, a Superliner moves more people per car than say a Viewliner. But which car is in production now and which one is not? Which car would have a lower cost per unit? I love Superliners love the quiet ride on the top level, but Amtrak has a numbers guy as a CEO, and Senator Chuck Schumer would love a 5-8 year production run (read Jobs) of Viewliners in upstate New York. Yes, it just a blog, and one person's opinion but from the numbers side it makes sense.


----------



## jis

He is not talking of acquiring Schumer's Viewliners. He is talking of acquiring California's Brightliner, mostly.

Notice that there is no mention of Viewliner anywhere. Only mention of Siemens and Brightline.

As I mentioned in a post above, furnishing of the interior can be done whichever way one wants.

Siemens has already delivered Sleepers based on this shell to the Russians.

A classic 10-6 in this shell would not be too bad actually, IMHO.


----------



## Blackwolf

jis said:


> He is not talking of acquiring Schumer's Viewliners. He is talking of acquiring California's Brightliner, mostly.
> 
> Notice that there is no mention of Viewliner anywhere. Only mention of Siemens and Brightline.
> 
> As I mentioned in a post above, furnishing of the interior can be done whichever way one wants.
> 
> Siemens has already delivered Sleepers based on this shell to the Russians.
> 
> *A classic 10-6 in this shell would not be too bad actually, IMHO.*


This.


----------



## Steve4031

Most people would like a sightseer lounge type car. I️f seimans cars and viewliner cars could run together a viewliner lounge might be workable.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jis

I am almost certain that the cars delivered as part of the California contract will not have the spacious wide gangways with level floor that the Brightline cars have. Their gangways will be degraded to be compatible with regular Amtrak and Commuter cars, so that they will work seamlessly with older stuff.


----------



## CraigDK

Nothing new in the written portion of this article in IRJ.

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/north-america/siemens-in-nippon-sharyo-out-for-multi-state-coach-order.html?channel=535

But check out the rendition of an apparent cab car that looks like they grafted a Charger cab onto a coach....


----------



## frequentflyer

jis said:


> He is not talking of acquiring Schumer's Viewliners. He is talking of acquiring California's Brightliner, mostly.
> 
> Notice that there is no mention of Viewliner anywhere. Only mention of Siemens and Brightline.
> 
> As I mentioned in a post above, furnishing of the interior can be done whichever way one wants.
> 
> Siemens has already delivered Sleepers based on this shell to the Russians.
> 
> A classic 10-6 in this shell would not be too bad actually, IMHO.


I was referring to the assumption of replacing Superliners with single level cars. The only other Amtrak car designed to its specs in production right now is the Viewliner. Designed for eastern LD trains could, it could be used on western LD trains. Not saying its going to happen but its a possibility. Unless one thinks a Siemens Viaggario shell fitted with coach, sleeper, baggage and dinner configuration is a cheaper alternative.


----------



## jis

I am almost certain that a Viaggio derivative would be cheaper than one shot order for a special manufacturing line.

But either way even if such an order is placed with Schumer's outfit, it will be the 22nd century before we will see the whole thing delivered., at the rate they are going.

maybe Shcumer's Alstom may have better luck, and besides Alstom and Siemens will be the same outfit in a little bit anyway. I would not hold my breath for CAF getting another order.


----------



## frequentflyer

jis said:


> I am almost certain that a Viaggio derivative would be cheaper than one shot order for a special manufacturing line.
> 
> *But either way even if such an order is placed with Schumer's outfit, it will be the 22nd century before we will see the whole thing delivered., at the rate they are going.*
> 
> maybe Shcumer's Alstom may have better luck, and besides Alstom and Siemens will be the same outfit in a little bit anyway. I would not hold my breath for CAF getting another order.










True, so true.


----------



## west point

The mention of using the old Superliner -1 or 2s design brings up the question ----Would either of those designs meet the 800,000 # gorilla ?


----------



## Steve4031

I’ve seen some gorilla sized passengers.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jis

west point said:


> The mention of using the old Superliner -1 or 2s design brings up the question ----Would either of those designs meet the 800,000 # gorilla ?


The 800,000lb standard predates the time when they were built. They have already passed the test. 

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## CCC1007

jis said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mention of using the old Superliner -1 or 2s design brings up the question ----Would either of those designs meet the 800,000 # gorilla ?
> 
> 
> 
> The 800,000lb standard predates the time when they were built. They have already passed the test.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Click to expand...

One could argue that they passed with flying colors on multiple occasions throughout the years.


----------



## CCC1007

CraigDK said:


> Nothing new in the written portion of this article in IRJ.
> 
> http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/north-america/siemens-in-nippon-sharyo-out-for-multi-state-coach-order.html?channel=535
> 
> But check out the rendition of an apparent cab car that looks like they grafted a Charger cab onto a coach....


My guess is that the fra will request that cab cars be for crew and baggage only.


----------



## Train_Freak

CCC1007 said:


> CraigDK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing new in the written portion of this article in IRJ.
> 
> http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/north-america/siemens-in-nippon-sharyo-out-for-multi-state-coach-order.html?channel=535
> 
> But check out the rendition of an apparent cab car that looks like they grafted a Charger cab onto a coach....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that the fra will request that cab cars be for crew and baggage only.
Click to expand...

I sincerely doubt that, as there are cab cars already in service at 125 m.p.h. in the northeast that do not have the baggage compartment between the passengers and the cab, as well being around 50 years old too.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## CCC1007

Train_Freak said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CraigDK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing new in the written portion of this article in IRJ.
> 
> http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/north-america/siemens-in-nippon-sharyo-out-for-multi-state-coach-order.html?channel=535
> 
> But check out the rendition of an apparent cab car that looks like they grafted a Charger cab onto a coach....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that the fra will request that cab cars be for crew and baggage only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I sincerely doubt that, as there are cab cars already in service at 125 m.p.h. in the northeast that do not have the baggage compartment between the passengers and the cab, as well being around 50 years old too.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Click to expand...

Well, that is exactly what the FRA told Amtrak when the Acela was supposed to be set up as a push pull set with a single power car and on the other end was supposed to be a cab coach. Since then, the only cab coaches that have entered Amtrak service have been the bilevels used in California service.


----------



## Train_Freak

Acela Express trainsets are Tier II complaint for a top speed of 150/160 M.P.H., while these cars are only designed to be Tier I complaint at a top speed of 125 M.P.H. So these two trains are in totally different safety classes. The RFP for the Acela replacements were also supposed to be EMUs so I believe that whatever problems that the FRA might of had are no longer valid.


----------



## jis

The RFP for Acela II was not as specific about the train configuration as you appear to believe.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Dutchrailnut

FRA rules do prohibit tier II to have occupied (passenger) capability on either front and rear of train.

It also prohibits a break in side sill of cars so step's /traps are not possible.

But non of cars ordered for these states are planned to be run above 125 mph.


----------



## jis

The Acela II order though is required to be compliant with Tier III. No one will ever build another piece of equipment based on the Tier II spec. The RFP asked the responders to propose train configuration. Alstom chose to propose the well tried and tested classic TGV configuration with a Pendolino derived tilt system added.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Anderson

Agreed on the 10-6 (or a 14-2-1 ;-)).

I am wondering if Amtrak might not work with some states to coordinate further orders. I know the Amfleet Is are stretched a bit thin and some medium-term plans probably won't happen without at least _some _additional capacity (notably those in Vermont, Virginia, and North Carolina). In the meantime, if I want to daydream I could point out that in the next decade or so there will probably be at least two, possibly 3-4, maintenance locations for these cars in Florida which would make "de-rationalizing" some of the Silver Service operations a lot easier.


----------



## jis

As some seem to be going on and on about cab cars based on artist’s rendering which appears to be merely applying a hypothetical Caltrans livery on a RailJet, has anyone seen anything official on car type mix? Or are we just off in our usual la-la land based on very little concrete information? A citation to an official missive on car mix anyone?

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## CSXfoamer1997

So... most likely will the single level cars replace the old Comet's on the San Joaquin route, am I correct?


----------



## Steve4031

Yes.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## west point

The point is that the designs for SL-1s & 2s may not be able to meet the 800,000 # gorilla for additional cars built on their designs. Believe SL-1s & -2s did not have to meet the gorilla ? + the crumple zones are changed.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> The point is that the designs for SL-1s & 2s may not be able to meet the 800,000 # gorilla for additional cars built on their designs. Believe SL-1s & -2s did not have to meet the gorilla ?


They did. That is the point we have to now somehow get through your skull [emoji12]

The 800,000lb buff strength requirement was put in place around 1945. So since then all interchangeable passenger rolling stock has passed that test before they were allowed to carry passengers, except a few that were allowed to do so under specific waivers. The Superliners did not have any waiver.



> + the crumple zones are changed.


The new crumple zone specifications are specific to cars that use the new Collision Energy Management specifications. The Superliner 1s and 2s don't use those specifications so they are of no relevance to them. Essentially the CEM stuff has been layered on the existing spec without invalidating the existing spec. Instead of applying the non-deformation requirement to the entire car, in case of those that use the CEM part of the spec, the non-deformation requirement applies to the designated passenger carrying capsule in the car. It does not say that a car built to the older spec of non-deformation for the entire car is not allowed.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Blackwolf

west point said:


> The point is that the designs for SL-1s & 2s may not be able to meet the 800,000 # gorilla for additional cars built on their designs. Believe SL-1s & -2s did not have to meet the gorilla ? + the crumple zones are changed.


The Superliners were tested to the 800,000 lb standard. They passed. There is no "may not" in the equation, they didn't have any issue. This is true for the original Pullman cars, as well as the later Alstrom cars The N-S prototype that failed was not a Superliner; it was a double-level car that looked like a Superliner, but that's where the similarities ended.

There are no questions on the capabilities of the Superliners.


----------



## jamess

Can someone remind me, for California, how many of these care are intended to replace older stock, versus adding new capacity?

Also, how many train sets does the San Joaquin use?

I wonder if part of the reasoning here is that the high level trains are intended to operate on the new High Speed Rail alignment "temporarily" (for 10 years).

The San Joaquins people are planning on moving the Madera station (again), to be adjacent to the new HSR tracks. I think it is very likely that the new trains will service Bakersfield, Fresno, and Madera on the new high level tracks, and then enter the existing freight tracks on their way north. This would reduce the time penalty of using high floor trains on low floor track, because two of the busiest stations would be at the right platform height.

This would also allow the Pacific Line to remain all low-floor.


----------



## neroden

For California nearly all of the cars are intended as new capacity. The exception is that the existing Amfleet and Horizon consists were going to be replaced. But that was partly because replacing them with bilevels would speed boarding. :-( So at this point it's quite possible they will all be new capacity.

By contrast, the Midwest order is mostly replacement of existing cars leased from Amtrak, with expansion for a couple of planned service expansions (Moline, increased service on a couple of other lines).


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

neroden said:


> For California nearly all of the cars are intended as new capacity. The exception is that the existing Amfleet and Horizon consists were going to be replaced. But that was partly because replacing them with bilevels would speed boarding. :-( So at this point it's quite possible they will all be new capacity.
> 
> By contrast, the Midwest order is mostly replacement of existing cars leased from Amtrak, with expansion for a couple of planned service expansions (Moline, increased service on a couple of other lines).


Is it known which other lines will see increased service? I believe the Pere Marquette and Blue Water should be prioritized, as such short routes with only one daily frequency on each severely hinders ridership.
Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## neroden

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> For California nearly all of the cars are intended as new capacity. The exception is that the existing Amfleet and Horizon consists were going to be replaced. But that was partly because replacing them with bilevels would speed boarding. :-( So at this point it's quite possible they will all be new capacity.
> 
> By contrast, the Midwest order is mostly replacement of existing cars leased from Amtrak, with expansion for a couple of planned service expansions (Moline, increased service on a couple of other lines).
> 
> 
> 
> Is it known which other lines will see increased service? I believe the Pere Marquette and Blue Water should be prioritized, as such short routes with only one daily frequency on each severely hinders ridership.
> Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app
Click to expand...

IIRC, Chicago-St Louis for sure because they have promised and funded another frequency. Unfortunately all the others are dependent on uncertain state funding so, no nobody knows which other lines will see increased service -- probably none of them in the short term. :-( Really depends who wins the legislative and gubernatorial elections in Michigan, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Illinois.


----------



## A Voice

Apparently questions over funding for this little debacle remain (from Trains News Wire):



> "Since the ARRA funding deadline has passed FRA is unable to confirm the funding sources each state intends to use to complete the passenger car procurement," the FRA representative wrote in an email.


http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/11/09-siemens-midwest


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

neroden said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> For California nearly all of the cars are intended as new capacity. The exception is that the existing Amfleet and Horizon consists were going to be replaced. But that was partly because replacing them with bilevels would speed boarding. :-( So at this point it's quite possible they will all be new capacity.
> 
> By contrast, the Midwest order is mostly replacement of existing cars leased from Amtrak, with expansion for a couple of planned service expansions (Moline, increased service on a couple of other lines).
> 
> 
> 
> Is it known which other lines will see increased service? I believe the Pere Marquette and Blue Water should be prioritized, as such short routes with only one daily frequency on each severely hinders ridership.
> Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IIRC, Chicago-St Louis for sure because they have promised and funded another frequency. Unfortunately all the others are dependent on uncertain state funding so, no nobody knows which other lines will see increased service -- probably none of them in the short term. :-( Really depends who wins the legislative and gubernatorial elections in Michigan, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Illinois.
Click to expand...

Yeah, politics is obviously an issue. I am hopeful, however, as little significant progress has been made by the new administration so I would be surprised if most states didn't make at least somewhat of a turn back in the other direction in 2018. Besides the operational funding, how much start-up funding and time would likely be required before a second Pere Marquette (or another similar route) could be implemented? 
Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## PerRock

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> For California nearly all of the cars are intended as new capacity. The exception is that the existing Amfleet and Horizon consists were going to be replaced. But that was partly because replacing them with bilevels would speed boarding. :-( So at this point it's quite possible they will all be new capacity.
> 
> By contrast, the Midwest order is mostly replacement of existing cars leased from Amtrak, with expansion for a couple of planned service expansions (Moline, increased service on a couple of other lines).
> 
> 
> 
> Is it known which other lines will see increased service? I believe the Pere Marquette and Blue Water should be prioritized, as such short routes with only one daily frequency on each severely hinders ridership.
> Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app
Click to expand...

None of the Michigan Service trains will see any increase in the frequency of trains until Indiana gets sorted out. Currently there isn't any more space on the Norfolk Southern tracks across Indiana. There are some projects in the works to ease the congestion there.

Amtrak's holiday trains on that section essentially take the relief spot on the tracks, so any problem that happens when those trains are running means some train gets cancelled (could be an NS train, could be an Amtrak train).

MDOT does want to increase the frequency of the Wolverine (at least). So once the line is improved you should see an added trip on that line.

peter


----------



## amtrakpass

I would guess the hold-up on additional Michigan frequencies is the state of Michigan not wanting to pay what Amtrak is asking or not having the funding. If they are willing and have funding,then perhaps NS is just stonewalling. The Indiana projects with new interlockings and 3rd main track are complete and in-service. In fact, PTC is in effect between Elkhart and Chicago at least for a few trains in a testing phase. I know people like to talk about big delays between Chicago and Porter but I have not seen anything major as far as Amtrak delays on the NS Chicago Line since the auto-router meltdown which has been several years ago now. Of course Amtrak might take a hit on occassion like the stuck draw-bridge the other day or delays on the day you happen to take the train but there is plenty of capacity for more Amtrak on this line on a day to day basis right now. Hoping for a daytime service to and from Cleveland or Pittsburgh myself in addition to more Michigan service. Hoping these nice new Siemens cars will be a harbinger of increased midwestern service!


----------



## neroden

MDOT is, last I checked, blaming the FRA for the lack of progress on "South of the Lake". But bluntly I expect MDOT to do nothing much for increased service unless a friendly *state* administration is elected.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

neroden said:


> MDOT is, last I checked, blaming the FRA for the lack of progress on "South of the Lake".


The website for the "South of the Lake" project went dark. I had it bookmarked, but I should have saved the content ... anyway.

Now some "volunteer" has set up housekeeping at the old site. Michigan didn't even renew the domain name. LOL.

The imposter has done a pretty good job imitating the officialese style with his site -- except for lacking maps, figures, dates and timelines, or other useful info.


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

Railroad.net had a link to redenderings of some of the proposed Siemens single-level passenger cars. Here's the link:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ctcbooks/2017/1217/Presentations/Tab52_Single_level_Railcar.pdf


----------



## frequentflyer

DSS&A said:


> Hi,
> 
> Railroad.net had a link to redenderings of some of the proposed Siemens single-level passenger cars. Here's the link:
> 
> http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ctcbooks/2017/1217/Presentations/Tab52_Single_level_Railcar.pdf


The Cab car question is answered.


----------



## jis

The interior looks very much like the Brightline cars.

Too bad they did not give the numbers of individual types of cars - Coach, Business and Cab/Coach.

The Cab car looks like they glue on a SC-44 safety cab structure onto one end of the car, with quite a bit of crumple zone behind it and ahead of the passenger compartment.


----------



## Blackwolf

jis said:


> The interior looks very much like the Brightline cars.
> 
> Too bad they did not give the numbers of individual types of cars - Coach, Business and Cab/Coach.
> 
> The Cab car looks like they glue on a SC-44 safety cab structure onto one end of the car, with quite a bit of crumple zone behind it and ahead of the passenger compartment.


Indeed. Wonder if they're planning on taking a page from the Cascades Talgos and have a baggage storage area and/or HEP generator in the space behind the cab. Since its just an artist render, one cannot say for sure the louvering and machinery indicated above and just behind the cab really means much. Or the large door placed in the space between the cab and passenger windows.


----------



## Eric S

jis said:


> The interior looks very much like the Brightline cars.
> 
> Too bad they did not give the numbers of individual types of cars - Coach, Business and Cab/Coach.
> 
> The Cab car looks like they glue on a SC-44 safety cab structure onto one end of the car, with quite a bit of crumple zone behind it and ahead of the passenger compartment.


I saw that breakdown somewhere in the last few days. Perhaps in the most recent issue of TRAINS magazine? I'll try to dig it up later today.


----------



## A Voice

jis said:


> The interior looks very much like the Brightline cars.
> 
> Too bad they did not give the numbers of individual types of cars - Coach, Business and Cab/Coach.
> 
> The Cab car looks like they glue on a SC-44 safety cab structure onto one end of the car, with quite a bit of crumple zone behind it and ahead of the passenger compartment.


Fifty-four coaches and seventeen each of cafe and coach/business class cars for the Midwest (no cab cars). Thirty-five coaches, seven cafe, and seven cab cars for California.

The thought that strikes me is that we're now talking _five years_ for delivery of the last car of a current production model from an open, existing facility.


----------



## west point

5 years ? Does that mean that there are no available building slots for some Amtrak units ? Let us hope that is not the case ? If so its back to CAF for Amtrak ? There may be Brightline option slots involved as well ?


----------



## jis

I bet the five years includes slots for the Caltrans/IDOT order plus the Birghtline top up (a total of some 8 or 10 consists with ten cars each built including the current 5 consists of 4 cars each, if I recall correctly) that is due in the 2020 timeframe. I am sure if Amtrak places a substantial order they will figure out some way to deliver it. Afterall, by then Siemens Mobility and Alstom will be the same company too, most likely.

My suspicion is that some of the stretching out to 2023 may have to do with the ability of the Midwest states to line up funding for this, since the Feddiebux with time limitations are probably gone.


----------



## A Voice

jis said:


> My suspicion is that some of the stretching out to 2023 may have to do with the ability of the Midwest states to line up funding for this, since the Feddiebux with time limitations are probably gone.


I would tend to suspect the same, as I've seen it reported that the Midwest cars are, indeed, being constructed with state funds.

I have serious doubts that Brightline will ever actually need all its cars, but I digress.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I dunno; I was fairly certain Brightline wasn't going to ever turn a wheel, and it has already done that. So while I will never hold my breath for a rail start up, I am more optimistic than for most.


----------



## jis

I think AAF will take delivery of everything and then simply start a side business of equipment leasing should they not need some of it for the time being. Since they have been seriously talking about service to Jacksonville of late, I suspect they will eventually need them. And meanwhile there will always be some state operation that could do with a few high quality cars and engines instead of trying to glue together stuff from the 1950's.

heck New York State could do wonders with say four or five six or seven car sets., albeit with regular AAR couplers in the end cars.


----------



## Blackwolf

The break-down of which California routes see the new single-level cars is one I have interest in seeing.

If, as I suspect, that the vast majority go:


to the very early/late Capitol Corridor runs
the San Luis Obispo - San Diego Surfliner run
all but a handful of San Joaquin trains.
I see that the manufacturer lies alongside the San Joaquin route as a very big benefit because it is only a matter of when, an not even slightly if, there is an incident where one of these new Siemens cab cars crashes into a farm truck or car in the central valley. Having the factory _right there_ means repair will be much more expedient.


----------



## CCC1007

Blackwolf said:


> The break-down of which California routes see the new single-level cars is one I have interest in seeing.
> 
> If, as I suspect, that the vast majority go:
> 
> 
> to the very early/late Capitol Corridor runs
> the San Luis Obispo - San Diego Surfliner run
> all but a handful of San Joaquin trains.
> I see that the manufacturer lies alongside the San Joaquin route as a very big benefit because it is only a matter of when, an not even slightly if, there is an incident where one of these new Siemens cab cars crashes into a farm truck or car in the central valley. Having the factory _right there_ means repair will be much more expedient.


I think the single level cars should find a home on the San Joaquin trains, especially when they move to the new CAHSR line that is under construction. If I recall correctly, that was one of the stipulations of the federal funds for the high speed project, that Amtrak shift to the line until it is operating with true high speed trains.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato

Unless CA has a contract with Siemens to do wreck repairs, it wont really matter how close they are to the plant. Even if they did, theres no guarantee that the manufacturing plant is where theyd do the repair.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato said:


> Unless CA has a contract with Siemens to do wreck repairs, it wont really matter how close they are to the plant. Even if they did, theres no guarantee that the manufacturing plant is where theyd do the repair.


Ok. Totally random, off-topic, but why is the board deleting my apostrophe to make the contraction of they would (theyd)? Because I am nit-picky about it, I tried editing it twice and it keeps on being removed.


----------



## Ryan

Don’t think it’s the board...


----------



## Hotblack Desiato

What else could it be? No matter how many times I put the apostrophe in, and visually verify that it’s still there (no poorly functioning autocorrect to take it away when I look away), and click submit with the apostrophe correctly there, when the post appears on the board, it’s gone.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Its the fact that your device, proabavly an iPhone, auto corrects to a directional apostrophe which the board doesnt recognize.


----------



## Ryan

Given that your second post and mine both contain them (as does this one), it wouldn’t appear to be the board.

Did you use the same browser/computer for both posts?


----------



## Hotblack Desiato

It’s fine if I’m writing “it’s” or “I’m.” But in the specific contraction of “they would” (they’d), it wouldn’t let me keep the apostrophe. Let’s see how it works in this post.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato

Of course they’d let it work that time.


----------



## Ryan

The post you’re complaining about was also missing one in “there’s”, which they’d also allow to work.


----------



## jis

Must have been those missing apostrophes that caused the buff strength test to fail


----------



## Trogdor

jis said:


> Must have been those missing apostrophes that caused the buff strength test to fail


Or maybe along those lines, perhaps someone read 800,000 lbs and thought the comma was a decimal point (in French, the comma and decimal point have opposite meanings, so it would be written as 800.000) and only build the cars to 800 pounds of strength.


----------



## randomguy65

The cars are ADA compliant with a 2+2 setup... those seats are gonna be TINY.

As someone who rides the San Joaquins, I already hate them.


----------



## sechs

CCC1007 said:


> Blackwolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> The break-down of which California routes see the new single-level cars is one I have interest in seeing.
> 
> If, as I suspect, that the vast majority go:
> 
> 
> to the very early/late Capitol Corridor runs
> the San Luis Obispo - San Diego Surfliner run
> all but a handful of San Joaquin trains.
> I see that the manufacturer lies alongside the San Joaquin route as a very big benefit because it is only a matter of when, an not even slightly if, there is an incident where one of these new Siemens cab cars crashes into a farm truck or car in the central valley. Having the factory _right there_ means repair will be much more expedient.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the single level cars should find a home on the San Joaquin trains, especially when they move to the new CAHSR line that is under construction. If I recall correctly, that was one of the stipulations of the federal funds for the high speed project, that Amtrak shift to the line until it is operating with true high speed trains.
Click to expand...

This is an amazing bit of nonsense.

They are unlikely to split the cars up. I would guess that they'll all be in the northern fleet, because the Pacific Surfliner needs the capacity more, and, let's face it, is a higher-priority corridor.

Whether they stay limited to specific runs has to do with scheduling, but, with the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquins sharing trainsets, I doubt that they'd tie their hands this way. Even with the overhead cat, they should be able to run bilevels with no problems on the CAHSR line.

And, as mentioned, Siemens won't be doing wreck repairs. The location of their plant won't have any bearing on anything.


----------



## Blackwolf

sechs said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackwolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> The break-down of which California routes see the new single-level cars is one I have interest in seeing.
> 
> If, as I suspect, that the vast majority go:
> 
> 
> to the very early/late Capitol Corridor runs
> the San Luis Obispo - San Diego Surfliner run
> all but a handful of San Joaquin trains.
> I see that the manufacturer lies alongside the San Joaquin route as a very big benefit because it is only a matter of when, an not even slightly if, there is an incident where one of these new Siemens cab cars crashes into a farm truck or car in the central valley. Having the factory _right there_ means repair will be much more expedient.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the single level cars should find a home on the San Joaquin trains, especially when they move to the new CAHSR line that is under construction. If I recall correctly, that was one of the stipulations of the federal funds for the high speed project, that Amtrak shift to the line until it is operating with true high speed trains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is an amazing bit of nonsense.
> 
> They are unlikely to split the cars up. I would guess that they'll all be in the northern fleet, because the Pacific Surfliner needs the capacity more, and, let's face it, is a higher-priority corridor.
> 
> Whether they stay limited to specific runs has to do with scheduling, but, with the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquins sharing trainsets, I doubt that they'd tie their hands this way. Even with the overhead cat, they should be able to run bilevels with no problems on the CAHSR line.
> 
> And, as mentioned, Siemens won't be doing wreck repairs. The location of their plant won't have any bearing on anything.
Click to expand...

Most things on AU are utter nonsense. But I'll take amazing as a complement.





We will find out in about a year how the first Siemens cars are allocated for routes. And I suspect we'll be at least to POTUS #47 before a single revenue train runs on the CAHSR alignment.

But I'm just a Government employee, they don't tell me nothin'!


----------



## Ngotwalt

Single level cars will go to Nor Cal routes, Nor Cal bilevels will go to Surfline. Why? CAHSR will have high or higher level platforms (40”) that likely won’t be compatible with bilevel cars. So technically yes, there will be no problem running bilevels on CAHSR, there will be problems getting people on and off them. There are several very good planning documents out there, and they are estimating CAHSR platforms at 40” or so. NEC is 48”. Basically unless California plans two have two sets of platforms at each station, I suspect single level cars go North.

Cheers,

Nick


----------



## TiBike

From the latest draft/update of the Capitol Corridor's business plan (posted yesterday):



> During the procurement and production of the Charger locomotives, Caltrans was also managing a multi- state contract for the procurement and production of new bi-level passenger rail cars in late 2012. At least twenty (20) of these bi-level cars would be added to the NorCal IPR Fleet. The funding is comprised of the federal ARRA program and Prop 1B funds. Unfortunately, the subcontractor for these new passenger rail cars was unable to meet the performance specifications and requirements as stipulated in the design plans, thereby incurring a significant delay to this project. However, recent procurement actions by Caltrans have been able to salvage the project whereby a rail car manufacturing facility has been retained to produce single-level passenger rail cars, rather than bi-level cars. As of this writing, the managers of the three CA IPR routes (including the CCJPA) are meeting with Caltrans to determine the requirements and costs associated with the operation of these single-level passenger rail cars on each of these 3 CA IPR routes, including, but not limited to, maintenance expenses, upgrades station platforms and facilities, onboard bike/luggage storage, and wheelchair access.
> 
> The eventual arrival of added rolling stock is currently unknown, yet expansion to/from Roseville associated with a completed phase one Sacramento to Roseville 3rd Track project will require the infusion of new rolling stock. Unfortunately, there is doubt at this time that new rolling stock will arrive by 2020.



https://www.capitolcorridor.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CCJPABizPlanFY1819_publicdraft_01-19-2018.pdf


----------



## WoodyinNYC

TiBike said:


> From the latest draft/update of the Capitol Corridor's business plan (posted yesterday):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the procurement and production of the Charger locomotives, Caltrans was also managing a multi- state contract for the procurement and production of new bi-level passenger rail cars in late 2012. At least twenty (20) of these bi-level cars would be added to the NorCal IPR Fleet. The funding is comprised of the federal ARRA program and Prop 1B funds. Unfortunately, the subcontractor for these new passenger rail cars was unable to meet the performance specifications and requirements as stipulated in the design plans, thereby incurring a significant delay to this project. However, recent procurement actions by Caltrans have been able to salvage the project whereby a rail car manufacturing facility has been retained to produce single-level passenger rail cars, rather than bi-level cars. As of this writing, the managers of the three CA IPR routes (including the CCJPA) are meeting with Caltrans to determine the requirements and costs associated with the operation of these single-level passenger rail cars on each of these 3 CA IPR routes, including, but not limited to, maintenance expenses, upgrades station platforms and facilities, onboard bike/luggage storage, and wheelchair access.
> 
> The eventual arrival of added rolling stock is currently unknown, yet expansion to/from Roseville associated with a completed phase one Sacramento to Roseville 3rd Track project will require the infusion of new rolling stock. Unfortunately, there is doubt at this time that new rolling stock will arrive by 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.capitolcorridor.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CCJPABizPlanFY1819_publicdraft_01-19-2018.pdf
Click to expand...

Phrased in a very diplomatic way, with no naming and no blaming. LOL. But informative.


----------



## Blackwolf

WoodyinNYC said:


> TiBike said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the latest draft/update of the Capitol Corridor's business plan (posted yesterday):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the procurement and production of the Charger locomotives, Caltrans was also managing a multi- state contract for the procurement and production of new bi-level passenger rail cars in late 2012. At least twenty (20) of these bi-level cars would be added to the NorCal IPR Fleet. The funding is comprised of the federal ARRA program and Prop 1B funds. Unfortunately, the subcontractor for these new passenger rail cars was unable to meet the performance specifications and requirements as stipulated in the design plans, thereby incurring a significant delay to this project. However, recent procurement actions by Caltrans have been able to salvage the project whereby a rail car manufacturing facility has been retained to produce single-level passenger rail cars, rather than bi-level cars. As of this writing, the managers of the three CA IPR routes (including the CCJPA) are meeting with Caltrans to determine the requirements and costs associated with the operation of these single-level passenger rail cars on each of these 3 CA IPR routes, including, but not limited to, maintenance expenses, upgrades station platforms and facilities, onboard bike/luggage storage, and wheelchair access.
> 
> The eventual arrival of added rolling stock is currently unknown, yet expansion to/from Roseville associated with a completed phase one Sacramento to Roseville 3rd Track project will require the infusion of new rolling stock. Unfortunately, there is doubt at this time that new rolling stock will arrive by 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.capitolcorridor.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CCJPABizPlanFY1819_publicdraft_01-19-2018.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Phrased in a very diplomatic way, with no naming and no blaming. LOL. But informative.
Click to expand...

Indeed, extremely informative. And not just about the cars, but projects such as the complete shift (and closure of two stations as a result, with the addition of a single replacement for both) of all passenger trains off the Niles Subdivision and onto the Coast Subdivision between Newark and Oakland (the same route the Coast Starlight takes.) It won't be a true "passenger main" but darn close to it, with UP moving all of their through freight traffic to Niles and leaving the Coast as local-only freight territory. Pretty big step, and one that makes the illusive Dumbarton Railbridge plan more plausible in the far future.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Did we ever see the final cost per car?

For the single level cars vs the Bilevel cars?


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Blackwolf said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TiBike said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the latest draft/update of the Capitol Corridor's business plan (posted yesterday):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the procurement and production of the Charger locomotives, Caltrans was also managing a multi- state contract for the procurement and production of new bi-level passenger rail cars in late 2012. At least twenty (20) of these bi-level cars would be added to the NorCal IPR Fleet. The funding is comprised of the federal ARRA program and Prop 1B funds. Unfortunately, the subcontractor for these new passenger rail cars was unable to meet the performance specifications and requirements as stipulated in the design plans, thereby incurring a significant delay to this project. However, recent procurement actions by Caltrans have been able to salvage the project whereby a rail car manufacturing facility has been retained to produce single-level passenger rail cars, rather than bi-level cars. As of this writing, the managers of the three CA IPR routes (including the CCJPA) are meeting with Caltrans to determine the requirements and costs associated with the operation of these single-level passenger rail cars on each of these 3 CA IPR routes, including, but not limited to, maintenance expenses, upgrades station platforms and facilities, onboard bike/luggage storage, and wheelchair access.
> 
> The eventual arrival of added rolling stock is currently unknown, yet expansion to/from Roseville associated with a completed phase one Sacramento to Roseville 3rd Track project will require the infusion of new rolling stock. Unfortunately, there is doubt at this time that new rolling stock will arrive by 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.capitolcorridor.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CCJPABizPlanFY1819_publicdraft_01-19-2018.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Phrased in a very diplomatic way, with no naming and no blaming. LOL. But informative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... projects such as the complete shift ... of all passenger trains off the Niles Subdivision and onto the Coast Subdivision ... (the same route the Coast Starlight takes.) It won't be a true "passenger main" but darn close to it, with UP moving all of their through freight traffic to Niles and leaving the Coast as local-only freight territory. Pretty big step ...
Click to expand...




> Realligning the Capitol Corridor service route from its existing Niles Subdivision to the Coast Subdivision will reduce travel time between Oakland to San Jose by *13 minutes*.


That's a big step ahead for the Capitol Corridor trains. About $300 million ahead. So when they get the funding in place ...

(I'm sorry to see you say the _Coast Starlight _already uses the shorter route. I'd been planning an earlier arrival in L.A. until I saw that. LOL.)


----------



## jis

Yeah the Coast Starlight has always used the Coast Sub. Only on very rare occasions it has used the Niles Sub routing as a diversion when the Coast Sub was blocked for some reason.


----------



## Anthony V

Is the Niles Sub the route over Tehachapi Pass?


----------



## keelhauled

Anthony V said:


> Is the Niles Sub the route over Tehachapi Pass?


It is a short inland section of track near the south end of the bay. Hayward and Fremont stations are on it. The Coast Starlight stops at neither and takes the roughly parallel and slightly shorter Coast Sub closer to the bay.


----------



## Trogdor

https://goo.gl/maps/VZeF7B2x5aP2

https://goo.gl/maps/QmFMhMbP9dv

These links should show where the Coast and Niles subs split. In the top link, both lines come from the northwest, with Capitol Corridor trains heading straight through while the Starlight curves a bit to the southwest before heading southeast again. In the second link, the Starlight comes from the northwest while the Capitol Corridor comes from the northeast, and both merge to go southeast.


----------



## Blackwolf

WoodyinNYC said:


> Blackwolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.capitolcorridor.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CCJPABizPlanFY1819_publicdraft_01-19-2018.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Realligning the Capitol Corridor service route from its existing Niles Subdivision to the Coast Subdivision will reduce travel time between Oakland to San Jose by *13 minutes*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a big step ahead for the Capitol Corridor trains. About $300 million ahead. So when they get the funding in place ...
> 
> (I'm sorry to see you say the _Coast Starlight _already uses the shorter route. I'd been planning an earlier arrival in L.A. until I saw that. LOL.)
Click to expand...

I believe the vast majority of that cost is the new inter-modal station in Newark, and not the actual rerouting. The way the phrasing of the project is written, Union Pacific may be the biggest proponent of the move since it simplifies their operations in for dispatching. No more fast passenger trains to schedule around slow moving freights coming and going through Niles (except for ACE of course.)


----------



## Green Maned Lion

The Station in Newark is quite old and is a horde of the Iron bound district.


----------



## jis

Green Maned Lion said:


> The Station in Newark is quite old and is a horde of the Iron bound district.


Newark CA, not Newark NJ, is the one relevant to this thread I think. 

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

jis said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Station in Newark is quite old and is a horde of the Iron bound district.
> 
> 
> 
> Newark CA, not Newark NJ, is the one relevant to this thread I think.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Click to expand...

Yes, just as I was about to comment on how confusing it may be for some people that there will soon be 4 Newark stations (NJ-Penn, NJ-Airport, DE, and CA).


----------



## PVD

Enough horror stories of passengers ending up in Las Vegas NM to go around. A few weeks ago a passenger in London booked San Jose CA instead of San Jose Costa Rica for their dream vacation. They were at Heathrow when their friends called from Gatwick asking where they were. Ouch.


----------



## jamess

Will these trains have reclining seats?

I detest that the California Cars do not.


----------



## jis

jamess said:


> Will these trains have reclining seats?
> 
> I detest that the California Cars do not.


If they use the same seats as used by Brightline, then they will have reclining seats. If they use something else then all bets are off.


----------



## chrsjrcj

The Brightline seats are actually made by Kustom Seating Unlimited, seperate from Siemens (although it wasnt the first project they worked together on).

www.kustomseating.com


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

Production of the single-level passenger cars is scheduled to begin this summer according to the Next Generation Corridoor Equipment Pool Committee's January Report.

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20activities%20report%20-%20monthly%201-31-18.docx


----------



## PSRfan

jis said:


> GML, I agree.
> 
> BTW, I met a bunch of refugees from the MMC who left NJT because they just could not deal with MMC management any more, so they decamped to Brightline. They have done a beautiful job setting up the new maintenance facility at West Palm Beach in collaboration with Siemens.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


I find this highly surprising, since all the NJT people who went to brightline were managers there (including the CMO who was the top dog at MMC). Is he saying he was someone who could not be dealt with? Perhaps he had trouble dealing with a union shop, a problem he will not have at Brightline since maintenance is being handled by Siemens itslf with non union utility workers.


----------



## neroden

PSRfan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> GML, I agree.
> 
> BTW, I met a bunch of refugees from the MMC who left NJT because they just could not deal with MMC management any more, so they decamped to Brightline. They have done a beautiful job setting up the new maintenance facility at West Palm Beach in collaboration with Siemens.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
> 
> 
> 
> I find this highly surprising, since all the NJT people who went to brightline were managers there (including the CMO who was the top dog at MMC). Is he saying he was someone who could not be dealt with? Perhaps he had trouble dealing with a union shop, a problem he will not have at Brightline since maintenance is being handled by Siemens itslf with non union utility workers.
Click to expand...

I will just say that there are union shops and there are union shops -- it's not really about the union, it's about the culture which has developed on the particular location. Some locations develop a good culture, others develop a bad culture. I feel sorry for anyone who has to deal with the LIRR maintenance "worker" union, which have developed *quite* a reputation after a lot of documented skiving off on the job (which they defended). By contrast, I'd happily work with anyone in my local electrician's union, which has a reputation for responsibility and quality work. The same is true on the management side -- sometimes a management culture can turn completely toxic (with WMATA probably being an example) and sometimes it's a joy to be around.

You can even have 80% of the same people and have a completely different corporate culture if the 10% who are setting the *tone* are different.


----------



## jis

Neroden makes a very good point which I wholly agree with, Having lived through corporate culture hell from time to time and then watch the exact same people when hived off in a divestiture and placed in a different more progressive and productive corporate culture, including the VP level folks, behave completely differently and much more reasonably, I can attest to the validity of his observation from personal experience. So I do not find the case of the NJT refugees at Brightline surprising at all. All that it says to me is that NJT work environment is toxic.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

*extremely toxic.


----------



## neroden

It's too bad: I have to wonder who is setting the cultural tone at NJT. It might simply be Chris Christie.


----------



## jrud

In addition to Brightline, the other close relative of these trainsets appears to be the Austria/Czech Railjet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railjet). Railjet is another Siemens product with Comfort Coaches. I think that this might have been mentioned once earlier.

The Railjet video at https://youtu.be/BpRAtQth9Ew shows a walkthrough of an early Railjet. The early Railjets had Bistro cars with longitudinal seating and small tables. These seem a likely inspiration for the café cars in the California/Midwest order. The later Railjets have Restaurant cars with transverse seating and tables as shown at https://youtu.be/mJUqi6wbs2g. Both the Bistro and Restaurant cars have a First Class area with wheelchair positions, an accessible rest room, and an information booth in addition to the food service area. The 2+2 seating in Railjet’s Economy class and the 2+1 seating in the Railjet’s 1st class parallel the Smart and Select seating in Brightline, but with different seats.

In the cab car, there are premium accommodations with large reclining chairs in semi-private spaces. These are called Business Class accommodations and they are better than the normal 1st class seats. These accomodations would not seem a likely choice in the USA.

As some speculative math:

Using the California values of 35 coaches, 7 café and 7 cab cars, you get 7 seven-car trainsets of 5 coaches, 1 café and 1 cab car each. That results in 49 cars total. The Midwest values of 54 coaches, 17 café and 17 coach/business class would result in 14 five-car and 3 six-car trainsets. The total for the Midwest is then 88 cars for 137 total cars on the combined order.


----------



## jrud

There is also a picture of the California cab car with the revised window locations here. The various cab car drawings including the side drawing in the presentation indicate a conventional coupler on the engineer/driver’s end, but a semi-permanent coupling to a trainset on the opposite end.


Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jmlaboda

So what is the design of the new single-level cars? Are they _Viewliner_ variants or something else. Would really like to know what we should be looking for (not that anyone knowledgeable would be able to tell a new car from an old one).


----------



## jmlaboda

Well, looking at the artwork of the Caltrans cab car answers my question. Will be some nice looking equipment to say the least...


----------



## PerRock

jmlaboda said:


> So what is the design of the new single-level cars? Are they _Viewliner_ variants or something else. Would really like to know what we should be looking for (not that anyone knowledgeable would be able to tell a new car from an old one).


Something else, they're same design as the Brightline cars, or any of the other Viaggio cars Siemens makes (new RZD cars, OBB/CZ RailJet to name two others)

peter


----------



## jis

Unfortunately they won't have the spiffy looking Brightline engines




Instead they will have the blunt nosed variant.


----------



## jrud

One small point is that in order to look like the sleek trainset with the cab car on one end and a Charger on the other shown in some drawings , the Caltrans Charger rear wedge has to go.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Not sure if it has been cover before....

What the purpose of the big door just behind the cab?

Between the cab doors and windows. Bike, baggage space?


----------



## Blackwolf

jrud said:


> One small point is that in order to look like the sleek trainset with the cab car on one end and a Charger on the other shown in some drawings , the Caltrans Charger rear wedge has to go.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


I'm sure the "ski-jump" won't be going anywhere. Asthetics don't matter much in operation; wait until one of these sets is combined with an F-59 or Dash-8 for 80% of their runs.


----------



## jrud

The wheelchair lift on RailJet.

 .I’m not certain if they can or will use a similar contraption on the California/Midwest cars. It also looks a bit tight for some of the larger motorized conveyances I see regularly on my DC Metro Rail train. 

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jrud

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Not sure if it has been cover before....
> 
> What the purpose of the big door just behind the cab?
> 
> Between the cab doors and windows. Bike, baggage space?


The Railjet has one in a similar position for engineer/driver and Premium class access (http://www.stscms.com/FileUpload/files/media/1872/pdfs/Railjet_seat_map.pdf via https://www.seat61.com/index-mobile.htm). That doesn’t make sense here as there is a separate engineers/drivers door forward and the passenger compartment seems to start further back. Caltrans does not appear to have checked baggage based on a web site search. I’m on the right coast and can’t check personally. The clue may be all the vents on the roof implying that there is lots of equipment in that area. My guess becomes access to the equipment for maintenance, etc.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jrud

jmlaboda said:


> Well, looking at the artwork of the Caltrans cab car answers my question. Will be some nice looking equipment to say the least...


Has anyone seen anything similar on the color scheme/livery of the Midwest passenger cars? I presume it will continue the theme on the Amtrak Midwest Charger locomotives, but I haven’t seen anything specific.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jrud

jrud said:


> jmlaboda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, looking at the artwork of the Caltrans cab car answers my question. Will be some nice looking equipment to say the least...
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen anything similar on the color scheme/livery of the Midwest passenger cars? I presume it will continue the theme on the Amtrak Midwest Charger locomotives, but I haven’t seen anything specific.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Click to expand...

As a further note, I recently read on another blog that the Amtrak Midwest cars will not be trainsets like California but individual cars. And that they will run with a Charger at each end eliminating the need for cab cars. That also has an effect on the color scheme as each car needs look ok in any consist/composition.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Sactobob

jrud said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if it has been cover before....
> 
> What the purpose of the big door just behind the cab?
> 
> Between the cab doors and windows. Bike, baggage space?
> 
> 
> 
> Caltrans does not appear to have checked baggage based on a web site search. I’m on the right coast and can’t check personally.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Click to expand...

The Capitol Corridor does not have checked baggage service, but the San Joaquins and Surfliners do have it.


----------



## jrud

Sactobob said:


> jrud said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if it has been cover before....
> 
> What the purpose of the big door just behind the cab?
> 
> Between the cab doors and windows. Bike, baggage space?
> 
> 
> 
> Caltrans does not appear to have checked baggage based on a web site search. I’m on the right coast and can’t check personally.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Capitol Corridor does not have checked baggage service, but the San Joaquins and Surfliners do have it.
Click to expand...

Great. I think that makes baggage the most likely use of the large cab car side door.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jrud

Do these Siemens trainsets represent the end of Amtrak California branding? Or did the SC-44s already represent a change?

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## CraigDK

Slide show from the NGEC Meeting last week....

Besides having many renderings, it includes the anticipated start and end dates for delivery as well as a breakdown on the car types and quantities.


----------



## jis

Thanks for posting it.

That is very interesting. So even in the Midwest sets they will have segments that are semi-permanently coupled with the better gangways!

No business class cars for California.


----------



## west point

Several thoughts.

1. Siemens actually delivered the Brightline cars earlier than contracted.

2. Siemens may be able to deliver this order early as well. Wonder if Siemens will get any type of incentive payment if it delivers the cars early ?

3. Expect that a certain number of new cars both standard couplers and the semi - permanent coupled ones will have to go to Pueblo for HSR testing as the Brightline cars have yet to be tested to 125 + 10%. Probably behind both P-42s and SC-44s ?

4. Wonder when the replacement SC-44 for the PNW wreck will be built ?


----------



## CraigDK

jis said:


> Thanks for posting it.


No problems. I am not sure when they placed it online, but I was surprised no one else beat me to it.


----------



## CraigDK

west point said:


> Several thoughts.
> 
> 1. Siemens actually delivered the Brightline cars earlier than contracted.
> 
> 2. Siemens may be able to deliver this order early as well. Wonder if Siemens will get any type of incentive payment if it delivers the cars early ?
> 
> 3. Expect that a certain number of new cars both standard couplers and the semi - permanent coupled ones will have to go to Pueblo for HSR testing as the Brightline cars have yet to be tested to 125 + 10%. Probably behind both P-42s and SC-44s ?
> 
> 4. Wonder when the replacement SC-44 for the PNW wreck will be built ?


1 & 2. It is certainly possible that they could be delivered early, but who knows. If anyone would pay extra to Siemens for it, I would think it would be Sumitomo.

3. Yes...Slide 13, early 2020.

4. They also posted a slide show for the SC-44s. It does not mention anything that suggest a replacement has been ordered...


----------



## jis

The SC-44 slideset is quite interesting too.

My understanding is that when Brightline builds out to Orlando, there will be a second bigger service facility at Orlando. That will be the only facility capable of handling the longer Orlando trains. The West Palm Beach facility will service the shorter local trains and trains that will be used for the Miami - West Palm Beach commuter service on the so called North East Corridor of Miami, that Brightline is negotiating to get contract for running.

Also remember that Siemens already has commitment to deliver 5 more trainsets with 8 cars per set and 3 additional cars for the current 5 sets to Brightline by sometime in 2020 too. Brightline will probably require 125mph certification for the cars by late 2019 early 2020 too, if they want to run ghost service to full schedule for a few months to Orlando before letting passengers on for an inauguration of service in late 2020/early 2021. Actually Caltrans and IDOT can do fine with just 110mph certification for the time being. It will be a while before they will have an opportunity to operate at 125mph.

My understanding based on pure hearsay is that if the Commuter Operation thing comes through Brightline will place additional equipment order, funded partly by Miami-Dade and Broward Counties to serve in Commuter Service. Timeframe is unknown at present.


----------



## Steve4031

I’ve waited years for new cars in the Midwest , I can do two more.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jrud

There are certainly a large percentage of cars with only 2 doors. Maximizing interior room must be the highest priority.

A number of Caltrans Chargers remain to be delivered. I would think that at least seven of these might not have spoilers/ski jumps to match the new trainsets.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Northeastern292

jis said:


> Thanks for posting it.
> 
> That is very interesting. So even in the Midwest sets they will have segments that are semi-permanently coupled with the better gangways!
> 
> No business class cars for California.


Not surprised on this. The new cars are a new generation, so mixing and matching won't be as easy or as frequent.

I wonder if this also has something to do with a move towards digital trainline/door control? I've heard that's one of the things being discussed.

Also, I remember hearing about trainline Ethernet. Someone needs to explain if that's part of the digital train system.

My push this year is to see Amtrak make progress in ordering a ton of Siemens cars to use on the full corridor-length Northeast Regional trains (not the ones that start or end in NYC) with a goal to order 1000 of them. 750 in a short haul seating arrangement and 250 in a long haul seating arrangement. Some Northeast Regional trains should be easily 12-14 cars long.

Yes, feel free to call me nuts.

Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## Steve4031

Actually Amtrak would benefit from a standardized fleet. Seimans would be a good start.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## john small berries

jrud said:


> There are certainly a large percentage of cars with only 2 doors. Maximizing interior room must be the highest priority.
> 
> A number of Caltrans Chargers remain to be delivered. I would think that at least seven of these might not have spoilers/ski jumps to match the new trainsets.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


Why would Caltrans cut off their nose to spite their face and render 7 of the locomotives that would require special measures for the high level cars? Better to have a homogeneous fleet that can be assigned without extra concern about car assignments?


----------



## frequentflyer

Why the semi permanent couple arrangement? Is that why there are no doors between the cars?


----------



## jrud

frequentflyer said:


> Why the semi permanent couple arrangement? Is that why there are no doors between the cars?


I checked and the wheelchair lifts are on the IDOT business/economy cars and on the cafe cars. That was in another report. So every train will have one or, probably, both a business/economy and cafe car. As you pointed out, people and wheelchair movement between the cars can be made easier with semipermanent coupled cars as on Brightline. Your going to always have coach cars in your consist, so they are logical to include in any pairing. And semipermanently coupled cars can be more stable at speed. IDOT can get some of the advantages of semipermanently coupled trains without any real-world impact on the flexibility desired in the Midwest by having just coach-cafe and coach-business/economy pairs.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jrud

john small berries said:


> jrud said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are certainly a large percentage of cars with only 2 doors. Maximizing interior room must be the highest priority.
> 
> A number of Caltrans Chargers remain to be delivered. I would think that at least seven of these might not have spoilers/ski jumps to match the new trainsets.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
> 
> 
> 
> Why would Caltrans cut off their nose to spite their face and render 7 of the locomotives that would require special measures for the high level cars? Better to have a homogeneous fleet that can be assigned without extra concern about car assignments?
Click to expand...

For esthetic and, perhaps more importantly, aerodynamic reasons with the cab car leading. I’m actually mostly curious to see what Caltrans does as they have already limited flexibility with the semipermanently coupled trainsets. I’d be tempted to eliminate the spoiler on at least seven Chargers.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

"Inquiring minds would like to know"... How does "economy seating" differ from business and standard coach seating? Do these use folding chairs as seats.....lol.


----------



## jis

I don't know what the intention is in California, but for example on the Eurostar you get two levels of Premium Class accommodation - one that includes light snack type food and the other that is a more elaborate First Class affair. The former is called Standard Premium and the latter Business Premium or some such. Both are 2-1 seating. Then there is the steerage which is 2-2 seating called Standard I think and no complementary anything AFAIR.


----------



## bretton88

jis said:


> I don't know what the intention is in California, but for example on the Eurostar you get two levels of Premium Class accommodation - one that includes light snack type food and the other that is a more elaborate First Class affair. The former is called Standard Premium and the latter Business Premium or some such. Both are 2-1 seating. Then there is the steerage which is 2-2 seating called Standard I think and no complementary anything AFAIR.


Interesting, why would California decide to not order any business class? That seems odd to eliminate.


----------



## Eric S

Business Class is not offered on Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin trains, right?


----------



## KmH

Right.


----------



## daybeers

Northeastern292 said:


> My push this year is to see Amtrak make progress in ordering a ton of Siemens cars to use on the full corridor-length Northeast Regional trains (not the ones that start or end in NYC) with a goal to order 1000 of them. 750 in a short haul seating arrangement and 250 in a long haul seating arrangement. Some Northeast Regional trains should be easily 12-14 cars long.
> 
> Yes, feel free to call me nuts.


That would be amazing, but I'm pretty sure we won't see new Amtrak cars outside of the Viewliner order for a while.


----------



## DSS&A

The business class is 2-1 seating, standard seating is 2-2, so one logical conclusion would be that economy is 3-2 seating. Although, I recall the new CEO making statements that one advantage of railroad travel is comfortable seating with NO 3-2 seating. So Economy class is still an unkown dwtail at this time.


----------



## Northeastern292

daybeers said:


> Northeastern292 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My push this year is to see Amtrak make progress in ordering a ton of Siemens cars to use on the full corridor-length Northeast Regional trains (not the ones that start or end in NYC) with a goal to order 1000 of them. 750 in a short haul seating arrangement and 250 in a long haul seating arrangement. Some Northeast Regional trains should be easily 12-14 cars long.
> 
> Yes, feel free to call me nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> That would be amazing, but I'm pretty sure we won't see new Amtrak cars outside of the Viewliner order for a while.
Click to expand...

Unless there's a political shift, true. But still, noise does have to be made.
Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## Northeastern292

DSS&A said:


> The business class is 2-1 seating, standard seating is 2-2, so one logical conclusion would be that economy is 3-2 seating. Although, I recall the new CEO making statements that one advantage of railroad travel is comfortable seating with NO 3-2 seating. So Economy class is still an unkown dwtail at this time.


Three-class service in the Midwest? This is news to me.
Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app


----------



## jrud

Northeastern292 said:


> DSS&A said:
> 
> 
> 
> The business class is 2-1 seating, standard seating is 2-2, so one logical conclusion would be that economy is 3-2 seating. Although, I recall the new CEO making statements that one advantage of railroad travel is comfortable seating with NO 3-2 seating. So Economy class is still an unkown dwtail at this time.
> 
> 
> 
> Three-class service in the Midwest? This is news to me.
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app
Click to expand...

The February Trains article calls them “Coach/business but the slides say Business/economy. Coach seems more likely.


----------



## Ziv

A thousand new cars is what a lot of us would love to see, but given the facts on the ground, I would be happy to see the CAF order get extended by just 18 months. There are supposed to be 25 new sleeper cars delivered eventually. I think simply adding 36 more sleepers would make a nice change for the better. And it could cost as little as $100Mn spread out over 2 business years. I know there are posters who understand the numbers much better than me, but it seems like making the Capital Limited a ViewLiner train would allow the SuperLiner cars to be moved to the Western LD routes. I know it is just a fantasy, but it would be cool if there were two Empire Builders departing Chicago and Seattle every day. Chicago departures at 0930 and 1530 and Seattle departures at 0940 and 1640...

Yeah, won't happen. But it would make the Glacier portion of the trip even more interesting. I wonder how much of an increase in short trip use would happen along the route if Hi Liners knew there were more EB options available. I guess all of us have the routes we love the most.



Northeastern292 said:


> daybeers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Northeastern292 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My push this year is to see Amtrak make progress in ordering a ton of Siemens cars to use on the full corridor-length Northeast Regional trains (not the ones that start or end in NYC) with a goal to order 1000 of them. 750 in a short haul seating arrangement and 250 in a long haul seating arrangement. Some Northeast Regional trains should be easily 12-14 cars long.
> 
> Yes, feel free to call me nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> That would be amazing, but I'm pretty sure we won't see new Amtrak cars outside of the Viewliner order for a while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless there's a political shift, true. But still, noise does have to be made.
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Amtrak Forum mobile app
Click to expand...


----------



## me_little_me

DSS&A said:


> Hi,
> 
> "Inquiring minds would like to know"... How does "economy seating" differ from business and standard coach seating? Do these use folding chairs as seats.....lol.


No seats provided. You bring your own chair.


----------



## Steve4031

It would make sense imho to make cnol and Cl view liner trains. This could create a temporary surplus of superliner equipment which would allow for an overhaul of the fleet, including hvac and bathrooms. Then some services could be made daily or train sets increased in capacity.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jis

Where are all those Coaches needed to make CONO and CL single level trains, coming from? For that matter, where are the Sleepers and lounge Cars coming from?


----------



## TiBike

That might be the case elsewhere, but in California, the only trains with Business Class are the Surfliner and Starlight. Both have 2x2 seating -- on the Surfliner, one car can even be split between business and coach class service, with just a sign marking the division. The benefits of business class on both trains are less crowding (sometimes), a generally calmer atmosphere and the amenities: on the Starlight, WiFi, a $6 snack voucher, a couple bottles of water and -- formerly and depending on the whims of the staff -- access to the PPC; on the Surfliner coffee, a snackbox and a beverage, including wine, of your choice.

The cars are pretty much the same -- the only difference I've seen is that sometimes there are faux leather seats on the Starlight.



DSS&A said:


> The business class is 2-1 seating, standard seating is 2-2, so one logical conclusion would be that economy is 3-2 seating. Although, I recall the new CEO making statements that one advantage of railroad travel is comfortable seating with NO 3-2 seating. So Economy class is still an unkown dwtail at this time.


----------



## DSS&A

jis said:


> Where are all those Coaches needed to make CONO and CL single level trains, coming from? For that matter, where are the Sleepers and lounge Cars coming from?


My 2 cents would be that since it will be over two years until all of the V2 sleepers are delivered, that timing will match with the arrival of the Siemens cars.

Displaced Midwest Amfleet cars can be used for short haul and also modified with leg rest seating to provide the ne3ded coaches to convert the CL or CONO to single-level equipment.


----------



## Ryan

I’m not sure the math works out there.


----------



## jis

Yup. Lots of wishful thinking and dreaming [emoji57]

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## DSS&A

Unfortunately new rolling stock procurements can be clocked with a multi-year calendar!! While it is important to issue a Rolling stock RFP this year, Amtrak still has to survive on what they have, including Viewliner 2s for at least three or more years. Siemens has a production line in place and Stadler will have a production facility up and running soon for its KISS EMU cars to be built for Caltrain. Amtrak's new 5-Year plan mentio new the possibility of EMU passenger cars on the NEC. Starlet also has regular single-level passenger cars that can be offered.

Fixing up a few more of the wreck repairs and putting them in revenue service will at least help the spare ratio to keep the fleet in good shape.


----------



## west point

All good points. Can we agree that Amtrak would need 400 - 500 new cars to add cars to present trains. Also substitute the mentioned trains to single level ? Is that possible under the present political climate ? Believe not !


----------



## GiantsFan

Interesting that the California trainsets are completely semi-permanently coupled, where the Midwest trainsets have a few sets of married pairs that create a complete trainset. After seeing all the details, its looking pretty good.


----------



## DSS&A

west point said:


> All good points. Can we agree that Amtrak would need 400 - 500 new cars to add cars to present trains. Also substitute the mentioned trains to single level ? Is that possible under the present political climate ? Believe not !


Amtrak paid for the 104 car Horizon fleet without a government loan. Now that the Penn Station loans are paid off, Amtrak may be able to finance more rolling stock.


----------



## jis

The Viewliners 2s probably still have to be paid for, the ones yet to be delivered at least.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jrud

DSS&A said:


> Unfortunately new rolling stock procurements can be clocked with a multi-year calendar!! While it is important to issue a Rolling stock RFP this year, Amtrak still has to survive on what they have, including Viewliner 2s for at least three or more years. Siemens has a production line in place and Stadler will have a production facility up and running soon for its KISS EMU cars to be built for Caltrain. Amtrak's new 5-Year plan mentio new the possibility of EMU passenger cars on the NEC. Starlet also has regular single-level passenger cars that can be offered.
> 
> Fixing up a few more of the wreck repairs and putting them in revenue service will at least help the spare ratio to keep the fleet in good shape.


Stadler is a bit of a wild card in the USA passenger car world with their Utah factory. They don't seem to make many traditional passenger cars (carriages in British-English), but they do make some (e.g., https://wwwstadlerrailcom-live-01e96f7.s3-eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/filer_public/21/7b/217bbfde-ca45-4823-b03b-7d8070e5f347/wady0814en.pdf and https://wwwstadlerrailcom-live-01e96f7.s3-eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/filer_public/0b/93/0b93cdd3-a00f-4580-ba69-5c3f5ba5c4e2/wrm0816e.pdf). However, many of the intermediate cars on their multiple-units are unpowered and very similar to cars in a trainset. For example, two cars are unpowered in the CALTRAIN EMU (https://wwwstadlerrailcom-live-01e96f7.s3-eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/filer_public/21/81/21816a39-9448-4b8a-8f2f-3811c6ee8006/kcal0716us.pdf) and all the intermediate cars are unpowered on this Austria Higher-Speed EMU (https://wwwstadlerrailcom-live-01e96f7.s3-eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/filer_public/bd/98/bd984888-3695-43cb-ad8c-9ac067a0e260/kiss_dowbz0110e.pdf). Stadler appears to be very aggressive about their future in the USA.

CAF's European operation is also making modern passenger cars including cars for the UK market with similar accessibility laws. If they were able to leverage the USA plant, they might be a contender outside of just more Viewliner production. The cars include sleepers, coaches and cab cars (British-English - driving trailers). There is some information at http://www.caf.net/en/productos-servicios/proyectos/proyecto-detalle.php?p=285 and (http://www.caf.net/en/productos-servicios/proyectos/proyecto-detalle.php?p=277).


----------



## jrud

jrud said:


> DSS&A said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately new rolling stock procurements can be clocked with a multi-year calendar!! While it is important to issue a Rolling stock RFP this year, Amtrak still has to survive on what they have, including Viewliner 2s for at least three or more years. Siemens has a production line in place and Stadler will have a production facility up and running soon for its KISS EMU cars to be built for Caltrain. Amtrak's new 5-Year plan mentio new the possibility of EMU passenger cars on the NEC. Starlet also has regular single-level passenger cars that can be offered.
> 
> Fixing up a few more of the wreck repairs and putting them in revenue service will at least help the spare ratio to keep the fleet in good shape.
> 
> 
> 
> Stadler is a bit of a wild card in the USA passenger car world with their Utah factory. They don't seem to make many traditional passenger cars (carriages in British-English), but they do make some (e.g., https://wwwstadlerrailcom-live-01e96f7.s3-eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/filer_public/21/7b/217bbfde-ca45-4823-b03b-7d8070e5f347/wady0814en.pdf and https://wwwstadlerrailcom-live-01e96f7.s3-eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/filer_public/0b/93/0b93cdd3-a00f-4580-ba69-5c3f5ba5c4e2/wrm0816e.pdf). However, many of the intermediate cars on their multiple-units are unpowered and very similar to cars in a trainset. For example, two cars are unpowered in the CALTRAIN EMU (https://wwwstadlerrailcom-live-01e96f7.s3-eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/filer_public/21/81/21816a39-9448-4b8a-8f2f-3811c6ee8006/kcal0716us.pdf) and all the intermediate cars are unpowered on this Austria Higher-Speed EMU (https://wwwstadlerrailcom-live-01e96f7.s3-eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/filer_public/bd/98/bd984888-3695-43cb-ad8c-9ac067a0e260/kiss_dowbz0110e.pdf). Stadler appears to be very aggressive about their future in the USA.
> 
> CAF's European operation is also making modern passenger cars including cars for the UK market with similar accessibility laws. If they were able to leverage the USA plant, they might be a contender outside of just more Viewliner production. The cars include sleepers, coaches and cab cars (British-English - driving trailers). There is some information at http://www.caf.net/en/productos-servicios/proyectos/proyecto-detalle.php?p=285 and (http://www.caf.net/en/productos-servicios/proyectos/proyecto-detalle.php?p=277).
Click to expand...

This my long winded way of saying Siemens is only one option for future purchases even if this Caltrans/IDOT buy gives them an advantage.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Ngotwalt

So looking at this slideshow...I think it's kinda safe to say that these cars will more than likely go to the Northern California Routes...since Pacific Surfliners offer Pacific Business Class and the Caltrans cars do not have any business class cars. Unless they plan to do away with business class on the Surfliners, which I doubt.

Cheers,

Nick


----------



## jis

Somehow I had the impression that they are primarily targeted for San Joaquin Service, with perhaps some also deployed in the Capitol Corridor (maybe).


----------



## Eric S

jis said:


> Somehow I had the impression that they are primarily targeted for San Joaquin Service, with perhaps some also deployed in the Capitol Corridor (maybe).


I did too. I think someone had linked to a presentation or report from the agency that plans and operates the San Joaquins stating it was basically resigned to the likelihood of operating single-level equipment.


----------



## jrud

Eric S said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow I had the impression that they are primarily targeted for San Joaquin Service, with perhaps some also deployed in the Capitol Corridor (maybe).
> 
> 
> 
> I did too. I think someone had linked to a presentation or report from the agency that plans and operates the San Joaquins stating it was basically resigned to the likelihood of operating single-level equipment.
Click to expand...

Perhaps:

https://www.sjjpa.com/getattachment/Business-Plan/2018-SJJPA-Business-Plan-Update-Public-Review-Draft.pdf

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## frequentflyer

Eric S said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow I had the impression that they are primarily targeted for San Joaquin Service, with perhaps some also deployed in the Capitol Corridor (maybe).
> 
> 
> 
> I did too. I think someone had linked to a presentation or report from the agency that plans and operates the San Joaquins stating it was basically resigned to the likelihood of operating single-level equipment.
Click to expand...

So where do the SJ bilevels go too?


----------



## Hotblack Desiato

frequentflyer said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow I had the impression that they are primarily targeted for San Joaquin Service, with perhaps some also deployed in the Capitol Corridor (maybe).
> 
> 
> 
> I did too. I think someone had linked to a presentation or report from the agency that plans and operates the San Joaquins stating it was basically resigned to the likelihood of operating single-level equipment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where do the SJ bilevels go too?
Click to expand...

Probably the Surfliner, or if Capitol Corridor needs extra capacity then they could stay up north.


----------



## neroden

The Surfliner can't afford to run single-level equipment as it is impacting on the schedule already (and they can't raise the platforms because the commuter equipment is bilevel). The San Joaquins have enough slop in the schedules that they can afford to run single-levels, so they're going to get them.


----------



## jrud

With the Siemens trainsets on the San Joaquins is it certain the the driver/engineer will be in a combination Cab, baggage and passenger car (Cabbager?)?

The cab car appears to have a box structure above the coupler on the driving end. Is this a crush box for crash protection? Even if the cab is essentially a Charger cab, the fundamental structure is probably not as strong as the locomotive. Extra protection could be required. The future Caltrain EMUs have box-like structures on each side of the coupler that probably serve a similar purpose.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

The March 2018 project status report is posted at this link below.

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/pages/section305committee.aspx


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

The April monthly update is now posted. Production of the first car shell began on April 6th!!

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Pages/Section305Committee.aspx

(Corrected link)


----------



## Eric S

That doesn't seem to be the correct link.


----------



## keelhauled

I think that this should work as a direct link to the .docx download. If not, it is available at NGEC's website.


----------



## jrud

keelhauled said:


> I think that this should work as a direct link to the .docx download. If not, it is available at NGEC's website.


The increased participation by Brightline may bring in more real world experience for both the Chargers and the passenger cars. The presentation said they would start production in May. So, I guess they are a bit ahead.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Any word (or speculation) on when we'll start seeing the new equipment in the Midwest?


----------



## Eric S

Maybe a few months ago, someone linked to a presentation that showed the Midwest cars being delivered from mid-2020 through early-2023.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997

I've been wondering all this time, why did they switch from an order of bi-levels to single levels?

If you ask me, it kind of makes no sense, because think of when you mix single-levels with bi-levels. Besides, as you may know, bi-levels have more passenger capacity.


----------



## RPC

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> I've been wondering all this time, why did they switch from an order of bi-levels to single levels?
> 
> If you ask me, it kind of makes no sense, because think of when you mix single-levels with bi-levels. Besides, as you may know, bi-levels have more passenger capacity.


Well, the original order was for bi-levels - the vendor had an epic fail at buff test, then took years to decide they couldn't actually build them. The choice at this point is between getting the single-level cars (essentially Brightline coaches with traps) quickly or having Siemens engineer a bi-level from scratch (estimate ~3 years).


----------



## railiner

I haven't been following this long thread except here and there... so please pardon me for asking...if the planned design failed, why couldn't they just 'dust off' the last bi-level California Car, or Superliner design, and build more of those, instead of 3 more years to engineer an all new, untested design?


----------



## CCC1007

railiner said:


> I haven't been following this long thread except here and there... so please pardon me for asking...if the planned design failed, why couldn't they just 'dust off' the last bi-level California Car, or Superliner design, and build more of those, instead of 3 more years to engineer an all new, untested design?


The California cars currently in service don’t meet the specifications laid out by the consortium of states.


----------



## railiner

CCC1007 said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been following this long thread except here and there... so please pardon me for asking...if the planned design failed, why couldn't they just 'dust off' the last bi-level California Car, or Superliner design, and build more of those, instead of 3 more years to engineer an all new, untested design?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The California cars currently in service don’t meet the specifications laid out by the consortium of states.
Click to expand...

What are the differences, and couldn't they be modified somewhat without a drastic re-engineering?


----------



## CCC1007

railiner said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been following this long thread except here and there... so please pardon me for asking...if the planned design failed, why couldn't they just 'dust off' the last bi-level California Car, or Superliner design, and build more of those, instead of 3 more years to engineer an all new, untested design?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The California cars currently in service don’t meet the specifications laid out by the consortium of states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are the differences, and couldn't they be modified somewhat without a drastic re-engineering?
Click to expand...

Its my understanding that they would need to loose 9 tons, be fully ADA compliant, both down and up stairs, and retain the shape of the passenger compartment in the event of an end on crash.


----------



## railiner

Isn't ADA accessability to the lower level seating and restrooms sufficient in the present cars? And it seems unrealistic to expect to lose that much weight and not sacrifice strength....


----------



## CCC1007

railiner said:


> Isn't ADA accessability to the lower level seating and restrooms sufficient in the present cars? And it seems unrealistic to expect to lose that much weight and not sacrifice strength....


Again, just my understanding of the situation that led up to the structural failure only one ton short of passing...


----------



## Ziv

ADA requirements trump most other aspects of design now. Unless your cars are grandfathered in and as the years go by, fewer and fewer of them will be.

And, yes, common sense would tend to indicate that decreasing weight by 9 tons would make meeting the buff test standard very difficult without spending more money on advanced design or more expensive materials. But if the acquisition board doesn't know what they are doing they can demand anything they want and then blame the supplier when the supplier tries their best and falls short. If each car weighs 9 tons less then the acceleration figures would have made a noticeable change in scheduled times for routes with a lot of stops, but lighter generally means less robust or more expensive.

Flip side of the coin, Nippon Sharyo knew the bid was going to be very tough to deliver and made it anyway.



railiner said:


> Isn't ADA accessability to the lower level seating and restrooms sufficient in the present cars? And it seems unrealistic to expect to lose that much weight and not sacrifice strength....


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

As I understand it the older bi-level designs in addition to not meeting crush tests and ADA requirements (which are, in and of themselves, separate items), the old designs were licensed as it was and weren't able to be relicensed (as in getting a license to produce a copyright design) - and out of date of course.


----------



## jis

The old design does meet the crush test standard for trailer cars since that has not changed in over 50 years. So your understanding is at least partly wrong.


----------



## railiner

And doesn't Bombardier hold the old Budd and Pullman Standard design right's?


----------



## bcanedy

railiner said:


> And doesn't Bombardier hold the old Budd and Pullman Standard design right's?


You’re thinking of the Superliner plans. The California Cars were built by Morrison-Knudsen / Amerail for the first generation and Alstom for the second generation. I’m not sure who owns those designs, but the Nippon-Sharyo cars would have been the third generation of California Cars.


----------



## jrud

The May NGEC minutes are out. The only real news appears to be the progress is being made on building the first carshell, and on the design of the cab and cafe cars. http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20activities%20report%20-%20monthly%205-31-18.docx

Note that toward the end of the minutes they say that a Request for Information is being prepared by Amtrak for passenger cars. This is in addition to the RFP for locomotives.

BTW - a MARC train with Charger #86 just went by my Metro rail train as it headed into DC on the Camden line.


----------



## seat38a

jis said:


> The old design does meet the crush test standard for trailer cars since that has not changed in over 50 years. So your understanding is at least partly wrong.


Are you talking about the CAB cars? If so, would adding a second engine or a Cabbage Car solve this? Is this by Brightline is running with two Chargers?


----------



## jis

seat38a said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The old design does meet the crush test standard for trailer cars since that has not changed in over 50 years. So your understanding is at least partly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about the CAB cars? If so, would adding a second engine or a Cabbage Car solve this? Is this by Brightline is running with two Chargers?
Click to expand...

No. I was not talking of cab cars in that comment.


----------



## jrud

June NGEC minutes with some information on progress with finalizing cab car details, etc. http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20activities%20report%20-%20monthly%206-30-18.docx


----------



## jrud

Its free access period will end soon. However, there is some new information including a nice detailed drawing at http://railcolornews.com/2018/07/12/us-calidot-new-single-level-cars-from-siemens-for-caltrans-and-idot/ .


----------



## seat38a

I mentioned this in another post also but according to the longtime conductor on the Surfliner, she said the plan at the moment is to deploy the single level equipment up in NorCal and redeploy the State owned Surfliner Cars from NorCal down to SoCal for use on the Surfliner service. Not sure about the California Cars currently used up in NorCal.


----------



## railiner

Whichever, it would seem to make sense to keep all of a type together in one maintenance base, I suppose....


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

So do we have a concrete delivery date yet? I'm excited to see them start arriving here in the Midwest!


----------



## CCC1007

Metra Electric Rider said:


> So do we have a concrete delivery date yet? I'm excited to see them start arriving here in the Midwest!


My understanding of the timeline for the first deliveries is 2020-2021.


----------



## MisterUptempo

Metra Electric Rider said:


> So do we have a concrete delivery date yet? I'm excited to see them start arriving here in the Midwest!


If all remains on schedule, the first car will be delivered to Caltrans in March, 2020. The first IDOT/Midwest car to be delivered in July, 2020. The final IDOT/Midwest car is scheduled for March, 2023 delivery, and Caltrans gets their final car in September, 2023.

Also, just a quick update. From the August 14, 2018 Section 305 Executive Board meeting, the following-






The full report can be found here - http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20Exec%20Brd%20minutes%20%20-8-14-18%20DRAFT.doc

For anyone who might be able to access it, Revision B1 of the 305-003 single-level specifications was recently released. I'd be curious how much the specs may have been altered to accommodate Siemens.


----------



## NSC1109

Just read the full file. Looks like there will be traps for the cars after all. I'm curious to see how the door/trap combo will look in reality compared to the prototype images we've seen.


----------



## MikefromCrete

NSC1109 said:


> Just read the full file. Looks like there will be traps for the cars after all. I'm curious to see how the door/trap combo will look in reality compared to the prototype images we've seen.


Was there some doubt that the cars would not have traps? As far as I know there's no high level platforms in the Midwest or California, so all the stations would have had to be rebuilt, a highly unlikely possibility.


----------



## Andrew

Anybody think that these coaches will be ones that Amtrak selects for the Amfleet I Replacement fleet?


----------



## AGM.12

Once these new cars are delivered, what is to become of the existing Amfleet/Horizon rolling stock?


----------



## cpotisch

Once they don't need them anymore, they'll be sold or scrapped.


----------



## NSC1109

MikefromCrete said:


> NSC1109 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just read the full file. Looks like there will be traps for the cars after all. I'm curious to see how the door/trap combo will look in reality compared to the prototype images we've seen.
> 
> 
> 
> Was there some doubt that the cars would not have traps? As far as I know there's no high level platforms in the Midwest or California, so all the stations would have had to be rebuilt, a highly unlikely possibility.
Click to expand...

Dearborn, MI has high-level platforms, and I think Detroit-New Center does as well.

I think I had a discussion on another board confused with this thread. My bad..


----------



## PerRock

NSC1109 said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NSC1109 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just read the full file. Looks like there will be traps for the cars after all. I'm curious to see how the door/trap combo will look in reality compared to the prototype images we've seen.
> 
> 
> 
> Was there some doubt that the cars would not have traps? As far as I know there's no high level platforms in the Midwest or California, so all the stations would have had to be rebuilt, a highly unlikely possibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dearborn, MI has high-level platforms, and I think Detroit-New Center does as well.
> 
> I think I had a discussion on another board confused with this thread. My bad..
Click to expand...

Ann Arbor has a partial one.


----------



## amtrakpass

There are no high level platforms in Michigan except for the above mentioned one at Ann Arbor that I am aware of. The Dearborn and Detroit stations are low level.

The only full high level ones in the Midwest I can think of are on the Metra Electric District and South Shore Lines. I also sure hope the existing horizons and amfleets will be refurbished and used to expand service once the new cars get here rather than be scrapped


----------



## Ziv

There are 450+ Amfleet I's and around 90 Horizon cars. I hope they can refurb at least some and return them to service, allowing Amtrak to add additional service on existing lines. It may be that all of them are pretty much at end of life, but given the dire straits of Amtrak's financial position, throwing away resources that can be used, if they CAN be used, would be short sighted.

Given the current lack of debt, new cars would be optimal, but refurbing existing cars and buying just the locomotives would be good as well. But I know that a lot of the Amfleets are in pretty bad shape.



AGM.12 said:


> Once these new cars are delivered, what is to become of the existing Amfleet/Horizon rolling stock?


----------



## seat38a

MikefromCrete said:


> NSC1109 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just read the full file. Looks like there will be traps for the cars after all. I'm curious to see how the door/trap combo will look in reality compared to the prototype images we've seen.
> 
> 
> 
> Was there some doubt that the cars would not have traps? As far as I know there's no high level platforms in the Midwest or California, so all the stations would have had to be rebuilt, a highly unlikely possibility.
Click to expand...

It seems we are the only country that has a hard time getting in and out of trains if the platform isn't right up against the train at a perfect 180 degree level.

KTX Train





TGV Duplex even has steps inside.



DSC03742

Sapsan Train: Thats a 1 foot gap been the train and the platform. No extenders from the door to the platform.



DSC07295


----------



## seat38a

MikefromCrete said:


> NSC1109 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just read the full file. Looks like there will be traps for the cars after all. I'm curious to see how the door/trap combo will look in reality compared to the prototype images we've seen.
> 
> 
> 
> Was there some doubt that the cars would not have traps? As far as I know there's no high level platforms in the Midwest or California, so all the stations would have had to be rebuilt, a highly unlikely possibility.
Click to expand...

It seems we are the only country that has a hard time getting in and out of trains if the platform isn't right up against the train at a perfect 180 degree level.

KTX Train





TGV Duplex even has steps inside.



DSC03742

Sapsan Train: Thats a 1 foot gap been the train and the platform. No extenders from the door to the platform.



DSC07295


----------



## PerRock

In most countries the rail network is/was initially set up by one government agency, so there are general standards across the board. Unlike the US in which different stations were made by different companies who all had their own design requirements. That being said, almost all developed countries are now requiring step-free access to the trains. Which usually means rebuilding platforms to come up and match the height of the car floors. But that is still a work in progress, I don't think there is a single country that has completely step-free railroads (Japan maybe?)

peter


----------



## PVD

If a large order of s/l replacement cars were ordered sometime next year, how many years out would we be when that order was completed? The newest single level cars (not counting VL or trainsets) are the Horizons, they are vintage 88-90. It might make way more sense to order or option new cars for possible expansion of s/l use rather than rebuild, considering the age of the cars by the time it would happen. Quite a number of other factors come into play, as things like potential DMU use in some spots, NY possibly buying its own cars, changes in numbers of cars needed as the state purchased cars come on line in the Midwest and CA, possible conversion of a Superliner train to single level.....anything we lay out now is pure conjecture... (which can be fun at times)


----------



## Palmetto

Europe in general is not known for its wheelchair friendliness. Those photos show mobility barriers all over the place.


----------



## jis

NY State, through MTA will certainly be buying new cars for replacing the trailer cars used by MNRR for outer zone express trains. Those may even be NJT style MLVs. This should happen within the next five or so years.

As for whether they will buy new cars themselves for their Empire Service, or lean on Amtrak and fund them to do so is not known at present. New York's Empire Service management has close to zero staff assigned to it, So unless something changes they do not have the wherewithal to manage an entire contracts process for that. Remember, the MTA organization is a very separate and different one from the little NYSDOT office that manages the Empire Service contract.


----------



## PVD

That was why I said "conjecture" NYS has been a participant in discussions on DM locomotive acquisition, that would make sense since they use a bunch of them (with different 3rd rail needs) for both MNRR and LIRR, as well as the leased ones running the Empire Service. Even within the MTA there has been a fiefdom mentality between the divisions, for lots of different reasons.


----------



## jis

The NYS that has been talking about DM is the MTA (MNRR) branch of the NYS. It is Amtrak that has been talking about DM on behalf of the Empire Service branch of NYS. So at present it would appear that the equipment acquisition for the Empire Service is in Amtrak's court, and not in NYS's court. And well ... MTA is MTA. Though it is likely that this time they will not allow LIRR to go off on their own separate misadventure and fiasco on the dual mode locomotive acquisition.

Of late, in the dual mode specification committee, MTA and Amtrak have been exchanging information about their requirements and Amtrak has promised to incorporate MNRR requirements in their document to the extent possible. The lead on the specification appears to be Amtrak at this time, though it is hard to tell for sure. But at least MNRR is also fully engaged. My assumption is LIRR will just tag along with the specification and not invent their own.

BTW, see this about the new RFP from MNRR: http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/73503-mtro-north-issues-rfp-fir-new-dual-mode-locomotives/&do=findComment&comment=768847


----------



## PVD

Either way, it could work. MTA needs larger numbers if you add MN and LI. And NYS under separate provisions (NYSDOT) pays the greatest majority of the cost of the present DM fleet. Amtrak owned and leased, NYS owned and Amtrak operated, anybody's guess at this juncture. Both ways are in use across the country.


----------



## Anthony V

cpotisch said:


> Once they don't need them anymore, they'll be sold or scrapped.


Instead of scrapping them, they could go towards proposed corridor startups in other parts of the country, like NOL-Mobile, NOL- Baton Rouge, or BHM-MGM-MOE. Some could be pressed into long distance service to alleviate capacity shortages on existing single-level LD routes, or to possibly add new sections to those routes, like an IND-KCY section of the Cardinal or the proposed Crescent Star to DFW.


----------



## PRR 60

Anthony V said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once they don't need them anymore, they'll be sold or scrapped.
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of scrapping them, they could go towards proposed corridor startups in other parts of the country, like NOL-Mobile, NOL- Baton Rouge, or BHM-MGM-MOE. Some could be pressed into long distance service to alleviate capacity shortages on existing single-level LD routes, or to possibly add new sections to those routes, like an IND-KCY section of the Cardinal or the proposed Crescent Star to DFW.
Click to expand...

"Sold or scrapped" was an opinion not based on any facts as far as I know. What is certain is that as soon as the states have the new cars, they will get out from under Amtrak's capital charges ASAP. What Amtrak does with the cars released from the state-supported services is anyone's guess.


----------



## PVD

Sold or scrapped would be based on past practice for excess equipment. The only other possible choices are storage, or repurposing the best of the lot. Since the original reference was to existing Amfleet or Horizon cars after replacements arrive, it makes the most sense. At the conclusion of a replacement program, The newest of that group are likely to be in 35 year old range. It would make much more sense to just buy or option extra cars for any expansion, rather than spend large amounts on refurbs of 35 year old cars leaving a small fleet of oddball cars.


----------



## frequentflyer

cpotisch said:


> Once they don't need them anymore, they'll be sold or scrapped.


Agreed, there is a reason the AM1s are being replaced, they are old, and worn out. Why keep them around? Amtrak must be keeping their fabricating department busy making out of production parts for the AMI s and IIs.

And before someone mentions the VIA's Canadian train. If VIA could replace those 60 year old cars with new equipment, they would.

Want to start new corridor services? Then have the state order more brand new Siemens cars, it will for a better first impression then a refab 40 year old car.


----------



## Ziv

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough.






If you can refurb half the Amfleets/Horizons for a reasonable amount and they will be good enough to keep passengers on short range routes happy for 8 to 12 years, this would be a great opportunity to build a fleet of cars for expanding service in high demand areas or for starting service in areas that have no service but could build demand quickly. The problem of course is that I have no idea how many of these cars would be in good enough condition to refurb, nor do I know how much it would cost to refurb the cars (refurb cost vs. new car cost), nor do I know how long a refurbed car would last before it would need to either be refurbed again or scrapped.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?








frequentflyer said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once they don't need them anymore, they'll be sold or scrapped.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, there is a reason the AM1s are being replaced, they are old, and worn out. Why keep them around? Amtrak must be keeping their fabricating department busy making out of production parts for the AMI s and IIs.
> 
> And before someone mentions the VIA's Canadian train. If VIA could replace those 60 year old cars with new equipment, they would.
> 
> Want to start new corridor services? Then have the state order more brand new Siemens cars, it will for a better first impression then a refab 40 year old car.
Click to expand...


----------



## PVD

If any one seriously thought they could refurb that may of them you wouldn't be looking at a full replacement. There are major gains in maintainability that come from replacing the whole lot. Fabricating out of production parts is expensive. Roof mount package AC and modern plumbing are just 2 huge bonuses. It just makes more sense to buy a number of extra new ones rather than keep really old ones around and try and bring them up to snuff. The AM-! will forever be cursed with small windows, the AM-2 have single vestibules and manual doors, making them a poor choice for corridors.


----------



## Ryan

PRR 60 said:


> Anthony V said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once they don't need them anymore, they'll be sold or scrapped.
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of scrapping them, they could go towards proposed corridor startups in other parts of the country, like NOL-Mobile, NOL- Baton Rouge, or BHM-MGM-MOE. Some could be pressed into long distance service to alleviate capacity shortages on existing single-level LD routes, or to possibly add new sections to those routes, like an IND-KCY section of the Cardinal or the proposed Crescent Star to DFW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Sold or scrapped" was an opinion not based on any facts as far as I know. What is certain is that as soon as the states have the new cars, they will get out from under Amtrak's capital charges ASAP. What Amtrak does with the cars released from the state-supported services is anyone's guess.
Click to expand...

This is the best point in this whole discussion. People seem to forget that the cars under discussion here were ordered by the states, not Amtrak, and will be used in the state supported services. The Amtrak cars that will be released when that happens will simply go back into the Amtrak equipment pool, and will be no different than the single level rolling stock they have today. Talk of sale or scrapping them is somewhat premature, since there isn't an order on the books to replace any of them. They'll just fade into the regular rotation of single level coaches until such time as an Amtrak order of single level coaches occurs.


----------



## PVD

That's how the thread opened, but later on (night of the 16th) a poster asked if these were likely to be the type of cars selected as the Amtrak Amfleet replacements, and the next poster asked what the likely disposition of the existing fleet would be at that point. That's how it shifted from the only logical move, back into the pool, to a discussion on disposition.


----------



## Ryan

Coby's response about selling or scrapping was in response to what would happen once the cars actually on order were delivered. That isn't going to happen, as Bill and I have stated.



AGM.12 said:


> Once these new cars are delivered, what is to become of the existing Amfleet/Horizon rolling stock?





cpotisch said:


> Once they don't need them anymore, they'll be sold or scrapped.


----------



## PVD

I took that to be in the context of the post immediately prior to that. If that that is not the case, and the reply was in reference to the cars no longer needed for the corridors of course, nothing is going away until large scale replacement takes place. When that happens, I think what was said is valid.


----------



## west point

frequentflyer said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once they don't need them anymore, they'll be sold or scrapped.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, there is a reason the AM1s are being replaced, they are old, and worn out. Why keep them around? Amtrak must be keeping their fabricating department busy making out of production parts for the AMI s and IIs.
Click to expand...

So you think the AM-2s still have some life ? You need to get your facts straight. Just because the AM-1s have an older calendar date does not mean they are more worn than the AM-2s. Amtrak has published many times that AM-2s have about 40% more mileage than the AM-1s and were scheduled to be replaced first. Now maybe Anderson has this thinking about the AM-1s ?

EDIT. Another reason that AM-1s may have more life left besides less mileage is that the AM-1s have been closer to maintenance facilities on average than -2s 1200 to 1400 miles between maintenance facilities for -2s vs 249 - 500 for -1s ?


----------



## cpotisch

PVD said:


> I took that to be in the context of the post immediately prior to that. If that that is not the case, and the reply was in reference to the cars no longer needed for the corridors of course, nothing is going away until large scale replacement takes place. When that happens, I think what was said is valid.


Right. I was talking about what would happen once they don't need the cars anymore. Based on past precedent, once there's enough new equipment they'll probably be sold or scrapped. Of course that's going to take a while, but once all the new cars are here and there's no point running the AmCans and Horizons anymore, selling or scrapping them would make the most sense.


----------



## PVD

To clarify further, that is in reference to an Amtrak fleet replacement and not simply the displacement of a limited batch due to arrival of the state ordered cars. Do I have that right?


----------



## Ryan

I think that we're in violent agreement here. When this order of cars shows up, the cars currently used on the state supported routes will just fold back into the standard Amtrak pool.

At some unspecified point in the future when Amtrak orders single level coaches, the Amfleets and Horizons will eventually be scrapped when the cost to keep them running exceeds the revenue they can bring in.



cpotisch said:


> once all the new cars are here and there's no point running the AmCans and Horizons anymore


The point is that there are new cars coming to replace the single level coaches anytime soon. Amtrak has nothing on order.

Edit: The statement "Once they don't need them anymore, they'll be sold or scrapped" reminds me of a sea story.

Once upon a time, I was a lowly Lieutenant working in the Office of Naval Intelligence. We got hauled over to the Pentagon one morning because a topic pertaining to Iranian small boats (my area of expertise at the time) was a topic for the CNO's morning brief. We completed the briefing, and the CNO asked me how long these boats could be expected to run for while in an engagement with our forces. Without thinking, I glibly answered "Unless we shoot them, there's no reason to think that they can't keep running with us until they run out of gas, sir". There was a brief pause in the room while the CNO looked me in the eye and said "I understand that, LT, I was hoping you could tell me how long it would be before that happened". I had to sheepishly explain to him that was something that I didn't know at the moment and would have to go back and take an action to see if we had that data anywhere.

Both "They'll go until they run out of gas", and "Once they don't need them anymore, they'll be sold or scrapped.", are absolutely true on an infinite timescale, but bring little predictive value to the situation.


----------



## jis

They'll run as long as they can run


----------



## PVD

I thought what I said yesterday was reasonable-Although the process to acquire rolling stock has started, we are months if not a year away from "the real deal" And of course that is still subject to external forces at work....

Posted Yesterday, 10:20 AM

If a large order of s/l replacement cars were ordered sometime next year, how many years out would we be when that order was completed? The newest single level cars (not counting VL or trainsets) are the Horizons, they are vintage 88-90. It might make way more sense to order or option new cars for possible expansion of s/l use rather than rebuild, considering the age of the cars by the time it would happen. Quite a number of other factors come into play, as things like potential DMU use in some spots, NY possibly buying its own cars, changes in numbers of cars needed as the state purchased cars come on line in the Midwest and CA, possible conversion of a Superliner train to single level.....anything we lay out now is pure conjecture... (which can be fun at times)


----------



## jrud

I thought the options presented in this video were pretty straightforward. And the video shows how the inexpensive Amfleet makeover buys them a half-dozen years.


----------



## railiner

Ryan said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: The statement "Once they don't need them anymore, they'll be sold or scrapped" reminds me of a sea story.
> 
> Once upon a time, I was a lowly Lieutenant working in the Office of Naval Intelligence. We got hauled over to the Pentagon one morning because a topic pertaining to Iranian small boats (my area of expertise at the time) was a topic for the CNO's morning brief. We completed the briefing, and the CNO asked me how long these boats could be expected to run for while in an engagement with our forces. Without thinking, I glibly answered "Unless we shoot them, there's no reason to think that they can't keep running with us until they run out of gas, sir". There was a brief pause in the room while the CNO looked me in the eye and said "I understand that, LT, I was hoping you could tell me how long it would be before that happened". I had to sheepishly explain to him that was something that I didn't know at the moment and would have to go back and take an action to see if we had that data anywhere.
> 
> Both "They'll go until they run out of gas", and "Once they don't need them anymore, they'll be sold or scrapped.", are absolutely true on an infinite timescale, but bring little predictive value to the situation.
Click to expand...

Great story, thanks for sharing it. And thank you for your service.


----------



## jrud

jrud said:


> I thought the options presented in this video were pretty straightforward. And the video shows how the inexpensive Amfleet makeover buys them a half-dozen years.


I’m afraid that the point of the VP on the video was that after the Amfleet cars run out of gas they may decide to fill them back up. If a rebuild saves money, it is an option. 
I rode an Amfleet car from Baltimore to Boston when they were very new. Even though I wasn’t much of a rail fan at the time, I still remember being impressed by how modern they were. Although the interior of a new design could certainly be better than current Amfleet, the outside of an Amfleet is still modern. And a rebuild could create a modern interior. Dramatic paint schemes (livery) could certainly catch the public’s eye on a new flat sided car, but that would require a change of philosophy at Amtrak.

Bigger windows (and the resulting open feeling) are one thing you will never get from an Amfleet rebuild. How much is that worth? Many Stadler FLIRTs have large windows, but not every modern car does.

Finally. Is there a separate topic on future passenger cars? This one is on the new state corridor cars and the other thread I know is about new locomotives in 2018. Both are close but not quite right.


----------



## west point

Yes the AM-2s have larger windows which we prefer . Good spotting feature along with just 1 vestibule


----------



## jis

The larger windows are now required to meet new fire regulations. A new Amfleet I built today with its gun-slit windows would be illegal and would not be accepted by any railroad that cares about avoiding FRA's wrath. Amfleet Is are just grandfathered in, and they are harder to extricate passengers from after an accident than cars that meet the newer code.


----------



## me_little_me

I know what Amtrak can do with future excess cars!

They can sell them as private varnish to be added to Amtrak trains for short runs to/from intermediate stops! I think Mr. Anderson came up with this idea.


----------



## jrud

jis said:


> The larger windows are now required to meet new fire regulations. A new Amfleet I built today with its gun-slit windows would be illegal and would not be accepted by any railroad that cares about avoiding FRA's wrath. Amfleet Is are just grandfathered in, and they are harder to extricate passengers from after an accident than cars that meet the newer code.


Sorry. I didn’t mean to imply that anyone would build new cars with small windows for a variety of reasons. I just was wondering out loud how much Amtrak would pay extra for a new versus rebuilt cars. And wether it would make a lot of difference for passengers as long as the inside was nice.


----------



## jrud

700 car potential and night Siemens Viaggio passenger cars. Even smaller European countries use a lot of passenger cars. This includes an interesting render of the inside of a sleeping car. http://railcolornews.com/2018/08/17/at-official-obb-and-siemens-sign-framework-agreement-for-passenger-coaches-for-austria/

I saw and heard this a couple places, but might have missed it here. The end of the bi-level saga. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-metra-railcar-plant-closing-20180818-story.html


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Interesting the new OOB couchettes have individual doors. A four pod type of setup.


----------



## PerRock

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Interesting the new OOB couchettes have individual doors. A four pod type of setup.


Most European trains offer a mix of services; both compartment coach (little rooms with 4-6 seats in them) or open coach (like what we have in the states). The compartments are nice as if you're traveling in a small group (say a family, or a couple coworkers) you can reserve the entire compartment.

peter


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

PerRock said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting the new OOB couchettes have individual doors. A four pod type of setup.
> 
> 
> 
> Most European trains offer a mix of services; both compartment coach (little rooms with 4-6 seats in them) or open coach (like what we have in the states). The compartments are nice as if you're traveling in a small group (say a family, or a couple coworkers) you can reserve the entire compartment.
> peter
Click to expand...

Old style have 4-6 compartment, that can be converted to seats for 6.

New style are 4 Pods with a central climb/locker zone. Each pod has a door. No place to sit other than the bed.

I like the design. Did not know it had doors on each pod into yesterday.


----------



## jrud

They continue to make progress with building the car shells and in design. http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20activities%20report%20-%20monthly%209-30-18.docx


----------



## Ziv

I have to admit that in my lack of knowledge of the industry this looks more like a jobs program than an effort to choose new designs for rail cars and locomotives. Why not do an RFP for a single level car done to existing designs and be done with it? It would be a lot cheaper and there are so many existing designs out there that getting one railcar maker to build a couple hundred cars would seem to be fairly straightforward. Or has Amtrak poisoned the well with the Nippon Sharyo disaster and the CAF disappointments?

We already saw what happens when AMTRAK tries to call for a brand new design for a bi-level and made the deal with Nippon Sharyo. They made design requirements that were apparently impossible to deliver at the agreed price point and had to retreat to a single level design, but now it looks like they are calling for changes in Cab Car floor height transition and car length over coupler distance. Or so my reading of the doc would indicate. Like I said, this isn't my industry, but are they doing the same thing again, demanding nickle and dime changes and then wondering why the time line is moved back by a year?


----------



## jis

Amtrak did not make any deal with Nippon Sharyo. The corridor bi-levels order had nothing to do with Amtrak. It was a state(s) run project, and the resulting single level order is also a state run project. It helps to first get the facts right before trying to use them in an argument.


----------



## Ziv

Like I said, this isn't my industry. But this is the thread following the Nippon Sharyo Bi-level debacle that ended up going to Sumitomo/Siemens w/single level cars. Whether it is Amtrak directly or not, was NGEC the lead group on the Nippon Sharyo design requirements? All I know is that Wikipedia said that they were the ones that helped design the Next Generation Bi-Level cars that were such a disaster. And that Amtrak was going to be the operator of those cars on most routes. I don't come here because I know everything about how these agencies work together, I come here because I don't understand it. And in this case, it seems to an outsider that NGEC is doing some of the same things that led to the Bi-Level disaster.

On edit: And I still don't understand what this means... " [SIZE=9pt]On 9-14-18 the modification to the Grant Agreement, including a 12 month no cost performance period extension (through 9-30-2010) and an approval of the revised SOW, was fully executed. "[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]Did that move the delivery date to the right by up to a year? What is a performance period extension and how will it impact deliver? Sorry for the newby questions but it is something that jumped out at me.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]And to Jis's point about my getting Amtraks role wrong, was it the NGEC (or was it CalTrans?) that made the design requirements with the high buff test juxtaposed to a lower car weight requirement which worked at cross purposes to each other? Given the seemingly incredible complexity of the NGEC structure and the fact that the original PRIIA was Amtrak Specification #962, I assumed Amtrak was the lead dog. An incorrect assumption, obviously. My apologies for muddying the waters, so to speak. It is just that after seeing one acronym group/agency/watchdog/citizens group after another, I know less about this process now than I did a year ago. Or so it seems.[/SIZE]

NGEC members linked to below.

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/NGEC_%20educational%20outreach%20doc%20approved%2010-25-6.pdf

How do you get that many groups to agree on anything if Amtrak doesn't take a lead role? Or is CalTrans the one that kind of leads the pack?

Again, sorry for basic questions, but this doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.


----------



## jis

The Grant Agreement is between ASHTO and NGEC as far as I can tell. Apparently the FRA funding for NGEC's work flow through ASHTO as far as I can tell. NGEC was chartered to meet the PRIIA requirement to develop specifications for standard US engines, passenger cars etc. which could be viewed by some as a jobs project US style. But such standards have a role. In other countries typically the industry is allowed to lead such. In the US since there is no passenger car industry to speak of, something else had to be done.

The contract for delivering the cars is between CalDOT (acting on behalf of all the states involved) and Siemens via the prime contractor Sumitomo. AFAIK the existence or lack thereof of NGEC will have no impact on the ongoing purchase contracts, or for that matter, future ones.

After the bi-level fiasco, the NGEC has basically accepted all proposed changes to the single level specification that Siemens submitted in order to make the Siemens car compliant with the specification. Now they are in the process of essentially doing the same thing with the cab car specification. AFAICT Siemens is leading that and NGEC is basically taking the spec changes submitted by Siemens and more or less rubber stamping them, making sure that they meet the existing relevant CFRs. Again AFAICT the request for changing the length of the "locomotive" to 85’ is to allow power cars built into standard passenger car shells to be compliant with the locomotive specification. That is my guess.

Meanwhile MTA has developed a specification for dual mode (third rail) as has Amtrak based on the diesel specification, with modifications to the same. MTA is close to placing an order and Amtrak is working on reconciling differences between the MTA and Amtrak specs and submitting the common changes to the NGEC for incorporation in the NGEC specs. It looks like MTA, while making some effort to get NGEC compliance, is not particularly worried if their engine deviates some, since apparently they do not depend on federal funds for that particular purchase. This is similar to NJT not worrying about federal "Made in America" restrictions on their locomotive acquisitions funded entirely by NJDOT.

CalDOT, Amtrak, etc. just report current status of acquisition projects to NGEC, in addition to of course submitting change requests to the spec based on what they manufacturers are willing to deliver, after having learned that doing anything else leads to lack of acquisition, again as far as I can tell. Maybe someone has a more detailed clearer picture of the setup.


----------



## Ziv

Thanks for the detailed response! I need to go do some reading about AASHTO. I just ran into a document about the SCORT part of AASHTO so I am working my way into the acronym soup...

Your third paragraph is the answer I was hoping to hear. I was afraid from my tyro reading of some of the document that NGEC might be doing more micro-managing, but it sounds like I was wrong about that too. Which in this case is a good thing.

Thanks!


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

The AASHTO updates dated November 30th are now uploaded to the website.  Progress in the car shells continues and construction work on car shells 9 through 12 has started.  Here's the link to the website.

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/pages/section305committee.aspx


----------



## Steve4031

Thank you for the updates.  It looks like they are making steady progress on the cars.  I’m looking forward to riding them.


----------



## jamess

Have they decided yet what they will do to speed up boarding at low-level platforms?


----------



## jrud

The details of this story are properly over in the Via thread. However, another railroad buying into Siemens Charger propelled Siemens single level trainsets can’t be a bad sign. https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/via-rail-selects-siemens-for-fleet-renewal/?RAchannel=news


----------



## west point

Amtrak needs to know if Siemens will have enough production spots to provide equipment before 2022 - 2023 ?


----------



## jis

They will know as soon as they bring real seriousness to the table in the form of a real RFP or RFQ. Absent that why would anyone agree to discuss production plans?


----------



## nti1094

Wow... so sad because I fear the end of the bi-level era is at hand. I can fondly remember as a child using the Amfleet equipped San Joaquins and being in awe at the sight of superliners at 16th and Wood. To me those were the “real” trains. Nothing beats the smoothness and the visibility from up there. To me the worst ride on any train is found on Talgo trains. Aside from not riding comfortably, especially on American track, sitting that low just feels wrong. 

we should fully take advantage of the asset we have in American railroad infrastructure, what with its near-universal H, F, or even K loading guages.


----------



## nti1094

That said, I would add that actually the brightline trainsets are uniquely comfortable compared to any single level stock in American railroad history. And they even seem spacious and uncluttered inside. It helps however to not have to lug stuff up and down a trap.


----------



## cpotisch

nti1094 said:


> Wow... so sad because I fear the end of the bi-level era is at hand. I can fondly remember as a child using the Amfleet equipped San Joaquins and being in awe at the sight of superliners at 16th and Wood. To me those were the “real” trains. Nothing beats the smoothness and the visibility from up there. To me the worst ride on any train is found on Talgo trains. Aside from not riding comfortably, especially on American track, sitting that low just feels wrong.
> 
> we should fully take advantage of the asset we have in American railroad infrastructure, what with its near-universal H, F, or even K loading guages.


I wouldn’t say that the “end of the bi-level era is at hand”, just because Amtrak is ordering a bunch of replacements for the single-level fleet. Considering the fact that bi-levels have the advantage of extra capacity without increasing train length, which makes a big difference on the super long-distance routes, and that there has been talk of a real Superliner refresh, I think that we have a while before we should really be concerned about the future of bi-level trains in America. JMO.


----------



## jis

There will be plenty of bi-levels used by various passenger rail outfits irrespective of what Amtrak does.

I agree that it is a bit premature to write off bi-levels even for Amtrak.


----------



## west point

For Superliners being best for LD trains a reduction of 1 -3 cars allows the many stations with short  platforms to avoid 2 - 3 stops at same station or the very big cost to expand platforms with the requirement to meet  ADA !   Not economically feasible for 1 train  a day stations.  The first route that would be a good idea to lengthen platforms would be the Palmetto route.  You  have the many regionals to Richmond and include VRE from its route to Washington.  South of  Richmond you have the Carolinian until Selma  + Silvers to Savannah. .


----------



## jrud

The NJT Bombardier Multilevel III order and the Caltrain Stadler KISS order (including the recently exercised option) indicate that the desire for increased people/comfort/amenities can result in multiple level cars when there are length restrictions. Two level TGVs are becoming the norm in France. So, even high speed trains are not limited to single-level when passenger demand is high. The length restrictions do vary. NJT said they are limited to 14 cars. A lot of passenger railroads wished their limit was that long.


----------



## DSS&A

The AASHTO December 31st report is online.  Some progress has been made on the previously reported carshells, but the Sacramento plant expansion is taking longer than originally projected due to permitting problems. There was no report of starting work  on additional car shells.


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

The January 2019 news has been posted online.  Here is a small portion of the updated status on the pasenger cars:

Final assembly of carshell #1 is underway and progress is being made on the other initial 11 carshells.  The expansion of the Sacramento production facility is structurally complete and cranes are being installed.

Here is a link to the webpage with the monthly reports:

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/pages/section305committee.aspx


----------



## sttom

nti1094 said:


> Wow... so sad because I fear the end of the bi-level era is at hand. I can fondly remember as a child using the Amfleet equipped San Joaquins and being in awe at the sight of superliners at 16th and Wood. To me those were the “real” trains. Nothing beats the smoothness and the visibility from up there. To me the worst ride on any train is found on Talgo trains. Aside from not riding comfortably, especially on American track, sitting that low just feels wrong.
> 
> we should fully take advantage of the asset we have in American railroad infrastructure, what with its near-universal H, F, or even K loading guages.


I doubt that the bi level era is over. The only reason why we aren't getting bi levels are not getting delivered are down to engineering screw ups and incompetence of public and Amtrak officials. the most glaring issue is why aren't the plans for the California cars available for any contractor to use? These cars were designed for the State of California and it doesn't have rights to the designs are beyond me. Or why Amtrak or California didn't buy the designs back from Alstom is also beyond me. So many things went wrong with this order that is either down to political sabotage or utter incompetence.


----------



## nti1094

sttom said:


> I doubt that the bi level era is over. The only reason why we aren't getting bi levels are not getting delivered are down to engineering screw ups and incompetence of public and Amtrak officials. the most glaring issue is why aren't the plans for the California cars available for any contractor to use? These cars were designed for the State of California and it doesn't have rights to the designs are beyond me. Or why Amtrak or California didn't buy the designs back from Alstom is also beyond me. So many things went wrong with this order that is either down to political sabotage or utter incompetence.


I guess that’s what you get with the design by committee (PRIIA) 

I just hope the high boarding and trap doors don’t slow the boarding process to the point of hurting running times. There is no way in hell BNSF or UP will allow high platforms without gauntlet tracks, and I don’t see the state spending that kind of capital. Not to mention incompatibility with everything west of Chicago.


----------



## sttom

nti1094 said:


> I guess that’s what you get with the design by committee (PRIIA)
> 
> I just hope the high boarding and trap doors don’t slow the boarding process to the point of hurting running times. There is no way in hell BNSF or UP will allow high platforms without gauntlet tracks, and I don’t see the state spending that kind of capital. Not to mention incompatibility with everything west of Chicago.


I really don't see why they needed to redesign the car when the plans already existed. I can't see how Illinois et all wanted something radically different than the existing California fleet to justify a whole new design. No offense, but the cars are basically empty boxes with seats and stairs in them. And some even have the luxury of a toilet on the upper level. I still don't see why one of the existing designs did get bought back by the state and used for this order. I remember seeing on some forum as to why they didn't happen. They said Siemens specifically couldn't use them due to the pending merger with Alstom and the EU taking awhile to approve it. And for some reason EU laws would hold up the transfer of intellectual property in the US...for a US project...when the designs were commissioned by a public body...for public use...


----------



## PVD

IP laws cross borders. One of the major sore points in US China trade relationships has been China's failure to enforce US IP claims. Bottom line is a company that built hundreds of railcars in the US signed a contract to build something, and failed. The standards haven't changed in any way that should have caught anyone by surprise or unprepared. They're far more complex than empty boxes, because of the structural and CEM elements that are required in the finished product. If it was easy, they would have passed.


----------



## jis

Meanwhile EU has blocked the merger between Siemens and Alstom in its present form due to monopoly concerns.


----------



## sttom

PVD said:


> IP laws cross borders. One of the major sore points in US China trade relationships has been China's failure to enforce US IP claims. Bottom line is a company that built hundreds of railcars in the US signed a contract to build something, and failed. The standards haven't changed in any way that should have caught anyone by surprise or unprepared. They're far more complex than empty boxes, because of the structural and CEM elements that are required in the finished product. If it was easy, they would have passed.


Amtrak or the State of California should have scrounged up a few million to buy the designs back from Alstom or the original Superliner designs from Bombardier. Even if they can't be used for this order, it can at least save a decade on the next order or Superliner 3 when they get RFP'd


----------



## daybeers

jis said:


> Meanwhile EU has blocked the merger between Siemens and Alstom in its present form due to monopoly concerns.


Isn't that a good thing? I don't know much about the situation, just that I don't like monopolies.


----------



## jis

daybeers said:


> Isn't that a good thing? I don't know much about the situation, just that I don't like monopolies.


 Yeah. They have apparently said that if the two companies agree on certain divestitures the proposal would then be acceptable.Last time the EU did something similar, it essentially created a new viable company in Stadler. So all in all it is probably not a bad thing.


----------



## DSS&A

The February AASHTO status update has been posted online.


----------



## jrud

2019 NGEC annual meeting presentations are available. http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Pages/2019-Annual-Meeting-.aspx


----------



## milest303

So based on the most recent report it looks like about a year and a half until these are in service? And that's the soonest?


----------



## jis

milest303 said:


> So based on the most recent report it looks like about a year and a half until these are in service? And that's the soonest?


Isn't that pretty much what the original contract said? Why would anyone expect anything sooner?


----------



## milest303

jis said:


> Isn't that pretty much what the original contract said? Why would anyone expect anything sooner?


I think you misunderstood me. I'm not mad by that, I just wanted to have it clarified. Siemens seems to be much better at delivering on time than Nippon sharyo


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

So any updates on the new cars? 

(I have to admit to mystified chuckling at the thread about building new cars on a 20+ year old design)


----------



## Ziv

Metra Electric Rider said:


> So any updates on the new cars?
> 
> (I have to admit to mystified chuckling at the thread about building new cars on a 20+ year old design)


How much better have rail cars in Europe gotten over the past 20 years? I haven't a clue. I have to imagine that the Bright Siemens cars are a few years behind the best of Europe but I have no idea how good Amtraks latest railcars are. Better than 50 year old cars I imagine, though.


----------



## PerRock

Well seeing as Siemens is making the same cars for Europe, not that much different.


----------



## jis

The Viaggio Comfort design which the Brightline and States orders are based on is a current product being actively built and delivered in Europe today. They are about as current as you can get.


----------



## Steve4031

I just rode the Brightline yesterday. These cars are on par with what is in Europe. The ride was smooth, but FEC has upgraded the tracks with concert ties and welded rail. So cannot do apples to apples comparison with Amtrak cars. 

The seats are more comfortable than Amtrak’s coach seating. Better lower back support imho. The windows are large and clean. 

The bathrooms on these cars are light years ahead of anything on Amtrak. Every thing is automatic except for lifting and lowering the toilet seat. You push a button to open the door and once inside you push a button to close and lock it. A red light around the button tells you that it is locked. If it is unlocked then the light is green. Once one has completed their business they wave their hand next to a sensor by a green light and the toilet flushes. Works well for both 1and 2. I tried both. At the sink you place your hand under the faucet and the water runs. Then the hand dryer is attached to the faucet so minimal dripped n the floor. The soap also operates hands free too. I wonder how much maintenance this technology needs.


----------



## jis

Interestingly, the sinks in the restroom facilities in the stations operate almost exactly the same way too.


----------



## Ziv

PerRock, Jis, thanks for the info. I thought that the Bright railcars were iterations of an older design. Good to hear that they are state of the art. 
Are the CAF VL-II's relatively modern iterations of a Spanish design or are they more similar to the older VL-I's? Sorry for the newby questions, I usually ride the Cap Limited and the Builder so I don't know much about the Viewliners.


----------



## PerRock

the Viewliners IIs are reinventions of the older Viewliner Is. CAF does make more modern sleeping cars, but they're more in line with BR rolling stock.

Siemens does also make sleeping cars in both bilevel (multi, maybe) & single level layouts for European markets.

peter


----------



## jis

Ziv said:


> PerRock, Jis, thanks for the info. I thought that the Bright railcars were iterations of an older design. Good to hear that they are state of the art.
> Are the CAF VL-II's relatively modern iterations of a Spanish design or are they more similar to the older VL-I's? Sorry for the newby questions, I usually ride the Cap Limited and the Builder so I don't know much about the Viewliners.


VL-IIs have nothing to do with any European, Spanish or CAF design. They are the same as the VL-I design (1980s vintage) with some tweaks here and there. CAF is just a builder of them, and have very low involvement with the basic architecture and design.


----------



## DSS&A

Metra Electric Rider said:


> So any updates on the new cars?
> 
> (I have to admit to mystified chuckling at the thread about building new cars on a 20+ year old design)



AASHTO just posted new updated project status meeting minutes dated April 30th on its website. 14 carshells are currently in production and the first completed coach is expected to be delivered in January 2020 for testing.


----------



## Lake Country

I suspect that Indiana gop may have put the future of Beach Grove in jeopardy. 
Consider this: The Siemens Chargers are in service and the passenger cars are in production and due to to begin delivery in 2020. These train-sets are owned by the states (not Amtrak), specifically the Midwest coalition, and Indiana is not a member of this coalition. Will Michigan, Missouri and Illinois be content with maintenance services and jobs being performed in Indiana. Each of those states would be capable of supplying a workforce skilled in heavy machine/eqpt repair. The new equipment is not Amtrak eqpt. An updated modern facility tooled to work on the Siemens/Sumitomo train sets may be more efficient and certainly would be a development prize. Why would the Midwest coalition states continue current maintenance arraignments and send funds to another state that is not an active participant in the Midwest rail planing? Its only a matter of time and sooner rather than later...


----------



## Steve4031

A Siemens maintenance plant in Chicago makes perfect sense.


----------



## Ziv

Steve4031 said:


> A Siemens maintenance plant in Chicago makes perfect sense.


Would the potential employer be able to convince skilled workers to move to Chicago? It has a pretty poor reputation as a place to live. It is one thing to live in the rust belt, it has been seeing a lot of improvements of late. But Chicago is a big negative, not as big as Detroit, but still big. It seems like a mid-sized rust belt city that is on the rise like Pittsburg, Cleveland or Milwaukee would be better.


----------



## Eric S

Chicago is a big negative but Cleveland is a city on the rise??? My guess is that's based more on one's perception than on any objective measures.


----------



## jis

Ziv said:


> Would the potential employer be able to convince skilled workers to move to Chicago? It has a pretty poor reputation as a place to live. It is one thing to live in the rust belt, it has been seeing a lot of improvements of late. But Chicago is a big negative, not as big as Detroit, but still big. It seems like a mid-sized rust belt city that is on the rise like Pittsburg, Cleveland or Milwaukee would be better.


Realistically, neither Piittsburgh, nor Cleveland makes any sense for a maintenance shop for the Midwest owned equipment. It does not make any operational or political sense.

And as for Amtrak's own LD equipment, there is no reason to move that function out of Beech Grove anyway.


----------



## milest303

Ziv said:


> Would the potential employer be able to convince skilled workers to move to Chicago? It has a pretty poor reputation as a place to live. It is one thing to live in the rust belt, it has been seeing a lot of improvements of late. But Chicago is a big negative, not as big as Detroit, but still big. It seems like a mid-sized rust belt city that is on the rise like Pittsburg, Cleveland or Milwaukee would be better.



As a Chicago resident myself, you've got my attention. Personally I love this city and only see companies moving to the downtown loop, not away. Unsure of what your point is?

As far as I can tell, Chicago has more activities to offer than any of the cities you suggested.


----------



## Steve4031

I live in Chicago and it has more minuses than pluses. Traffic is abysmal and winter is abysmal. Years and years of machine politics have stagnated the growth of the city. The population is decreasing. 

I do believe that since Chicago is the hub of the MidWest corridor system that it would make since for the maintenance facilities for swim end be built there.


----------



## milest303

Steve4031 said:


> I live in Chicago and it has more minuses than pluses. Traffic is abysmal and winter is abysmal. Years and years of machine politics have stagnated the growth of the city. The population is decreasing.
> 
> I do believe that since Chicago is the hub of the MidWest corridor system that it would make since for the maintenance facilities for swim end be built there.



I disagree, to me the pluses outweigh the minuses. But I also don't own a car and I love winter. 

But to get back to topic I think having facilities here make more sense. Back in the 70s when Amtrak bought the Turboliners they built a facility in the Brighton Park neighborhood in Chicago. There's not much information about the current operations of the facility online, but last I heard it was used to maintain Horizon cars and the like. As the Siemens trainsets come in would it be possible they might transition the operations of that shop to work on the new cars?


----------



## NSC1109

milest303 said:


> I disagree, to me the pluses outweigh the minuses. But I also don't own a car and I love winter.
> 
> But to get back to topic I think having facilities here make more sense. Back in the 70s when Amtrak bought the Turboliners they built a facility in the Brighton Park neighborhood in Chicago. There's not much information about the current operations of the facility online, but last I heard it was used to maintain Horizon cars and the like. As the Siemens trainsets come in would it be possible they might transition the operations of that shop to work on the new cars?



The last I heard, the Brighton Park facility is still active, frequently servicing Horizon and occasionally Superliner consists. The most recent Apple Maps 3D image shows a single piece of MoW equipment on site. No vehicles and no passenger equipment of any kind.


----------



## milest303

If all that's there is some MOW equipment then I think those shops are a prime location for a maintenance facility, albeit with some upgrading.


----------



## Steve4031

Brighton park is far from CUS. IIRC equipment that is serviced there would have to cross two railroad junctions at grade to get to CUS. It’s not that big either. 

I don’t know how many turboliners were serviced there but think there would be in more Siemens train sets to be serviced than there were turboliners.


----------



## milest303

Steve4031 said:


> Brighton park is far from CUS. IIRC equipment that is serviced there would have to cross two railroad junctions at grade to get to CUS. It’s not that big either.
> 
> I don’t know how many turboliners were serviced there but think there would be in more Siemens train sets to be serviced than there were turboliners.



It's a little far, but there's not much room to expand. You could also say that Metra's Western Ave shops are far from Union Station, but those shops are also much larger than what Brighton Park is.


----------



## NES28

milest303 said:


> It's a little far, but there's not much room to expand. You could also say that Metra's Western Ave shops are far from Union Station, but those shops are also much larger than what Brighton Park is.


The most logical place for a new Midwest central facility would be next to O'Hare Airport, on the site of the ex-CN, ex-Wisconsin Central, ex-Soo Schiller Park Yard. All Midwest Corridor trains from the east and south should terminate at O'Hare not only to serve the busiest airport in the country, but to serve the 2 million people and huge number of workers in the northwest suburbs (more than in almost all Midwestern cities). Last I knew CN had vacated the yard. Running time to CUS is now 27 minutes on Metra express trains and, with some investment, can be reduced less than 20.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Is there really enough room at the Schiller Park Yard? And would it be affordable for Amtrak or Siemens? There are the empty Nippon-Sharyo and Talgo plants (assuming that they haven't been snapped up already) in Illinois and Wisconsin respectively.


----------



## Steve4031

NES28 said:


> The most logical place for a new Midwest central facility would be next to O'Hare Airport, on the site of the ex-CN, ex-Wisconsin Central, ex-Soo Schiller Park Yard. All Midwest Corridor trains from the east and south should terminate at O'Hare not only to serve the busiest airport in the country, but to serve the 2 million people and huge number of workers in the northwest suburbs (more than in almost all Midwestern cities). Last I knew CN had vacated the yard. Running time to CUS is now 27 minutes on Metra express trains and, with some investment, can be reduced less than 20.



A great idea. And since these trains could switch ends easily they can go into cus and then continue north towards Milwaukee.


----------



## NSC1109

Steve4031 said:


> A great idea. And since these trains could switch ends easily they can go into cus and then continue north towards Milwaukee.



Problem: CUS is a stub-end station. Only a few through-tracks available and currently I believe only one with a platform. How do you guys propose fixing that?

We’re also talking about moving a large part of Amtrak’s operations from CUS to a new terminal west of the city. At that point, you are now dividing resources between two stations and will have to hire more staff to man both stations. Not a good use of resources from a business standpoint. You can operate something akin to the “Heathrow Express” between CUS and the O’Hare Transfer for far less. No stops in between, just direct between CUS and the airport.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

O'Hare Express? 

But Elon Musk is already building that.... Oh, wait... Crickets...


----------



## NSC1109

Metra Electric Rider said:


> O'Hare Express?
> 
> But Elon Musk is already building that.... Oh, wait... Crickets...



yeah somethin’ tells me that Mr. Musk won’t be makin’ much good on that promise, considering the ride is “terrible” and the fact that they haven’t started yet.


----------



## Lake Country

Metra Electric Rider said:


> Is there really enough room at the Schiller Park Yard? And would it be affordable for Amtrak or Siemens? There are the empty Nippon-Sharyo and Talgo plants (assuming that they haven't been snapped up already) in Illinois and Wisconsin respectively.



Nippon Sharyo is a good possibility, a little far out... Better yet Progress Rail in LaGrange -rumor is that it is closing. Heavy machine shop, large multiple building facility. VERY close in (15m) with direct access to BNSF and CN both are on Illinois Corridor lines which will employ the new Midwest Coalition train sets on the Chi-STl line and Chi-Qcy. Google Map


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Of course, if Siemens is doing the maint., building their own plant, they might want additional assembly capacity and might want to build a ground up plant/facility somewhere. Hopefully in the City of Chicago of course... 

(and that might also get them a nod with filling Metra's new rolling stock dreams too)


----------



## jis

My suspicion is that the maintenance facility for Midwest Siemens rolling stock will resemble a slightly upscaled version of the Brightline facilities in WPB and the upcoming one in Orlando International Airport. It will not be a manufacturing plant. That will continue to be in Sacramento with additional expansion. There is no logic to having two manufacturing plants, both being in labor protected states,in the US, given the current projected order volume. A single manufacturing facility should be quite adequate for manufacturing several hundred locomotives and thousand passenger cars a year. We are unlikely to get to that kind of volume anytime soon.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

jis said:


> My suspicion is that the maintenance facility for Midwest Siemens rolling stock will resemble a slightly upscaled version of the Brightline facilities in WPB and the upcoming one in Orlando International Airport. It will not be a manufacturing plant. That will continue to be in Sacramento with additional expansion. There is no logic to having two manufacturing plants, both being in labor protected states,in the US, given the current projected order volume. A single manufacturing facility should be quite adequate for manufacturing several hundred locomotives and thousand passenger cars a year. We are unlikely tog et to that kind of volume anytime soon.



Dangnabbit you're dashing my unrealistic dreams for Chicago's greatness! But I think you're right.


----------



## Lake Country

So A new maintenance facility is realistic, and should be under consideration very soon since the new cars begin to roll off Jan 2020. Maintenance facility is independent of Amtrak since the locos and cars will be owned by the Coalition states of MI, MO and IL.


----------



## jis

Lake Country said:


> So A new maintenance facility is realistic, and should be under consideration very soon since the new cars begin to roll off Jan 2020. Maintenance facility is independent of Amtrak since the locos and cars will be owned by the Coalition states of MI, MO and IL.



Unless of course the Midwest States choose Amtrak as the manager of such a facility. 

The Brightline facility is managed by Brightline with a few resident Siemens folks there.


----------



## Anthony V

Lake Country said:


> Nippon Sharyo is a good possibility, a little far out... Better yet Progress Rail in LaGrange -rumor is that it is closing. Heavy machine shop, large multiple building facility. VERY close in (15m) with direct access to BNSF and CN both are on Illinois Corridor lines which will employ the new Midwest Coalition train sets on the Chi-STl line and Chi-Qcy. Google Map


Using the former Nippon Sharyo plant in Rochelle would require that Amtrak deadhead trains between Chicago and Rochelle. Of course, a new service between Chicago and Clinton or Cedar Rapids, Iowa could be started, or the California Zephyr could be rerouted over the UP. (Either option would serve as a hospital train to ferry equipment to and from Rochelle). However, I doubt UP would be too keen on any new regular passenger service operating on their busy transcontinental line, at least without major capital improvements. As you mentioned, using the Progress Rail shops in La Grange (if it closes) would be a better option as it's much closer to Chicago and there is already Amtrak service through La Grange. Rochelle would be the second choice if rumors of Progress Rail's closing are false.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Hopefully the new cars will enable the Quad Cities and proposed Rockford services to come to fruition - are those routes any better (I can't remember what was proposed).


----------



## Lake Country

So Amtrak will have to bid on the work..just like Virgin, Capital Corridor, IP and all the others. And Amtrak will have to divulge the cost of running corridor service without the cover of LD overhead. Should be interesting..


----------



## NSC1109

Lake Country said:


> So Amtrak will have to bid on the work..just like Virgin, Capital Corridor, IP and all the others. And Amtrak will have to divulge the cost of running corridor service without the cover of LD overhead. Should be interesting..



Bid on work for what exactly? New shops? New service? 

Did you post in the wrong thread?


----------



## ScouseAndy

Don't let Virgin Trains anywhere near your rail network! Awful company, prices have quadrupled n the UK on virgin West coach trains, they are now refusing to honour pensions, payments to the UK tax payer have been let or in the case of Virgin East Coast never materialised so they had that franchise stripped off them.

They have now been banned from bidding for the next franchises and whilst the WC franchise still has a


----------



## jis

It should be noted that neither Virgin Trains nor Virgin East Coast are coming anywhere near the US. Both are British consortia, one owned 51% by the Virgin Group and the other owned only 10% by the Virgin Group. The balance is owned by Stagecoach or others. Virgin Train ceases to exist mid 2020, and Virgin Trains East Coast is already dead. Both were created to handle a specific TOC franchise, and are coterminus with the franchise.

In case of Brightline the Virgin Group's financial involvement is of the order of 10-15% and the management remains entirely that of Brightline. Virgin Group gets one seat on the Board for their troubles, and Brightline gets to use the Virgin brand as in Virgin Trains USA, and use Branson as their advertising monkey, for what it is worth (apparently quite a bit when it comes to selling bonds  ).

It should also be noted that it is Stagecoach that has been banned from bidding on any franchise. They were 50% of the planned new consortium to bid on West Coast plus HSR2. That consortium as planned was to be 50% Stagecoach, 30% SNCF and 20% Virgin Group. Now it is pretty much dead.

And all this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread.


----------



## John Bredin

Just rode past the Schiller Park yard on a Metra North Central train, and while it's not remotely full, it IS being used by Canadian Pacific. I saw a couple of engines, a smattering of freight cars (tankers, intermodal flats), and a container yard with several containers stacked up. The latter is consistent with the last time I drove past/under the yard on Lawrence Avenue, where a sign on the south side of the street just east of the underpass marks the road entrance to CP's Schiller Park Intermodal Ramp.


----------



## NES28

NSC1109 said:


> Problem: CUS is a stub-end station. Only a few through-tracks available and currently I believe only one with a platform. How do you guys propose fixing that?
> 
> We’re also talking about moving a large part of Amtrak’s operations from CUS to a new terminal west of the city. At that point, you are now dividing resources between two stations and will have to hire more staff to man both stations. Not a good use of resources from a business standpoint. You can operate something akin to the “Heathrow Express” between CUS and the O’Hare Transfer for far less. No stops in between, just direct between CUS and the airport.



Certainly there should be something like Heathrow Express. But the combination of the Northwest suburbs and O'Hare are a big enough market to justify extending intercity service too, so passengers from beyond Chicago would not need to transfer to get to the Midwest's primary international airport. The Chicago Union Station Master Plan Study showed how the unused Mail Platform, located south of the Union Station concourse, could be modified as two 2 island platforms, with perhaps both of them connected to the through tracks.


----------



## Seaboard92

You already have Metra to the airport. I’ll give it that service isn’t as frequent as we would like but it does exist. In fact I’ve used it every time I’ve flown out of ORD


----------



## Tadman

Seaboard92 said:


> You already have Metra to the airport. I’ll give it that service isn’t as frequent as we would like but it does exist. In fact I’ve used it every time I’ve flown out of ORD


I find CTA's blue line much easier due to frequency and the in-airport station. That assumes that one is going downtown, not out to the suburbs.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

While not exactly on topic, I'd highly recommend against taking Metra to the airport at the moment due to the shuttle/people mover situation - it's down and getting around the airport (especially to/from international terminal is a total disaster) is by shuttles. Also, if you are transferring between international and domestic - fly via another airport unless it's unavoidable and allow LOTS of time between flights. You can't walk between the international terminal and the domestic terminals.


----------



## grover5995

NES28 said:


> The most logical place for a new Midwest central facility would be next to O'Hare Airport, on the site of the ex-CN, ex-Wisconsin Central, ex-Soo Schiller Park Yard. All Midwest Corridor trains from the east and south should terminate at O'Hare not only to serve the busiest airport in the country, but to serve the 2 million people and huge number of workers in the northwest suburbs (more than in almost all Midwestern cities). Last I knew CN had vacated the yard. Running time to CUS is now 27 minutes on Metra express trains and, with some investment, can be reduced less than 20.


----------



## grover5995

NES28 said:


> The most logical place for a new Midwest central facility would be next to O'Hare Airport, on the site of the ex-CN, ex-Wisconsin Central, ex-Soo Schiller Park Yard. All Midwest Corridor trains from the east and south should terminate at O'Hare not only to serve the busiest airport in the country, but to serve the 2 million people and huge number of workers in the northwest suburbs (more than in almost all Midwestern cities). Last I knew CN had vacated the yard. Running time to CUS is now 27 minutes on Metra express trains and, with some investment, can be reduced less than 20.


CrossRail Chicago is a plan that calls for upgrading MILW West line and eliminating many street crossings. It also includes direct connection to St. Charles Airline south of CUS which would allow direct service between O'Hare/Union Station and McCormick Place-U of Chicago. Basing Midwest Corridor trains at O'Hare would open up considerable capacity south of CUS for servicing long-distance trains.


----------



## NSC1109

grover5995 said:


> CrossRail Chicago is a plan that calls for upgrading MILW West line and eliminating many street crossings. It also includes direct connection to St. Charles Airline south of CUS which would allow direct service between O'Hare/Union Station and McCormick Place-U of Chicago. Basing Midwest Corridor trains at O'Hare would open up considerable capacity south of CUS for servicing long-distance trains.




Don’t forget that Metra will also be moving the Southwest Service to LaSalle Street in the near future. I haven’t heard if that move is designed to free up space for Metra in Chicago South then but that could also add capacity. 

I’m still wary of what would essentially be having two bases of operation for Amtrak’s operations in Chicago. Crew facilities would have to be built in the station as well as some sort of ORD-CUS connector because some trains won’t be able to go to CUS if they’re based out of ORD. For example, the Hiawatha. If you move all Midwest corridor trains to ORD, they can’t stop at CUS because they’d have to backtrack to O’Hare. Kind of negates the whole purpose. The same can be said for the new services that are supposedly starting in Moline and Rockford: they’d have to pass the airport to serve CUS, then backtrack.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

NSC1109 said:


> Don’t forget that Metra will also be moving the Southwest Service to LaSalle Street in the near future. I haven’t heard if that move is designed to free up space for Metra in Chicago South then but that could also add capacity.
> 
> I’m still wary of what would essentially be having two bases of operation for Amtrak’s operations in Chicago. Crew facilities would have to be built in the station as well as some sort of ORD-CUS connector because some trains won’t be able to go to CUS if they’re based out of ORD. For example, the Hiawatha. If you move all Midwest corridor trains to ORD, they can’t stop at CUS because they’d have to backtrack to O’Hare. Kind of negates the whole purpose. The same can be said for the new services that are supposedly starting in Moline and Rockford: they’d have to pass the airport to serve CUS, then backtrack.


Rockford trains would require a backup move to even have an intermediate stop at ORD, as they will operate on the Milwaukee District West Line, which merges with the North Central Service south of the ORD stop. The Moline trains will use the same route into Chicago as the CZ, SWC, and Quincy trains, so could continue past CUS to ORD, although it would be circuitous.


----------



## jis

Maybe a new thread is needed to discuss suburban railroads around Chicago, so that this thread can be returned to its original subject.


----------



## NSC1109

jis said:


> Maybe a new thread is needed to discuss suburban railroads around Chicago, so that this thread can be returned to its original subject.




Here’s a tie-in for you: are there even enough new cars in order for the new services? Or are they gonna use legacy equipment?


----------



## jis

That is a relevant question for both California and Midwest, but that is not what is being discussed, when one is talking about METRA service. So at best it is a weak attempt at a tie in. Sorry.  Just IMHO of course.


----------



## NSC1109

jis said:


> That is a relevant question for both California and Midwest, but that is not what is being discussed, when one is talking about METRA service. So at best it is a weak attempt at a tie in. Sorry.  Just IMHO of course.



Ahhhhh I misunderstood what you were referring to. My bad!


----------



## MisterUptempo

jis said:


> That is a relevant question for both California and Midwest, but that is not what is being discussed, when one is talking about METRA service. So at best it is a weak attempt at a tie in. Sorry.  Just IMHO of course.


And to that end, here is the latest on the Siemens railcars, from the draft version of the May 30, 2019 meeting of the PRIIA 305 Technical Subcommittee-

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305 tech sc minutes 5-30-19 draft.doc


----------



## jis

This is the sort of rapid progress is what I had hoped to see from CAF on the Viewliner order too, but alas that was not to be.


----------



## jamess

These new train sets will not have cafe cars?


----------



## MisterUptempo

jamess said:


> These new train sets will not have cafe cars?


The IDOT portion of the order will have cafe cars, while the Caltrans portion will not, just as Caltrans will be getting cab cars, while IDOT will not.


----------



## BBoy

Random thought:
Should Amtrak design a viewliner ll coach and lounge car as a replacement for the amfleet ll vehicles for long distance routes in the east...In order to make a consist uniformed along with the V-ll diners and sleepers like superliner consists?


----------



## NSC1109

BBoy said:


> Random thought:
> Should Amtrak design a viewliner ll coach and lounge car as a replacement for the amfleet ll vehicles for long distance routes in the east...In order to make a consist uniformed along with the V-ll diners and sleepers like superliner consists?



I’ve thought about the same thing, and frankly I think a coach with double rows of windows would be popular: high ceilings, lots of natural light during the day, etc.

Problem would be the builder. CAF, current builder of the V-IIs, has endured many setbacks and delays during the project.

In addition to a “uniform look” in terms of shape, they should also be uniform in color. Nothing irritates me more than the fact that Amtrak has their dorms, bags, and bag-dorms running around in a separate scheme than the rest of the national fleet. Either transition to “Amtrak America” for LD or don’t.

Edit: Reading up on the Viewliners on Wikipedia, it appears that Amtrak’s goal back in the 90s was in fact solid consists of Viewliners, including coaches. That probably means Amtrak has a prototype design for a Viewliner Coach lying around somewhere.


----------



## jiml

BBoy said:


> Random thought:
> Should Amtrak design a viewliner ll coach and lounge car as a replacement for the amfleet ll vehicles for long distance routes in the east...In order to make a consist uniformed along with the V-ll diners and sleepers like superliner consists?



Lounges especially - would almost be an Eastern version of Sightseer Lounge. Even if they had to economize and have only a single row of windows in coaches, aren't Viewliner windows larger than the Amfleet they'd replace?


----------



## jis

Dream on about more Viewliners [emoji51]


----------



## Eric S

jis said:


> Dream on about more Viewliners [emoji51]



Sounds more like a nightmare to me...


----------



## Steve4031

I think a long distance version of the Siemens cars would be more realistic. Some of the Chinese Bullet trains have lie-flat seats like on airplanes. I’m sure these seats or something similar could be fitted into the seimans cars.


----------



## PerRock

Siemens actually makes a sleeper version of the Viaggio cars (which is what we're getting) for Russia & Austria. I don't think they'd have much problem putting the interior into our shells.

peter


----------



## MikefromCrete

Viewliners are the past. Given CAF's record on building cars, it would be the 22nd century before any Viewliner coaches appear. The Siemens cars are the future and they can be outfitted as just about any kind of car. It would be no problem to make them into cafe cars, lounges, diners, sleepers.


----------



## railiner

Upper windows would not be practical in coaches.
That’s where the overhead baggage racks go...


----------



## keelhauled

There’s no reason a hypothetical Viewliner III order would need to come from CAF. The design is Amtrak’s and they would just send it out to bid like they did with the CAF order. As I recall, Alstom also bid for that order, but CAF was the low bidder. 

That said, the Avelia order and the RfI and RfP for the Amfleet I replacement where they are letting the manufacturers offer their own designs make me think Amtrak has learned their lesson about purchasing bespoke equipment and any long distance order will hew as closely as possible to some builder’s existing design.


----------



## jis

That is certainly true for single level cars. 

Replacement for bi-level cars like Superliners is going to be another matter unless Amtrak decides to go with off the shelf bi-level designs instead of trying to get reproductions of the Superliner/Sufliner design. I believe that is still an open issue, which will get resolved after the RFI and then RFQ is issued and responses evaluated.


----------



## bretton88

If I recall correctly a big difference between the viewliner procurement and and bilevel procurement is Amtrak doesn't own the designs. Any new superliners would have be made by bombardier (ugh these days) or California cars made by alstom (which has no sleeper variant, though I'm sure one could be come up with.). So amtrak is wise to look at all their options including replacements with single level cars.


----------



## jis

bretton88 said:


> If I recall correctly a big difference between the viewliner procurement and and bilevel procurement is Amtrak doesn't own the designs. Any new superliners would have be made by bombardier (ugh these days) or California cars made by alstom (which has no sleeper variant, though I'm sure one could be come up with.). So amtrak is wise to look at all their options including replacements with single level cars.


Amtrak owning the design is a red herring. Amtrak owning the Viewliner design is not causing them to order more Viewliners. Actually it is a formula for increasing procurement costs to insist on your own design since the total number of cars to be ordered is small, less than a thousand. Compare that to worldwide orders for Viaggios for example. There is no way Amtrak can win by spending its own money for designing cars and maintaining car designs. That is not part of its core skill set, or should not be even if someone at Amtrak thinks it should be.

The car specification in the US has specifically been assigned to the PRIAA Committee, and the cars ordered from Siemens are compliant with the specification. That is about as far as these things should go. Amtrak should specify the type of accommodation they want furnished, and car suppliers the world over are quite capable of cost effectively manufacturing cars with proper furnishing as per the request of the customer, as long as they don't insist on the structural foundation of the car to be modified in bizarre ways.

It makes sense for an outfit to own its own design when it is something like Chinese Railways or Indian Railways. Even RZD, the Russian Railways, which orders a heck of a lot more cars than Amtrak does, tends to shy away from owning the car designs. To give you an idea of the number of cars per year we are talking about for owning designs, Indian Railways orders over 7000 cars each year


----------



## edgy

MisterUptempo said:


> The IDOT portion of the order will have cafe cars, while the Caltrans portion will not, just as Caltrans will be getting cab cars, while IDOT will not.


Looking over the Feb 2018 NGEC PowerPoint and later updates both Caltrans AND IDOT will have café cars. California cars are more set up as 7 trainsets made up of 5 different types of cars. But one is a café car. Full PowerPoint is too large to upload, but they are listed as: Cab car, Café car, End coach car coupled to locomotive, mid coach car, mid coach car with wheelchair lifts.


----------



## MisterUptempo

edgy said:


> Looking over the Feb 2018 NGEC PowerPoint and later updates both Caltrans AND IDOT will have café cars. California cars are more set up as 7 trainsets made up of 5 different types of cars. But one is a café car. Full PowerPoint is too large to upload, but they are listed as: Cab car, Café car, End coach car coupled to locomotive, mid coach car, mid coach car with wheelchair lifts.



Perhaps you are correct, but looking at the Powerpoint "CALIDOT" presentation from the *2019* NGEC meeting, found here-

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Docum...Single-Level Passenger Railcars “CALIDOT”.pdf





It mentions a "Lounge Car" for Caltrans, while referring to "Lounge Car" and "cafe" for IDOT.

Also in the minutes of the *May 21, 2019* Executive Committee meeting, found here-

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305 Exec Brd minutes - 5-21-19 final.doc 






It is mentioned that IDOT, and IDOT alone, had a cafe car and galley design review meeting with Siemens, while Caltrans alone had a cab car design review with Siemens, and we know Caltrans is the only entity getting cab cars. 

Perhaps I'm reading too much into the fact that only IDOT has a cafe car listed on the presentation and that they alone took that meeting with Siemens. We'll see.


----------



## WalterIII

Good dialogue and speculation. Thanks for the rundown on the Siemens order, it will be interesting to see their cars go into the regional service and on VIA Rail. I need to go over to Miami to ride Virgin/Brightline to see how they are sometime soon.

Some observations from a 33 year Class 1 railway semi-retiree and veteran of many Amtrak/VIA and pre-Amtrak/VIA "journeys". 

As I recall Superliner I was designed by Amtrak and a third party engineering firm (L. T. Klauder) and likely owned by Amtrak. Pullman Standard and Budd both bid on the Superliner I program and Pullman won; according to Wikipedia Boeing and Rohr were also sent bid invitations . I have read that some Budd patents were used in their construction. Viewliner was an in house Amtrak design (one of the managers involved in the concept development is a friend of mine) and Budd built the three prototype shells (Amtrak Beech Grove completed the interior and systems installations). Years later Bombardier had acquired all Pullman and Budd designs, and perhaps any production jigs etc. but that did not stop Amtrak biding out Viewliner I with Morrison-Knudsen winning the bid, or for that matter Viewliner II being bid on as well. 

So, a Superliner III program using an updated Superliner design could likely be possible. The active Superliner I and II fleet is some 424 cars, and VIA could use over 100-150 to replace the ex-CP Canadian cars used on the Canadian and other western trains plus 30-50 more for the Ocean if a low level platform was established in Central Station/Gare Central in Montreal. So, a 550-650 car multi year Amtrak/VIA program could be conceived, and could be bigger if train capacity was increased to 1980-1995 levels. Remember, only 12-13 years separate the last Superliner I cars from the first Superliner IIs, so a program over 5-7 years would make sense with 100 cars per year. Of course the current Amtrak leadership would likely be fine replacing the superliner trains by a single car DMU with a couple of vending machines at one end. 

As for Viewliner, the project went through several concept and detailed design steps. Original concepts included a vestibule near center and Superliner sized windows, and upper berth windows were added. As it progressed to detailed design a more conventional vestibule location was decided on and the carbody enlarged to the maximum loading gauge for the northeast. The upper berth windows were at first removed, and then added back (for sleeper, lounge and diner); the windows by then were Amfleet II (main) and Amfleet I(upper) for standardization. Here are the later detailed designs:





As I recall a full family was envisaged: sleeper, diner, lounge, coach, crew dorm and baggage, and was to replace all of Heritage Fleet from 1990 on. The M-K order was for 50 sleepers with 50 sleeper options, and the potential for 250 or more additional cars (the other types). In the end only the 50 sleepers were built, and none of the options exercised. The program had been delayed by a then awful 1-2 years. I recall an article in Trains back in the 1990's when the program was underway that the lounge variant included a skylight roof and a large service door for the snack bar that included a lift for both supplies and wheel chair passengers. I do recall seeing a comment somewhere that M-K built a 51st shell on their own as a test article which was a lounge with the skylight roof; never saw that confirmed, let alone a picture. Would have enjoyed riding one of those through the New River Gorge on the Cardinal 

From the new Amtrak fleet plan it does seem they are intent on replacing Amfleet I with an off the shelf design and that it could replace Amfleet II, so more Viewliners do seem out of reach, which is a shame.

Keep in mind when Superliner and Viewliner were designed there were no "off the shelf" designs that could be used in the US other than Metroliner/Amfleet (and some commuter designs). There was little interest in changing European designs for the most part, and Japanese Shinkansen trains have a carbody too wide for US clearances . There was also issues with "buy USA provisions" for Federal purchases and the uncertainty of Amtrak's future. Amtrak was able to bring on the 6 ANF RTG Turboliners but the additional Turboliners were built by US aerospace supplier Rohr (7 RTL trains built, 7 more planned but cancelled by Congress, even more above 14 sets were planned). Superliner and Viewliner are good and successful designs (sure, there were some bugs). The big problem in the last 15 years has been elimination of a US industry base due to a lack of orders and inexperienced builders winning bids (CAF-Viewliner and stillborn Sumitomo regional bi-level). It will be interesting to see if the new "off the shelf" designs are as durable and long lived as Amfleet, Superliner and Viewliner.

Walter


----------



## jis

I think there would have been a strong case for continuing with the original Amtrak designed cars, if there was any sign that Amtrak was going to grow by leaps and bounds. Absent that it is hard to justify maintaining a design group beyond one that is needed to put together RFIs and RFPs and carry out monitoring and governance of them from vendor selection, through order placement, delivery and deployment.

Incidentally, the biggest main line passenger car purchaser in the US today is NY MTA (LIRR + MNRR) AFAICT. Their order sizes, which are much larger than Amtrak's has ever been, almost justify doing their own design, but they tend to work with vendors using vendor shell design to furnish cars the way they need.

But as Walter correctly points out, the situation back when Amtrak was ordering Amfleets and Superliners was very different. There were no vendors that were not about to go under around to work seriously with, so a lot had to be done in house. Also FRA's revision of standards allowing CEM in cars was many decades away.


----------



## jamess

MisterUptempo said:


> The IDOT portion of the order will have cafe cars, while the Caltrans portion will not, just as Caltrans will be getting cab cars, while IDOT will not.



This is not good.

People traveling 10 hours between LA and Bay Area are with Amtrak for 10 hours.

How can they think that vending machines will cut it?


----------



## jis

The only train that runs from LA to Bay area is the Coast Starlight which is not an Amtrak California train and carries a full Diner and Lounge/Cafe.

I suspect that the Amtrak California Lounges will have some form of Cafe service, though probably more like what they have in Amtrak California Business Class type of setup than a full fledged Cafe. But we will have to wait and see.


----------



## PVD

People often are unaware that the states that pay for corridor trains really call the shots on many of the service levels.


----------



## jamess

jis said:


> The only train that runs from LA to Bay area is the Coast Starlight which is not an Amtrak California train and carries a full Diner and Lounge/Cafe.
> 
> I suspect that the Amtrak California Lounges will have some form of Cafe service, though probably more like what they have in Amtrak California Business Class type of setup than a full fledged Cafe. But we will have to wait and see.



I didnt say train, I said "with Amtrak". The San Joaquin + San Joaquin bus is packed with folks making trips across the state. Thats where they would be cutting the cafe car. 

Theres no need to wait and see.


----------



## jis

It is Caltrans that will be doing that. Not Amtrak. Amtrak is just a contract operator for Caltrans. Amtrak does not decide what service to provide on Amtrak California trains.


----------



## jamess

jis said:


> It is Caltrans that will be doing that. Not Amtrak. Amtrak is just a contract operator for Caltrans. Amtrak does not decide what service to provide on Amtrak California trains.



I dont understand how being pedantic about this helps.

This is what I said:



> People traveling 10 hours between LA and Bay Area are with Amtrak for 10 hours.
> 
> How can they think that vending machines will cut it?




Let's say I change my phrasing to: 

People traveling 10 hours between LA and Bay Area on an _*Amtrak® branded train funded by California taxpayers under the direction of Caltrans and managed by the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority with bus connection service operated by a 3rd party contractor*_ deserve more than a vending machine. 

That doesn't change what I am saying. 

Buying these trains without a cafe car of any kind is a mistake.


----------



## jis

Hey I love being pedantic. If that bothers you just ignore my postings. Nobody is forcing you to read them and try to convince me not to post. Trust me it is a fools errand. [emoji51]

So to carry on being pedantic, my favorite activity mind you [emoji57] it is California DOT’s mistake, not Amtrak’s. 

So wanna go another round having a pedantic discussion?


----------



## edgy

MisterUptempo said:


> Perhaps you are correct, but looking at the Powerpoint "CALIDOT" presentation from the *2019* NGEC meeting, found here-
> 
> hmmm. Looks like it morphed into a Lounge car? Wonder what the differences are? (not snarky, wondering)
> Also now there are 6 car types with 7 mid coach cars becoming mid coach car with gap filler. So on car of each set has wheel chair lifts and one has level boarding gap fillers? overly specialized designs?
> 
> On the idot side what do you suppose is meant by the business/economy coaches, the 17 to be married to 17 of the 34 'regular(?) coaches? Deciding whether to make them higher priced business class 2 x 1 seating OR economy cars with gosh forbid 2 x 3 seating or some such?
> 
> 
> http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/Caltrans_IDOT New Single-Level Passenger Railcars “CALIDOT”.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It mentions a "Lounge Car" for Caltrans, while referring to "Lounge Car" and "cafe" for IDOT.
> 
> Also in the minutes of the *May 21, 2019* Executive Committee meeting, found here-
> 
> http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305 Exec Brd minutes - 5-21-19 final.doc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is mentioned that IDOT, and IDOT alone, had a cafe car and galley design review meeting with Siemens, while Caltrans alone had a cab car design review with Siemens, and we know Caltrans is the only entity getting cab cars.
> 
> Perhaps I'm reading too much into the fact that only IDOT has a cafe car listed on the presentation and that they alone took that meeting with Siemens. We'll see.


----------



## edgy

jamess said:


> I didnt say train, I said "with Amtrak". The San Joaquin + San Joaquin bus is packed with folks making trips across the state. Thats where they would be cutting the cafe car.
> 
> Theres no need to wait and see.
> 
> Well, I should have read to the very last post before I mused about what the lounge car replacing a café concept meant. Vending machines. Wow that is quite a departure from what I think is really nice café car service as on the Cap Corridor trains. Some circular seating areas to socialize, along with the employee serving up food/drink, crossword puzzles to work if that is what one enjoys, to brand spanking new cars with vending machines. let down... but easy for me to say, I don't have to pay staff I suppose.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997

MisterUptempo said:


> Perhaps you are correct, but looking at the Powerpoint "CALIDOT" presentation from the *2019* NGEC meeting, found here-
> 
> http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/Caltrans_IDOT New Single-Level Passenger Railcars “CALIDOT”.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It mentions a "Lounge Car" for Caltrans, while referring to "Lounge Car" and "cafe" for IDOT.
> 
> Also in the minutes of the *May 21, 2019* Executive Committee meeting, found here-
> 
> http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305 Exec Brd minutes - 5-21-19 final.doc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is mentioned that IDOT, and IDOT alone, had a cafe car and galley design review meeting with Siemens, while Caltrans alone had a cab car design review with Siemens, and we know Caltrans is the only entity getting cab cars.
> 
> Perhaps I'm reading too much into the fact that only IDOT has a cafe car listed on the presentation and that they alone took that meeting with Siemens. We'll see.


In the coupler configuration box, what do "S" and "H" stand for?


----------



## MisterUptempo

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> In the coupler configuration box, what do "S" and "H" stand for?



The "H" refers to an AAR Type "H" coupler, which is the standard coupler used by Amtrak. The "S" refers to a semi-permanent coupler. Caltrans intends to run their new Siemens cars as unified trainsets, which helps explain why all the mid coaches have "S" couplers on both ends, and the end coach has an "S" on one end to connect to the mid coaches and an "H" to connect to the locomotive.

Some of the IDOT cars will run as semi-permanently connected matched pairs, but not as a trainset.


----------



## MARC Rider

Looking at the RPA ridership stats, the average trip length for California State Supported Services in in the neighborhood of 120 miles, and that's because the San Joaquins have a longer average trip length than the othe 2 services. Both the Capitol Corridor and Pacific Surfliner average trip lengths are less than 100 miles. Infact, on the Capitol corridor over 90% of the trips are less than 100 miles, on the Oacific Surfliner 90% of the trips are under 200 miles and even on the San Joaquins, 75% of the trips are less than 200 miles.

Whether or not there's a cafe or lounge probably doesn't matter to the vast majority of California Amtrak patrons.

By the way, when I travel to California, I usually fly Southwest, as I fly out of BWI. They seem to do quite fine business on a 5-6 hour nonstop flight offering inly a dinky drink and a little bag of pretzels. People travel to get to places, not to eat while they're traveling. Yeah, once the travel times start exceeling a certain point, you might want to make food available to keep the cattle from stampeding, but those sort of travel times aren't what Amtrak California offers.


----------



## NSC1109

jamess said:


> I dont understand how being pedantic about this helps.
> 
> This is what I said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say I change my phrasing to:
> 
> People traveling 10 hours between LA and Bay Area on an _*Amtrak® branded train funded by California taxpayers under the direction of Caltrans and managed by the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority with bus connection service operated by a 3rd party contractor*_ deserve more than a vending machine.
> 
> That doesn't change what I am saying.
> 
> Buying these trains without a cafe car of any kind is a mistake.



You’re still missing the part that there is no direct service between LA and the Bay Area that would have this equipment...and the Coast Starlight still has its diner.


----------



## CAMISSY55

MARC Rider said:


> Looking at the RPA ridership stats, the average trip length for California State Supported Services in in the neighborhood of 120 miles, and that's because the San Joaquins have a longer average trip length than the othe 2 services. Both the Capitol Corridor and Pacific Surfliner average trip lengths are less than 100 miles. Infact, on the Capitol corridor over 90% of the trips are less than 100 miles, on the Oacific Surfliner 90% of the trips are under 200 miles and even on the San Joaquins, 75% of the trips are less than 200 miles.
> 
> Whether or not there's a cafe or lounge probably doesn't matter to the vast majority of California Amtrak patrons.
> 
> By the way, when I travel to California, I usually fly Southwest, as I fly out of BWI. They seem to do quite fine business on a 5-6 hour nonstop flight offering inly a dinky drink and a little bag of pretzels. People travel to get to places, not to eat while they're traveling. Yeah, once the travel times start exceeling a certain point, you might want to make food available to keep the cattle from stampeding, but those sort of travel times aren't what Amtrak California offers.



I disagree. Having traveled quite a lot on the Pacific Surfliner, I can attest that the café is very popular. Within minutes after most stops, a line quickly forms for the upscale sandwiches, craft beers, bottled waters, and other snacks. In the late afternoon or on get-away weekends the café facilitates an enjoyable happy hour experience. In the morning nice juices, coffee drinks, teas, and a few nice breakfast items enable travelers to have some semblance of a meal on their way to work. 
Many of the station stops do not have places nearby to purchase anything but low quality processed, fast food and beverages. I think your minimalist tastes and preferences are great for you. But my experience on the Surfliner (no experience on the Joaquins or Capital Corridors) tells me folks would definitely object to the elimination of the café. 

Even for a trip of less than a hour and a half, I am thrilled that the café exists.


----------



## neroden

The cafe is insanely successful on the Surfliner. Dunno about the San Joaquins, but trip times on the San Joaquins are *long*.


----------



## CAMISSY55

neroden said:


> The cafe is insanely successful on the Surfliner. Dunno about the San Joaquins, but trip times on the San Joaquins are *long*.



And IMHO, all the more reason a café car is essential.


----------



## rickycourtney

neroden said:


> The cafe is insanely successful on the Surfliner. Dunno about the San Joaquins, but trip times on the San Joaquins are *long*.



Perhaps Caltrans intends to use these new trainsets exclusively on the Capitol Corridor? That route has comparatively short trip times and the full café isn’t as necessary. In fact the café is closed on some runs.

It is however worth noting that the Surfliner cars have a café, but no real “lounge” area. If I recall correctly, the reason why the California Cars have a lounge was they used to offer full, sit down dining service on the long routes like the San Joaquin.


----------



## seat38a

CAMISSY55 said:


> I disagree. Having traveled quite a lot on the Pacific Surfliner, I can attest that the café is very popular. Within minutes after most stops, a line quickly forms for the upscale sandwiches, craft beers, bottled waters, and other snacks. In the late afternoon or on get-away weekends the café facilitates an enjoyable happy hour experience. In the morning nice juices, coffee drinks, teas, and a few nice breakfast items enable travelers to have some semblance of a meal on their way to work.
> Many of the station stops do not have places nearby to purchase anything but low quality processed, fast food and beverages. I think your minimalist tastes and preferences are great for you. But my experience on the Surfliner (no experience on the Joaquins or Capital Corridors) tells me folks would definitely object to the elimination of the café.
> 
> Even for a trip of less than a hour and a half, I am thrilled that the café exists.



I've been on multipe Surfliner trains where the Cafe Car was completely sold out and had to restock during the crew change at LAUS. Beer and liquor are very popular on the Surfliner, with complete sellouts down to the last mini bottle of liquor quite common. There's quite a bit of subtle encouragement to drink on the Surfliner and its not a hard sell with craft beer and wine. A year or so ago they even came out with a nice color cocktail menu just for the train.


----------



## jamess

MARC Rider said:


> Looking at the RPA ridership stats, the average trip length for California State Supported Services in in the neighborhood of 120 miles, and that's because the San Joaquins have a longer average trip length than the othe 2 services. Both the Capitol Corridor and Pacific Surfliner average trip lengths are less than 100 miles. Infact, on the Capitol corridor over 90% of the trips are less than 100 miles, on the Oacific Surfliner 90% of the trips are under 200 miles and even on the San Joaquins, 75% of the trips are less than 200 miles.
> 
> Whether or not there's a cafe or lounge probably doesn't matter to the vast majority of California Amtrak patrons.
> 
> By the way, when I travel to California, I usually fly Southwest, as I fly out of BWI. They seem to do quite fine business on a 5-6 hour nonstop flight offering inly a dinky drink and a little bag of pretzels. People travel to get to places, not to eat while they're traveling. Yeah, once the travel times start exceeling a certain point, you might want to make food available to keep the cattle from stampeding, but those sort of travel times aren't what Amtrak California offers.



Sure, many people are riding from Hanford to Fresno and don't need a cafe car. 

But from personal experience going LA-Fresno (5 hours), many people who got on the bus with me in LA were still on the train when I got off in Fresno. I spoke with one lady who had gotten off a cruise in Long Beach that day and was taking Amtrak home to Modesto. 

And while both LA and Fresno do have food options (a 7-11 at least), many of the smaller stations have nothing at all. 



NSC1109 said:


> You’re still missing the part that there is no direct service between LA and the Bay Area that would have this equipment...and the Coast Starlight still has its diner.



We are talking about the new cars on order for Amtrak California which will run on the San Joaquin. The San Joaquin connects riders from LA to the Bay Area via Amtrak branded thruway bus service. The buses have never offered food service, the trains have. For a long journey like that, food service is essential.


----------



## cocojacoby

Great info Walter although I can't agree that Sumitomo/Nippon Sharyo is an inexperienced builder.

I think most of the problems would be eliminated if Amtrak could buy off-the-shelf equipment and get exempted from the buy-America provision. I understand that the new Acela coaches are made in Italy and are exempt so we just might be heading in the right direction.


----------



## jis

cocojacoby said:


> Great info Walter although I can't agree that Sumitomo/Nippon Sharyo is an inexperienced builder.
> 
> I think most of the problems would be eliminated if Amtrak could buy off-the-shelf equipment and get exempted from the buy-America provision. I understand that the new Acela coaches are made in Italy and are exempt so we just might be heading in the right direction.


The exemption is only for the prototype sets. There is no exemption for the rest of the order. They will be built in the US. Even most of the assembly of the prototypes is in the US. So really not much has changed, as things stand.

Interestingly, All Aboard Florida/Brightline/VT USA insisted on buy-America for their Siemens order, even though there is no law that requires such for their order, and made use of it in their marketing blurbs extensively. Of course the design and engineering is entirely based on the Viaggio Comfort cars, but they are manufactured completely in the US.


----------



## cocojacoby

Are you sure about that? This is from the Trains Magazine article:

— Aluminum passenger car shells manufactured in Italy. Alstom received a waiver from FRA “buy America” requirements to go outside the U.S. for these because, according to Cuadrado, no U.S. facility is available to manufacture aluminum shells of the required length.


----------



## Acela150

cocojacoby said:


> Are you sure about that? This is from the Trains Magazine article:
> 
> — Aluminum passenger car shells manufactured in Italy. Alstom received a waiver from FRA “buy America” requirements to go outside the U.S. for these because, according to Cuadrado, no U.S. facility is available to manufacture aluminum shells of the required length.



Jis is spot on. He usually is. [emoji6]


----------



## jis

cocojacoby said:


> Are you sure about that? This is from the Trains Magazine article:
> 
> — Aluminum passenger car shells manufactured in Italy. Alstom received a waiver from FRA “buy America” requirements to go outside the U.S. for these because, according to Cuadrado, no U.S. facility is available to manufacture aluminum shells of the required length.


The original waiver is for the initial batch of shells. Alstom is supposed to be setting up the facility for manufacturing those shells in the US for line production. Of course in these things nothing is certain until the proverbial fat lady sings. So we will see. I have not heard of any general waiver yet, and Trains is not a source that I particularly trust on these things. They are better than Railpace, but only by a smidgen.

Sometimes bizarre things do happen. For example Rotem got permission to fabricate shells in Korea for the Silverliner Vs but they were required to ship the Stainless Steel sheets from the US to Korea for fabrication in Korea! Their excuse was they could not find enough skilled labor in the US to handle Stainless Steel. So go figure! Given CAF's alleged experience there may be some truth to it, at least for the price they were willing to pay. Now with all these tariffs on metal flying around there would be an even greater incentive to do things within the US one would think.


----------



## MisterUptempo

The latest information on the CALIDOT order from the June 18, 2019 305 Committee Executive Board meeting, which can be found at the following-

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305 Exec Brd minutes - 6-18-19 DRAFT.doc







Also of interest, the latest regarding Amtrak's acquisitions-






And, finally, progress on Via's new Siemens trainsets-


----------



## NSC1109

I wonder why Charlie King is able to share information regarding the P42 replacement but not about the Amfleet I replacement. Is it just that they are in different stages and the P42 replacement order was released or is it something else?

I also understand that the Amfleet procurement attracted 5-6 different contractors. I’m curious to see the designs.


----------



## bretton88

NSC1109 said:


> I wonder why Charlie King is able to share information regarding the P42 replacement but not about the Amfleet I replacement. Is it just that they are in different stages and the P42 replacement order was released or is it something else?
> 
> I also understand that the Amfleet procurement attracted 5-6 different contractors. I’m curious to see the designs.


The P-42 replacement has already been contracted. The amfleet replacement is still in the (probably confidential) RFP stage, hence the difference is what he can reveal.


----------



## NSC1109

bretton88 said:


> The P-42 replacement has already been contracted. The amfleet replacement is still in the (probably confidential) RFP stage, hence the difference is what he can reveal.



Right but I also noticed it said “privy”, meaning he isn’t being kept in the loop on Amtrak’s end on the AM-I replacement.


----------



## jis

NSC1109 said:


> Right but I also noticed it said “privy”, meaning he isn’t being kept in the loop on Amtrak’s end on the AM-I replacement.



If it is in the confidential RFP stage it is not surprising that he is not in the loop, and hence not “privy”, as rep to/of the consortium. Been in such situations often myself as a rep of a Fortune 50 on standards consortia.


----------



## MisterUptempo

A fairly small update from the minutes of the June 27, 2019 PRIIA 305 Technical Subcommittee meeting, which can be found at the following -

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305 tech sc minutes 6-27-19 draft.doc






Perhaps this bit of news has already been posted on the Amfleet I replacement thread, but I'll leave it here just the same -






That is all.


----------



## frequentflyer

MisterUptempo said:


> A fairly small update from the minutes of the June 27, 2019 PRIIA 305 Technical Subcommittee meeting, which can be found at the following -
> 
> http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305 tech sc minutes 6-27-19 draft.doc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this bit of news has already been posted on the Amfleet I replacement thread, but I'll leave it here just the same -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is all.



The November 2019 extension tells me -
1. This is not a slam dunk for Siemens.
2. DMU/EMUs are still in play (Stadler).
3. This railcar will most likely be the basis for the LD equipment replacement if it comes up.
4. Amtrak not liking the prices its seeing. More time to get the unit price down. The present CEO was known as a hard bargainer when he ran Delta.


----------



## jis

DMU/EMU by itself does not mean Stadler since all of Alstom, Bombardier, Stadler, Hitachi, etc. have quite viable versions of them easily available off the shelf. Very nice double decker ones too, that will fit into NY Penn Station. Then there also are the Japanese suppliers of third rail EMUs to LIRR that would have very little trouble offering a catenary one too. Very minimal development work on that, compared to even Stadler.


----------



## bretton88

jis said:


> DMU/EMU by itself does not mean Stadler since all of Alstom, Bombardier, Stadler, Hitachi, etc. have quite viable versions of them easily available off the shelf. Very nice double decker ones too, that will fit into NY Penn Station. Then there also are the Japanese suppliers of third rail EMUs to LIRR that would have very little trouble offering a catenary one too. Very minimal development work on that, compared to even Stadler.


The major disadvantage Japanese manufacturers have now is the new fra specs essentially encourage getting European equipment. European equipment can now basically be bought off the shelf. Japanese equipment still needs costly customization for mixed running.


----------



## jis

bretton88 said:


> The major disadvantage Japanese manufacturers have now is the new fra specs essentially encourage getting European equipment. European equipment can now basically be bought off the shelf. Japanese equipment still needs costly customization for mixed running.


That is true for Japanese vendors manufacturing only in Japan. But outfits like Kawasaki and Hitachi have extensive facilities outside Japan supplying to the US and European markets already, and have UIC and FRA compliance experience and Hitachi for example has made extensive deliveries of UIC compliant equipment in Europe. So in that sense they are no different from any European manufacturer.


----------



## bretton88

jis said:


> That is true for Japanese vendors manufacturing only in Japan. But outfits like Kawasaki and Hitachi have extensive facilities outside Japan supplying to the US and European markets already, and have UIC and FRA compliance experience and Hitachi for example has made extensive deliveries of UIC compliant equipment in Europe. So in that sense they are no different from any European manufacturer.


I was wondering about something like the 801 series if it could be brought over to the USA easily.


----------



## jis

bretton88 said:


> I was wondering about something like the 801 series if it could be brought over to the USA easily.


The core technology would work fine, though the specific frame of British Class 8xx is limited to British Loading Gauge, which probably will be inadequate in the US context. But Hitachi and Bombardier have a jointly developed product for deployment in Europe outside the UK, which is UIC loading gauge and should be perfectly acceptable off the shelf in the US under the new FRA standards.


----------



## frequentflyer

jis said:


> The core technology would work fine, though the specific frame of British Class 8xx is limited to British Loading Gauge, which probably will be inadequate in the US context. But Hitachi and Bombardier have a jointly developed product for deployment in Europe outside the UK, which is UIC loading gauge and should be perfectly acceptable off the shelf in the US under the new FRA standards.



Are you referring to the US2 train?

http://www.globenewswire.com/news-r...mbardier-and-Hitachi-bid-to-build-trains.html


----------



## jis

frequentflyer said:


> Are you referring to the US2 train?
> 
> http://www.globenewswire.com/news-r...mbardier-and-Hitachi-bid-to-build-trains.html



US2? Did you mean HS2?

I was referring mostly to ETR 1000 which is UIC loading gauge. 

Whatever is offered for HS2 will be British loading gauge which is much smaller than UIC.


----------



## P42 AC/DC

I wanted to ask are these new coaches going to used on the NEC or not because of height restrictions? I just think these coaches absolutely could hold a place on the NEC rush hour workhorses.


----------



## jis

P42 AC/DC said:


> I wanted to ask are these new coaches going to used on the NEC or not because of height restrictions? I just think these coaches absolutely could hold a place on the NEC rush hour workhorses.


The Coaches currently on order are for use in California and Midwest. They are not slated for use on the NEC.

However, there is a separate ongoing RFP process that will determine what will be used for replacement of Amfleet Is. These are certainly one of the possibilities, but not the only one.


----------



## MisterUptempo

A quick update from the PRIIA 305 Technical Subcommittee meeting of July 11, 2019, the minutes of which can be found at the following URL-

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305 tech sc minutes 7-11-19 draft.doc

The biggest takeaway being that the first total inspection of a completed railcar is scheduled for September 17, 2019.


----------



## toddinde

P42 AC/DC said:


> I wanted to ask are these new coaches going to used on the NEC or not because of height restrictions? I just think these coaches absolutely could hold a place on the NEC rush hour workhorses.


They’re being purchased by the states of Illinois and California, so no, they’re not for the Northeast.


----------



## chrsjrcj

I am way behind on this thread, but what is the point of standing tables in the cafe? I know this is common worldwide (including the Acela, I believe), but it just seems kind of pointless? I guess they save money on booths or seats?


----------



## NSC1109

chrsjrcj said:


> I am way behind on this thread, but what is the point of standing tables in the cafe? I know this is common worldwide (including the Acela, I believe), but it just seems kind of pointless? I guess they save money on booths or seats?



I think it’s to help open up the space a little bit. Feels more like a bar than a cafe. 

The last time I rode BC on the Wolverine and Blue Water, I didn’t notice anyone using the tables anyway, other than the Conductors.


----------



## PerRock

Off the top of my head:

Standing tables are more socially ok to share. so if you're a single passenger sitting at a table most people are not going to ask if they can join you & will just wander back to their seats if all the tables are full.
They're easier to get in & out of.

peter


----------



## DSS&A

MisterUptempo said:


> A quick update from the PRIIA 305 Technical Subcommittee meeting of July 11, 2019, the minutes of which can be found at the following URL-
> 
> http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305 tech sc minutes 7-11-19 draft.doc
> 
> The biggest takeaway being that the first total inspection of a completed railcar is scheduled for September 17, 2019.


One other important detail in the report is that in the last month, construction of four additional carshells has begun.


----------



## DSS&A

DSS&A said:


> One other important detail in the report is that in the last month, construction of four additional carshells has begun.



The July 31st Technical Subcommittee meeting minutes are now posted online. Construction of two more carshells has begun (27 in total) and the first Alstom HSR trainset is scheduled to go to Pueblo for testing in January 2020.


----------



## west point

DSS&A said:


> The July 31st Technical Subcommittee meeting minutes are now posted online. Construction of two more carshells has begun (27 in total) and the first Alstom HSR trainset is scheduled to go to Pueblo for testing in January 2020.



5 + months it is getting close !


----------



## MARC Rider

NSC1109 said:


> I think it’s to help open up the space a little bit. Feels more like a bar than a cafe.
> 
> The last time I rode BC on the Wolverine and Blue Water, I didn’t notice anyone using the tables anyway, other than the Conductors.


The tables are pretty heavily used in cafe cars on the Northest Regionals. But not necessarily for eating.


----------



## DSS&A

The just announced Federal State of Good Repair funding includes money for Wisconsin to buy more passenger equipment for the Hiawatha Service. Based on the description in the attached announcement, 3 cab-coaches and six coaches will be purchased. It would be logical that the Seimens order would be modified and slightly expanded for these 9 new cars. Here is the description. I have observed the Hiawatha that departs Chicago at 5:08pm to have 7 passenger cars on many days this summer.

https://www.railwayage.com/passenge...m-in-grants-for-rail-projects/?RAchannel=news


----------



## NSC1109

DSS&A said:


> The just announced Federal State of Good Repair funding includes money for Wisconsin to buy more passenger equipment for the Hiawatha Service. Based on the description in the attached announcement, 3 cab-coaches and six coaches will be purchased. It would be logical that the Seimens order would be modified and slightly expanded for these 9 new cars. Here is the description. I have observed the Hiawatha that departs Chicago at 5:08pm to have 7 passenger cars on many days this summer.
> 
> https://www.railwayage.com/passenge...m-in-grants-for-rail-projects/?RAchannel=news



I thought the new Midwest equipment order included cars for the Hiawatha. They’re using the Chargers....why would they need a separate fleet?


----------



## PVD

Add capacity. Replace the Cabbages and add cars to each set, or create an additional set. Not sure which. Unless they come up with a coach/bag concept, this could impact checked baggage and bicycle handling. Maybe someone here sees something I'm missing...


----------



## MikefromCrete

Wisconsin did not participate in the Midwest purchase of cars and locomotive, since the state had already purchased the two Talgo sets. Scott Walker's rejection of the Talgo sets means the state has no equipment to contribute to the Hiawatha pool. The three cab cars and six coaches will fill that deficit.


----------



## PVD

Thanks, clears that up a bit. Do they intend to procure power also, or continue to lease?


----------



## west point

6 coaches and 3 cab cars. Maybe make up a train with 5 coaches and 2 cab cars. ? Maybe a car or 2 from the present equipment pool and add other cars to the other train. That may be a present plan until a third train is needed for the 10 RTs proposed. Where to get the others unless keep the present train sets whole and make another 3rd train 5 coaches and 2 cab cars ? its too early to really speculate ?


----------



## jis

west point said:


> 6 coaches and 3 cab cars. Maybe make up a train with 5 coaches and 2 cab cars. ? Maybe a car or 2 from the present equipment pool and add other cars to the other train. That may be a present plan until a third train is needed for the 10 RTs proposed. Where to get the others unless keep the present train sets whole and make another 3rd train 5 coaches and 2 cab cars ? its too early to really speculate ?


Why would a train need two cab cars? Would it not have a locomotive with a cab in it to power the train?


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,
I understand that the current Hiawatha Service uses two train-sets daily. The trains consist of 1 Charger, 6 coaches and one Cabbage (ex. F40PH). One of the train-sets has run with a 7th cafe- coach on many days.

As a part of the Wisconsin/Illinois project to get up to 10 Hiawatha roundtrips, Wisconsin is also negotiating with the CP to add one more 8th Hiawatha rountrip (without the Illinois improvements) in the near-term. This involves at least adding a second mainline platform at the Milwaukee Mitchell Field airport station and a new mainline route for freight trains through Muskego Yard to bypass the Amtrak station.

Adding at least one more Hiawatha round trip will require a third train-set, thus the need for 6 coaches in the funding plan. The three cab-coaches are to provide one for the new third train-set and to replace the two cabbages on the existing train-sets.

Here is some overall information of future Amtrak service:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wi...-to-chicago-rail-plans-facing-opposition/amp/


----------



## jis

DSS&A said:


> Hi,
> Adding at least one more Hiawatha round trip will require a third train-set, thus the need for 6 coaches in the funding plan. The three cab-coaches are to provide one for the new third train-set and to replace the two cabbages on the existing train-sets.
> 
> Here is some overall information of future Amtrak service:
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wi...-to-chicago-rail-plans-facing-opposition/amp/


Makes perfect sense.


----------



## MikefromCrete

No doubt coaches from the Midwest pool will also end up on the Hiawathas as part of Illinois' contribution to the service.


----------



## PVD

Any thoughts on bikes and bags when the cabbage go away?


----------



## DSS&A

Here is a 7-car Hiawatha from earlier this year. While this in a consist with all Horizon equipment, it is also common to see at least one Amfleet car in the consist (either a coach or cafe car). A Cabbage is at the other end of the consist.


----------



## jis

Maybe the cab cars will be speced with baggage compartment behind the driving cab, to provide space for baggage and bikes? Replace Cabbage with a classic Combine?


----------



## NSC1109

jis said:


> Maybe the cab cars will be speced with baggage compartment behind the driving cab, to provide space for baggage and bikes? Replace Cabbage with a classic Combine?



If they’re going to be Siemens cars, then it is possible, as I believe the CalTrans version did have bag space. However, if they’re the Talgos, I’m not sure what it would be.

Personally I think it would be foolish to bring the Talgos into the Hiawatha pool now. Amtrak is just beginning to transition to a whole new standardized fleet for corridor trains in the Midwest. Adding a second equipment type would mean additional training in at least two divisions (T&E and MX, potentially OBS) as well as acquiring parts and potentially retrofitting the shops to handle the equipment. 

I believe it would be better to transfers both Talgo sets to the Cascades, as they already run that equipment type and they have the need to replace older trainsets. Let Wisconsin tap some of the options from the Midwest order and keep the fleet standardized to control costs and simplify operations.


----------



## MikefromCrete

I doubt if Wisconsin would go with Talgo. They're probably be an add-on to the Siemens order.


----------



## MisterUptempo

From the September 24, 2019 PRIIA Section 305 Executive Board meeting, which can be found at http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305 Exec Brd minutes -9-24-19 DRAFT.doc-


----------



## jis

Apparently a semi-permanently coupled pair of Siemens single level cars eventually destined for Caltrans is getting released from Siemens plant in Sacramento today for their journey to Pubelo for testing. This according to a post on trainorders earlier today.


----------



## chrsjrcj

I wonder if any pictures were taken, assuming the move took place.


----------



## bretton88

chrsjrcj said:


> I wonder if any pictures were taken, assuming the move took place.


There are some on Train Orders.


----------



## DSS&A

Siemens just sent one of the just completed passenger cars to Canada for cold weather tests. 

https://www.railjournal.com/fleet/siemens-sends-caltrans-illinois-coach-to-canada-for-testing/


----------



## Steve4031

This may have been asked and answered elsewhere. Will these cars have automatic doors so all doors can open at intermediate stops? Would certainly cut down to on dwell time if conductors can learn to scan tickets onboard.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Steve4031 said:


> This may have been asked and answered elsewhere. Will these cars have automatic doors so all doors can open at intermediate stops? Would certainly cut down to on dwell time if conductors can learn to scan tickets onboard.


They wouldn't be of much use in the Midwest and California as the platforms are almost all low-level.


----------



## seat38a

Steve4031 said:


> This may have been asked and answered elsewhere. Will these cars have automatic doors so all doors can open at intermediate stops? Would certainly cut down to on dwell time if conductors can learn to scan tickets onboard.


Conductors already scan tickets onboard and issue seat checks for California trains.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

seat38a said:


> Conductors already scan tickets onboard and issue seat checks for California trains.


In my experience they do in the Midwest as well, although most of my experience is at the endpoints so it may be different for intermediate stops.


----------



## Steve4031

I’ve seen conductors scan tickets on the platform at Bloomington and Springfield a few times.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

You can't even get to the platform in Urbana without a ticket (don't know if that was actual scanning - my memory is fuzzy since we were picking up or dropping off someone). 

Shoot, they could have sent the car to the midwest for winter testing!


----------



## Steve4031

I just went back to through multiple pages of the thread. Kudos to Siemens for sticking to the schedule. It looks like we will begin seeing cars delivered in July of 2020. 

I was too young to be aware of the order of a fleet cars. My first solo trip to Chicago from Urbana was on the Amfleet equipped Illini in the spring of 1977 iirc. 

Would love to be more calculating this time and take the inaugural run on the Siemens equipment out if Chicago. How does one accomplish this?


----------



## PerRock

Metra Electric Rider said:


> Shoot, they could have sent the car to the midwest for winter testing!



They probably sent one up to Canada, because VIA Rail is getting them as well.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Steve4031 said:


> Would love to be more calculating this time and take the inaugural run on the Siemens equipment out if Chicago. How does one accomplish this?



Too early to know, but wild guesses are available.

They are train sets (kind of) so one day you see a set in the wild because Chicago need a train to be dispatched. If Amtrak is doing the PR thing you might get to tour them in Chicago one weekend before or after there first run.

Your only real hope to catch a inaugural run is if the State who owns them decide to do it as a PR move.

Other wise it going to Chicago tower that needs equipment for a train, and grabs what ready.


----------



## MikefromCrete

I would bet that IDOT would doing some kind of pre-inaugaral trip publicity, including open house at CUS and some kind of short trip for press and local politicians. Stay alert.


----------



## nti1094

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Too early to know, but wild guesses are available.
> 
> They are train sets (kind of) so one day you see a set in the wild because Chicago need a train to be dispatched. If Amtrak is doing the PR thing you might get to tour them in Chicago one weekend before or after there first run.
> 
> Your only real hope to catch a inaugural run is if the State who owns them decide to do it as a PR move.
> 
> Other wise it going to Chicago tower that needs equipment for a train, and grabs what ready.



I was able to catch the inaugural run of the California Car fleet back in 1994 from San Jose to Sacramento. Caltrans put out a press release and there was a small ceremony at (at the time known as) San Jose Cahill Street just before the regular mid day departure. 

I would check often with the IDOT website next fall because i’m sure they will announce the first run when it comes up.


----------



## Steve4031

nti1094 said:


> I was able to catch the inaugural run of the California Car fleet back in 1994 from San Jose to Sacramento. Caltrans put out a press release and there was a small ceremony at (at the time known as) San Jose Cahill Street just before the regular mid day departure.
> 
> I would check often with the IDOT website next fall because i’m sure they will announce the first run when it comes up.



thank you.


----------



## DSS&A

Wisconsin approved State funds to match the Federal Funding Grant to buy Siemens equipment for the Hiawatha trains.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.jsonline.com/amp/4102369002


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

DSS&A said:


> Wisconsin approved State funds to match the Federal Funding Grant to buy Siemens equipment for the Hiawatha trains.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.jsonline.com/amp/4102369002



That's good, no, great news! Does this mean the order just got bigger?


----------



## MikefromCrete

Metra Electric Rider said:


> That's good, no, great news! Does this mean the order just got bigger?



Three cab cars and six coaches.


----------



## DSS&A

The small increase in equipment will help the Hiawatha trains. One of the train sets is now consistently 7 cars long and I am surprised when it has less than 7 cars.


----------



## DSS&A

DSS&A said:


> Siemens just sent one of the just completed passenger cars to Canada for cold weather tests.
> 
> https://www.railjournal.com/fleet/siemens-sends-caltrans-illinois-coach-to-canada-for-testing/



Here are two links to a few good photos of carshell No. 3 on Canada on its way to the testing facility.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AlexanderGlista/status/1189226699210346496

https://www.tracksidetoronto.com/2019/10/siemens-coach/

Has anyone seen posted photos of the Siemens test cars at Pueblo?


----------



## jis

There are photos posted on trainorders.


----------



## west point

So here we have CN pulling just 10 axels. Now what is CN's excuse ?


----------



## MikefromCrete

Those rules apparently don't apply to CN's operations in Canada.


----------



## jis

MikefromCrete said:


> Those rules apparently don't apply to CN's operations in Canada.



Those rules seem to apply only to trackage acquired from other railroads in the US. Not to native Canadian trackage.


----------



## DSS&A

The December news was uploaded on their website on December 31st. 43 cars are now in production.


----------



## Anthony V

DSS&A said:


> The December news was uploaded on their website on December 31st. 43 cars are now in production.


Do you have a link to the December news?


----------



## DSS&A

Here is the link:

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/pages/section305committee.aspx


----------



## frequentflyer

DSS&A said:


> Here is the link:
> 
> http://www.highspeed-rail.org/pages/section305committee.aspx



What does this mean on page 2? Amfleet replacement?

On the Trainsets:


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.


----------



## PerRock

There is a bidding process out right now to replace Amtrak's Amfleets (there is a thread here somewhere about it). I'm not surprised that Siemens submitted a bid. 

peter


----------



## frequentflyer

PerRock said:


> There is a bidding process out right now to replace Amtrak's Amfleets (there is a thread here somewhere about it). I'm not surprised that Siemens submitted a bid.
> 
> peter



But is this referring to the Amfleet replacement RFP? If so, this another piece of evidence showing Amtrak is going the DMU/EMU route.


----------



## jis

frequentflyer said:


> But is this referring to the Amfleet replacement RFP? If so, this another piece of evidence showing Amtrak is going the DMU/EMU route.


The RFP asked for train sets either in the form of sets of individual cars or as integrated sets or anything in between, leaving it upto the vendors to specify the exact form. Until we see the proposals we will not quite know what they have proposed.

Siemens could very well have proposed something akin to Railjet sets, which have separate locomotive at one end and an integral cab car at the other end. Or they could propose sets of cars in the form of combination of married pairs and singles with separate locomotive, or fully integrated sets a-la Brightline, or something else. So wait and see as the details flow out.


----------



## bretton88

frequentflyer said:


> What does this mean on page 2? Amfleet replacement?
> 
> On the Trainsets:
> 
> 
> 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 RFP was basically open ended to give the manufacturers a chance to submit anything they could provide for Amtrak to evaluate. Basically this just means all the proposals are in and Amtrak is evaluating which proposal they prefer. I have to think that with how open ended the RFP was, they probably got a high amount of responses.


----------



## DSS&A

The AASHTO High Speed Rail Section 305 Committee 2020 Annual Meeting will be later this week on February 21st. There has been no January progress report posted on their websiteas of today, so news and updates will become public after this meeting.


----------



## rickycourtney

Saw pictures last week that two more Siemens test cars are en route to TTCI: https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,4956813

There are now four Siemens cars and a Charger at TTCI, reportedly to allow WABTEC to develop the I-ETMS PTC braking profile for the new cars.

Between that, and the test runs of the new Acela (Avelia Liberty), sounds like it will be a busy few months in Pueblo!


----------



## NSC1109

Anyone able to post pictures for those of us who don't have TO accounts?


----------



## jis

NSC1109 said:


> Anyone able to post pictures for those of us who don't have TO accounts?


Not possible to repost Trainorders posted photos without breaking copyright rules, unless one is the owner of any of those photos. Afterall that is how Trainorders earns its keep through membership fees to provide access to the materials posted there.


----------



## daybeers

jis said:


> Not possible to repost Trainorders posted photos without breaking copyright rules, unless one is the owner of any of those photos. Afterall that is how Trainorders earns its keep through membership fees to provide access to the materials posted there.


Is it worth the money? I've always stuck with AU and Railroad.net.


----------



## jis

daybeers said:


> Is it worth the money? I've always stuck with AU and Railroad.net.



Depends on how often you have to ask someone who is a member to repost a photo from them [emoji51] I suppose [emoji6]

They do have more insiders participating there, so one gets more immediate trustworthy information from them. They also have more opinionated purveyors of bovine scatology if you are into such purely for entertainment [emoji849]


----------



## daybeers

jis said:


> Depends on how often you have to ask someone who is a member to repost a photo from them [emoji51] I suppose [emoji6]
> 
> They do have more insiders participating there, so one gets more immediate trustworthy information from them. They also have more opinionated purveyors of bovine scatology if you are into such purely for entertainment [emoji849]


Hmm...maybe I'll pass. Keeping up with two forums is enough for me anyway


----------



## rickycourtney

New photos from Siemens: 
https://twitter.com/siemensmobility/status/1233421787792277506?s=21


----------



## Steve4031

rickycourtney said:


> New photos from Siemens:
> https://twitter.com/siemensmobility/status/1233421787792277506?s=21



hopefully Illinois gets some this year too.


----------



## Bonser

Steve4031 said:


> hopefully Illinois gets some this year too.


 
When the Siemens's orders are delivered will that free up the superliner cars on the AT, CONO, and CL for the western routes?


----------



## jis

Tom Booth said:


> When the Siemens's orders are delivered will that free up the superliner cars on the AT, CONO, and CL for the western routes?


No


----------



## Steve4031

To expand on Jishnu’s no, these cars were ordered by California, Illinois, Michigan, and iirc Wisconsin added a few cars to the order for the Hiawatha Service. 

There are a few superliner coaches in California that could be available. There will be a surplus of amfleet and horizon cars after the Siemens order is completed.


----------



## jis

Steve4031 said:


> To expand on Jishnu’s no, these cars were ordered by California, Illinois, Michigan, and iirc Wisconsin added a few cars to the order for the Hiawatha Service.
> 
> There are a few superliner coaches in California that could be available. There will be a surplus of amfleet and horizon cars after the Siemens order is completed.


None of the surplus, for a short few minutes, Amfleet and Horizon fleet are long distance coaches though. Many will very quickly get absorbed in the various northeast pools which are perpetually short of rolling stock. Some will possibly get deployed in new corridors like New Orleans - Mobile too.


----------



## Steve4031

jis said:


> None of the surplus, for a short few minutes, Amfleet and Horizon fleet are long distance coaches though. Many will very quickly get absorbed in the various northeast pools which are perpetually short of rolling stock. Some will possibly get deployed in new corridors like New Orleans - Mobile too.




Thank you Jishnu for the clarification.


----------



## Pere Flyer

Similarly in Chicago, the few Superliner coaches that rotated in Pere Marquette consists will likely be absorbed by the CHI equipment pool, to be mostly used on LD trains.


----------



## jrud

I know that this is nine months old, but it contains information that I hadn’t seen before. I searched and was unable to find a previous post with this document. However, I’m certainly not perfect. https://sjjpa.com/wp-content/uploads/SJJPA-Board-Meeting-May-31-2019-Presentation-2.pdf


----------



## jis

jrud said:


> I know that this is nine months old, but it contains information that I hadn’t seen before. I searched and was unable to find a previous post with this document. However, I’m certainly not perfect. https://sjjpa.com/wp-content/uploads/SJJPA-Board-Meeting-May-31-2019-Presentation-2.pdf


Great slideset! Thanks!


----------



## rickycourtney

More photos from Caltrans!
https://twitter.com/caltranshq/status/1233423335893037058?s=21


----------



## rickycourtney

Pardon the slightly off topic question...

Has it been announced what will be done with the Comet cars once the Siemens cars are delivered?

I’ve heard various vague suggestions but nothing firm. 

The complicating factor is that Caltrans is leasing the Horizon dinettes and NPCU/Cabbage units from Amtrak to run those trainsets. I can’t imagine Caltrans would keep renting them if the Comets aren’t being regularly used.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

rickycourtney said:


> Pardon the slightly off topic question...
> 
> Has it been announced what will be done with the Comet cars once the Siemens cars are delivered?
> 
> I’ve heard various vague suggestions but nothing firm.
> 
> The complicating factor is that Caltrans is leasing the Horizon dinettes and NPCU/Cabbage units from Amtrak to run those trainsets. I can’t imagine Caltrans would keep renting them if the Comets aren’t being regularly used.



They'll probably be transferred to new Corridor services, like the revived Quad Cities Rocket and Black Hawk, and maybe the upcoming Atlanta-Nashville and New Orleans-Mobile trains.


----------



## jrud

jis said:


> Great slideset! Thanks!



Thank you. It will be interesting to see what the 2020 NGEC annual meeting says concerning the cars being purchased for Caltrans. The 2018 annual meeting presentation had slightly different types of coaches compared to the 2019 meeting. This SJJPA presentation from later in 2019 has another tweak. As the 2020 NGEC meeting was held a little over a week ago, I presume the presentations for it will appear soon.


----------



## neroden

rickycourtney said:


> Pardon the slightly off topic question...
> 
> Has it been announced what will be done with the Comet cars once the Siemens cars are delivered?
> 
> I’ve heard various vague suggestions but nothing firm.
> 
> The complicating factor is that Caltrans is leasing the Horizon dinettes and NPCU/Cabbage units from Amtrak to run those trainsets. I can’t imagine Caltrans would keep renting them if the Comets aren’t being regularly used.


No doubt they will go somewhere else. With a nationwide car shortage, I would not dare to guess where.

The Quad Cities route will get new Siemens cars -- they were ordered by Illnois. So not there.


----------



## Pere Flyer

rickycourtney said:


> Has it been announced what will be done with the Comet cars once the Siemens cars are delivered?


CT sure could use some for Valley Flyer/Hartford Line trains. An MBTA lease is set to expire soon.


----------



## Thirdrail7

We may see one testing on the NEC.


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,
Follow this link to the AASHTO website which now has the January and February 2020 monthly meeting minutes AND the 2020 Annual Meeting materials and PowerPoint presentations uploaded for public viewing. It is interesting reading materials. Items have been uploaded over thevpast two days. More information may be uploaded tomorrow, since I see no presentation on the passenger cars yet.






AASHTO - High Speed Rail - Section 305 Committee







www.highspeed-rail.org


----------



## NSC1109

Slightly off topic, but this photo was in the Amtrak Procurement Updates slide deck:



I must say, that looks pretty slick.


----------



## frequentflyer

Looks like Amtrak's loocmotives will have the same nose as VIA's


----------



## NSC1109

frequentflyer said:


> View attachment 17148
> 
> 
> Looks like Amtrak's loocmotives will have the same nose as VIA's



I think it’s something different from both CALIDOT and VIA...Didn’t Amtrak want a bolt-on nose?


----------



## jis

NSC1109 said:


> I think it’s something different from both CALIDOT and VIA...Didn’t Amtrak want a bolt-on nose?


Yes. Amtrak will have a bolt on nose.


----------



## frequentflyer

Except for the state units, Brightline,Via and Amtrak will have bolt on noses.


----------



## Steve4031

frequentflyer said:


> Except for the state units, Brightline,Via and Amtrak will have bolt on noses.



Would the bolt on noises address crash protection concerns of engineers who have to operate them?


----------



## frequentflyer

Steve4031 said:


> Would the bolt on noises address crash protection concerns of engineers who have to operate them?



I do not know that, though it held up well after hitting a cement truck. Its mostly for cosmetic and quick fix after accidents. Genesis had the same setup.


----------



## PerRock

frequentflyer said:


> View attachment 17148
> 
> 
> Looks like Amtrak's loocmotives will have the same nose as VIA's



I think it looks closer to the ACS-64 nose.

peter


----------



## jrud

DSS&A said:


> Hi,
> Follow this link to the AASHTO website which now has the January and February 2020 monthly meeting minutes AND the 2020 Annual Meeting materials and PowerPoint presentations uploaded for public viewing. It is interesting reading materials. Items have been uploaded over thevpast two days. More information may be uploaded tomorrow, since I see no presentation on the passenger cars yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AASHTO - High Speed Rail - Section 305 Committee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.highspeed-rail.org


Other than the VIA presentation (specifically mentioned in the minutes), the minutes may well cover all the information from the meeting. There may not be any need for a separate passenger car presentation. This differs from previous meetings, but could be the method for handling 2020 meeting.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Thirdrail7 said:


> We may see one testing on the NEC.


----------



## rickycourtney

It’s always been a bit unclear what was meant by “bolt on nose.”

On the Genesis locomotives it’s a “sacrificial” part designed to be easily replaced after a collision.

It’s also clear that it wouldn’t be the same as the nose used on Brightline (which is also an aesthetic piece) because Amtrak can’t have hidden couplers.

It seems that it would be a good bet that the Amtrak units will look similar to the VIA units. It’s got a bigger nose... but still has exposed couplers.


----------



## rickycourtney

jrud said:


> Other than the VIA presentation (specifically mentioned in the minutes), the minutes may well cover all the information from the meeting. There may not be any need for a separate passenger car presentation. This differs from previous meetings, but could be the method for handling 2020 meeting.


There was quite a bit of information packed into the minutes.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

rickycourtney said:


> It’s always been a bit unclear what was meant by “bolt on nose.”
> 
> On the Genesis locomotives it’s a “sacrificial” part designed to be easily replaced after a collision.
> 
> It’s also clear that it wouldn’t be the same as the nose used on Brightline (which is also an aesthetic piece) because Amtrak can’t have hidden couplers.



unless it's the Acela


----------



## Thirdrail7

Thirdrail7 said:


>


----------



## jrud

rickycourtney said:


> There was quite a bit of information packed into the minutes.


Some additional presentations, including one from VIA, are now at the site.

Someone pointed out to me that page three of the Amtrak procurement presentation includes a simple cutaway of the new nose. If you enlarge the graphic, you can see the general idea.


----------



## frequentflyer

jrud said:


> Some additional presentations, including one from VIA, are now at the site.
> 
> Someone pointed out to me that page three of the Amtrak procurement presentation includes a simple cutaway of the new nose. If you enlarge the graphic, you can see the general idea.



What page is it on?


----------



## jrud

frequentflyer said:


> What page is it on?


It’s the lower right drawing on page three. You have to blow it up to read it and see details.


----------



## frequentflyer

Got it, thanks



http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/Annual%20Meetings/2020/Amtrak%20Procurement%20presentation%20NGEC%20%281%29.pdf


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Thirdrail7 said:


> View attachment 17175


Are you referring to the new Acela? I’m hearing the one at PHL will do a short test run tonight.


----------



## rickycourtney

The slide deck outlining the status of the Siemens cars has been posted: http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/Multi-state Single Level Rail Cars Procurement Update.pdf

It’s mostly the same information that was provided in the minutes.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Is there any news on the bi-level rolling stock or did this project die already?


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

Devil's Advocate said:


> Is there any news on the bi-level rolling stock or did this project die already?



The bilevels were to be the CALIDOT cars but Nippon Sharyo done goofed so we get the Viaggio cars from Siemens, and let's be honest we need a completely new bilevel car design


----------



## Devil's Advocate

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> The bilevels were to be the CALIDOT cars but Nippon Sharyo done goofed so we get the Viaggio cars from Siemens, and let's be honest we need a completely new bilevel car design


Forgive my ignorance, but what is wrong with the Viaggio cars (other than being the backup plan) and why do the original orders always seem to stall out and die off at some point? That's not a normal situation in other markets, right?


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

Devil's Advocate said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but what is wrong with the Viaggio cars (other than being the backup plan) and why do the original orders always seem to stall out and die off at some point? That's not a normal situation in other markets, right?



There's nothing wrong with them (other than seemingly lacking steps for low platforms, which is the standard outside of the NEC due to the freight railroads). What happened with Nippon Sharyo's order was that redesigning it would delay the project by at least two years and thus place the delivery beyond the expiration of the ARRA funds. So they went with a completely new design


----------



## Steve4031

The viaggo cars will have steps for low level platforms. The get Alfredo this in Europe.


----------



## Thirdrail7

AmtrakBlue said:


> Are you referring to the new Acela? I’m hearing the one at PHL will do a short test run tonight.



No. I was referring to the new Seimen's car that was supposed to arrive in PHL for testing on the NEC. It was supposed to start testing but they just pulled the plug on it until further notice. I think that was a wise move.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Thirdrail7 said:


> No. I was referring to the new Seimen's car that was supposed to arrive in PHL for testing on the NEC. It was supposed to start testing but they just pulled the plug on it until further notice. I think that was a wise move.


Seems my info about the Acela2 was a April’s Fool prank by one of the engineers. All in fun.


----------



## rickycourtney

My big unanswered (and perhaps unanswerable) question is... How has California’s “stay at home” order impacted the work on these cars?


----------



## Thirdrail7

Unless there is a last-minute reprieve, it'll be testing the NEC until Mid-May. If you're a night owl and dry conditions permit, it commences in NJ this week.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Thirdrail7 said:


> Unless there is a last-minute reprieve, it'll be testing the NEC until Mid-May. If you're a night owl and dry conditions permit, it commences in NJ this week.


Yeah, it snuck up to PHL early this morning I hear. I did see a picture of it in WAS waiting to leave.


----------



## KnightRail

9024(CA Siemens coach) has been out testing. Video of it passing through NJ is out there. Consist was 642, three Amfleets, 9024, 626


----------



## AmtrakBlue




----------



## KnightRail

Coupled up to an Amfleet this new Siemens car really helps show how much interior space was wasted and sacrificed to make the rounded airplane style body of an Amfleet. Two cars that are operating in the same clearances and the size difference is impressive. We‘ll take about 500 of these new cars, thanks.


----------



## railiner

Let's see if these new cars last as long as the Amfleet does...


----------



## Thirdrail7

KnightRail said:


> Coupled up to an Amfleet this new Siemens car really helps show how much interior space was wasted and sacrificed to make the rounded airplane style body of an Amfleet..



I'm not sure wasted is the right word. After all, the look was brought in to help them compete with the airlines....which they did. A clunky looking car might not have brought in the ridership like the sleek, tubular design.

Additionally, they were built when people didn't carry everything including the kitchen sink when they traveled on quick trips. 

It's not like people could sit up there.



KnightRail said:


> We‘ll take about 500 of these new cars, thanks.



I definitely prefer coaches over semi-permanently attached trains so, yes...at least 500 if they turn out ok.


----------



## railiner

I happen to like the Amfleet (and the predecessor Metroliner's) design. Even though the roof curves in, I think the overhead racks are very roomy...even roomier than the straight-sided lightweight streamliner's they replaced. About the only thing bad about that curvature, is they are not good for having a sleeping car module, with an upper bunk...although they did in fact try that (recall the Shenandoah with the prototype "Economy Bedrooms"...


----------



## Steve4031

The main issue gave with Amfleet 1 cars are the smaller windows. This was corrected with the Amfleet 2 cars. 

It will be interesting to see how well these new cars last without being properly maintained, cleaned, etc.


----------



## cocojacoby

Thirdrail7 said:


> I'm not sure wasted is the right word. After all, the look was brought in to help them compete with the airlines....which they did. A clunky looking car might not have brought in the ridership like the sleek, tubular design.



Oh yeah. I still remember the first time I saw a Metroliner in the bowels of Penn Station and it looked like the sleekest fastest train that I had ever seen. It was very futuristic for that time.

However, I really did like the Turbo Train even more. Super futuristic, unique design and domes on the NEC where you can actually sit behind the engineer and look out the front window!


----------



## railiner

A decade before even the Metroliner's, and Turbo Train, were the Keystone and the Aerotrain....






The Keystone Tubular Train |







streamlinermemories.info







The Aerotrain


----------



## jiml

The Keystones were an interesting design, that gets lost in comparison to others of the era. Handicapped seating would have been limited to door-adjacent, so they wouldn't have much value today. Are any of these preserved at a museum?


----------



## railiner

jiml said:


> The Keystones were an interesting design, that gets lost in comparison to others of the era. Handicapped seating would have been limited to door-adjacent, so they wouldn't have much value today. Are any of these preserved at a museum?


This is about all I found on them...I did not further pursue any of the links provided 


Railway Preservation News • View topic - PRR Keystone Coaches on the Move


----------



## Seaboard92

jiml said:


> The Keystones were an interesting design, that gets lost in comparison to others of the era. Handicapped seating would have been limited to door-adjacent, so they wouldn't have much value today. Are any of these preserved at a museum?



I remember a few years ago a set of them came available on Ozark Mountain Railcar. They we're converted into table cars and used on a dinner train somewhere in Michigan I believe. No clue where they went since


----------



## cocojacoby

jiml said:


> The Keystones were an interesting design, that gets lost in comparison to others of the era. Handicapped seating would have been limited to door-adjacent, so they wouldn't have much value today.


Isn't that true about almost every railcar out there? Except for Brightline, there is no ADA access THROUGH any coaches, sleepers or diners, right? I think they basically all have ADA at the car ends for easy restroom and door access.

Don't all of the multi-level coaches have an ADA area on the mezzanine level? It would be pretty similar to that.


----------



## gaspeamtrak

Please no "DMU'S" !!! 
At least 500 cars not coupled together so you can add cars as demand warrants!?
In the UK everything is "DMU" which sucks ! I don't mind "EMU's" though...


----------



## Agent

Video by South Coast Rail Videos of the test train with Siemens coach running by Attleboro, Massachusetts yesterday with AMTK 642 leading.


----------



## cocojacoby

That's 150 mph territory. Wonder what speed they are shooting for? 135?


----------



## rickycourtney

cocojacoby said:


> That's 150 mph territory. Wonder what speed they are shooting for? 135?


I mean, the European version of the cars are rated for a top speed of 155 mph. Maybe the full 150?


----------



## MikefromCrete

As long as the track is available, you might as well go for the limit.


----------



## PVD

What would you pull them with that is certified at 150?


----------



## west point

It may be that the ACS-64s pulling the cars at the higher speeds will qualify them as well ?


----------



## PVD

I think ACS-64 max design speed is 135 (125 service)


----------



## cocojacoby

Notice that the car has two types of door?


----------



## jrud

FYI. This document discusses the different types of cars and door arrangements. https://sjjpa.com/wp-content/uploads/SJJPA-Board-Meeting-May-31-2019-Presentation-3.pdf


----------



## sttom

I see the SJJPA still thinks bringing back Automats is a good thing. I will have to look into making a trip before they get their way.


----------



## jrud

I’ve been watching the Siemens Venture coach test videos using a stopwatch for speed estimates. The fastest I found was one train at around 105 mph. A couple were 95-100 mph. Everything else was slower. It is amazing how fast around 100 mph seems on a close video.


----------



## rickycourtney

I really do hope that they fully test these trainsets at 125 mph.

California legislators seem to be really considering cutting the funding for the high speed rail trains and electric systems. If they get their way, the plan would be to run diesel trains (presumably these trainsets and the Chargers) on the high speed tracks. 
(Source: California Assembly wants bullet train contract deferred in rebuke of project's current plan – LA Times)

If that comes to pass, I hope these trains can at least do the advertised 125 mph.


----------



## rickycourtney

A couple of updates from the NGEC website...

*Update – Multi-State Rail Car Procurement as of 5-19-20:*
Design review for the standard coach is now complete. The Cab Car structure FDR took place in February and plans are in work for structural and CEM testing. IDOT galley FDR reviews and releases are ongoing. Cab Car F-coupler FDR occurred on May 6.
On 5-28-20, Melissa Shurland reported that the US Access Board extended the comment period for Recommendations on Access for Rail Vehicles until July 14, 2020. (Link)
Open items for complete coach FAI are near closure. Non-domestic testing has been postponed due to travel restrictions. Video and photos are being provided for tests that SMEs are unable to witness. The Interior Lighting test was repeated last week, and open items are being reviewed. NEC testing made good is complete (Thank you Amtrak!) and the car is being prepared for return shipment to Sacramento.
49 cars total are in production or have been produced at Siemens Sacramento Facility. The production facility remains open under an Essential Business clause. System-level FAIs for standard coach are complete with final approvals in work. Cars 7, 9 and 13 were shipped to Stockton on April 27th, and there are now seven cars total at the Stockton facility. Cars 10 through 34 are in final assembly. Cars 11 and 12 are scheduled to be shipped the 2nd week of June. The First IDOT cars are scheduled to ship the 3rd week of June.
The project teams are continuing to monitor potential production and schedule impacts due to the coronavirus and are receiving frequent updates from SCOA and Siemens.

*Update – Multi-State Rail Car Procurement (provided by Caltrans) as of 6-30-20:*
Design review for the standard coach is complete. The Cab Car structure FDR is complete, and CEM element testing is currently planned for early July, with setup for compression testing to follow in July or August. The Cab Car brake system FDR is confirmed for July 13th. IDOT galley FDR reviews and releases are ongoing, and the latest galley review occurred on June 16th.
On 5-28-20, Melissa Shurland reported that the US Access Board extended the comment period for Recommendations on Access for Rail Vehicles until July 14, 2020.
On the 16th and the 30th, members were reminded by Steve Hewitt that any comments they wished to submit to the docket were due by July 14th. (Link)
Travel restrictions are being evaluated, with potential travel in July to reviews and test sites. Video and photos continue to be provided for tests that SMEs are unable to witness. NEC testing is complete, and the test report is in process.
51 cars total are in production or have been produced at Siemens Sacramento Facility. System-level FAIs for standard coach are complete with final open items in work to complete first car overall FAI. The overall car FAI for IDOT is in process this week, followed by an FRA Sample Car Inspection. There are seven cars total at the Stockton facility. Cars 11 and 12 are scheduled to be shipped to Stockton at the end of June. The IDOT cars are scheduled to begin shipments near the end of July.
The project teams continue to monitor potential production and schedule impacts due to the coronavirus and are receiving frequent updates from SCOA and Siemens.


----------



## Steve4031

Thank you. This is encouraging progress.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

This sounds like good news! I take it the compression test is not related to the crush test that led to this (I hope)?


----------



## Steve4031

Based on this information is it possible to determine when cars might enter service? It seems like they are on schedule or ahead of schedule.


----------



## Mailliw

Wow, if Siemens can actually deliver something _ahead_ of schedule they're a shooin for Amfleet replacement.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

This PowerPoint lists delivery as May for the Midwest and service rollout in September. Given that delivery is now expected in July maybe there will be some ready for service by the end of the year. The cars for California are actually listed as starting service in July but I'm not sure when delivery actually occurred.


----------



## sttom

I can say that I have not seen the new cars on any trains in the last few weeks. I have seen the San Joaquins running with the California Cars and sometimes the a Comet consist.


----------



## rickycourtney

The delivery of 9 cars is pretty impressive IMHO.

It's interesting that the cars are being delivered to Stockton, considering Amtrak California yard is in Oakland.

My educated guess is that the cars are being stored at the new Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) service facility. Which is interesting, because no other Amtrak California equipment has been kept there.

For those who don't know, ACE handles the day-to-day business operations of the San Joaquin under contract with a state agency.

It’s possible that the Oakland yard is full of trainsets sidelined by COVID, and ACE has a yard with plenty of room that also happens to be a quick trip from the Siemens factory in Florin.

But there's been discussion that Herzog, the same contractor who operates and maintains the ACE trains (and runs the Stockton yard), would be interested in taking over train operations for the San Joaquins. It’s interesting that they’re getting the first look at the new equipment.


----------



## Steve4031

Trains had the following information behind a pay wall today. 

Fifty-one Siemens cars in the order for Amtrak state-supported service in California and the Midwest have either been completed or are under construction, according to the end-of-June report by the Next Generation Equipment Committee, which includes representatives of Amtrak, the Federal Railroad Administration, host freight railroads, manufacturers, and state and other operators. Cars for the Illinois Department of Transportation portion of that order are scheduled to begin shipments near the end of July. A total of 137 cars are on order, replacing the original order for 130 bilevel cars by Nippon Sharyo,


----------



## rickycourtney

Sounds like Trains just found the same information I shared above.


----------



## jrud

Do these additional cars bring the total up to 146?

wisconsin-department-of-transportation-wisdot-wisdot-awarded-federal-grant-for-new-passenger-train-cars


----------



## NSC1109

jrud said:


> Do these additional cars bring the total up to 146?
> 
> wisconsin-department-of-transportation-wisdot-wisdot-awarded-federal-grant-for-new-passenger-train-cars



The way it reads, the answer would be yes. Looks like the Midwest will be seeing some cab cars after all. Two questions now:

1) Will this equipment be painted in the same scheme as the “Amtrak Midwest”-painted cars from IDOT?

2) Will these sets be sequestered into _Hiawatha-_only service, or will we be seeing them on any corridor route out of Chicago as needed?

If the answer to question 1 is “no”, then I believe it is setting a dangerous precedent. Amtrak already has a branding problem with numerous services that have their own paint schemes:

Empire Services (P3 variant)
Amtrak Surfliner
Amtrak Capitol Corridor
Amtrak Cascades
Amtrak North Carolina (Piedmont I think?)
Amtrak America Bag/Diners

A unified brand is extremely important, and Amtrak lacks it right now.

There’s a reason why one of the top airlines in the US refuses to do “heritage paint” for their fleet like AA: it screws with the brand.


----------



## Crowbar_k

NSC1109 said:


> The way it reads, the answer would be yes. Looks like the Midwest will be seeing some cab cars after all. Two questions now:
> 
> 1) Will this equipment be painted in the same scheme as the “Amtrak Midwest”-painted cars from IDOT?
> 
> 2) Will these sets be sequestered into _Hiawatha-_only service, or will we be seeing them on any corridor route out of Chicago as needed?
> 
> If the answer to question 1 is “no”, then I believe it is setting a dangerous precedent. Amtrak already has a branding problem with numerous services that have their own paint schemes:
> 
> Empire Services (P3 variant)
> Amtrak Surfliner
> Amtrak Capitol Corridor
> Amtrak Cascades
> Amtrak North Carolina (Piedmont I think?)
> Amtrak America Bag/Diners
> 
> A unified brand is extremely important, and Amtrak lacks it right now.
> 
> There’s a reason why one of the top airlines in the US refuses to do “heritage paint” for their fleet like AA: it screws with the brand.



Who cares? It's just paint. I think the reason states such as North Carolina and California have different branding is try to distance themselves from the rest of Amtrak given its reputation. I don't even think the Peidmont trains say the word "Amtrak" anywhere on them. Amtrak already has a separate website for the Hiawatha.


----------



## NSC1109

Crowbar_k said:


> Who cares? It's just paint. I think the reason states such as North Carolina and California have different branding is try to distance themselves from the rest of Amtrak given its reputation. I don't even think the Peidmont trains say the word "Amtrak" anywhere on them. Amtrak already has a separate website for the Hiawatha.



It’s more than “just paint”. Early on in my business education at University, we were taught that branding is everything, and that not having a unified brand can lead to consumer confusion, a perception of “in-cohesiveness” within the company, and in the end, rising costs for doing things like individual websites for various services, painting costs, etc. I realize that most of us on this site don’t really care. But it’s a real problem in the transportation/business world.

A personal example that occurred earlier this year, pre-COVID: I had a passenger come up to me and ask me why her flight was being marketed as “on time” when the aircraft “obviously hadn’t arrived yet” and proceeded to make various demands (hotel, vouchers, etc). She didn’t realize that the aircraft she was flying on was a spare operated by one of Delta’s regional carriers (SkyWest) and the aircraft was lettered for SkyWest, not Delta Connection as per normal.

Branding matters.


----------



## railiner

NSC1109 said:


> I realize that most of us on this site don’t really care.


You'd be surprised...many 'fans' live for variety in paint schemes and equipment differences...the sharp eyed ones can even tell if a stripe varies from 'standard'.
It's a funny thing...Amtrak started out with its "rainbow fleet", that is inherited equipment painted in their original railroad's scheme. Then for a while, the fleet became fairly uniform, until California and other states starting insisting on their own scheme's...


----------



## NSC1109

railiner said:


> You'd be surprised...many 'fans' live for variety in paint schemes and equipment differences...the sharp eyed ones can even tell if a stripe varies from 'standard'.
> It's a funny thing...Amtrak started out with its "rainbow fleet", that is inherited equipment painted in their original railroad's scheme. Then for a while, the fleet became fairly uniform, until California and other states starting insisting on their own scheme's...



Actually, that’s exactly what I meant. Most railfans don’t really care about the various brandings. A lot actually like it because it’s “different”, “rare”, etc. Apologies if I was confusing.


----------



## jiml

I like all the retro paint schemes currently running on Norfolk-Southern. They've done a really nice job - second only to CP's SD-70's:


----------



## PVD

I like the NYS DOT sponsored "Empire Service" repaints of the P32-DM (700's) I think they are almost done, only one or two not done yet.


----------



## me_little_me

When the states are forced to subsidize the trains or own them but pay Amtrak to run them, they are entitled to decide what they look like (the latter case) or at least have an input on it.


----------



## Crowbar_k

me_little_me said:


> When the states are forced to subsidize the trains or own them but pay Amtrak to run them, they are entitled to decide what they look like (the latter case) or at least have an input on it.



I have a feeling that some state run trains don't even want to be associated with Amtrak. I believe the Peidmont trains don't have the word "Amtrak" written anywhere on them.


----------



## toddinde

NSC1109 said:


> It’s more than “just paint”. Early on in my business education at University, we were taught that branding is everything, and that not having a unified brand can lead to consumer confusion, a perception of “in-cohesiveness” within the company, and in the end, rising costs for doing things like individual websites for various services, painting costs, etc. I realize that most of us on this site don’t really care. But it’s a real problem in the transportation/business world.
> 
> A personal example that occurred earlier this year, pre-COVID: I had a passenger come up to me and ask me why her flight was being marketed as “on time” when the aircraft “obviously hadn’t arrived yet” and proceeded to make various demands (hotel, vouchers, etc). She didn’t realize that the aircraft she was flying on was a spare operated by one of Delta’s regional carriers (SkyWest) and the aircraft was lettered for SkyWest, not Delta Connection as per normal.
> 
> Branding matters.


I agree that branding is important, but I’m not sure a common paint scheme is important. The appearance was much more important in the days before mass communication. A beautiful streamlined streaming by with a matched consist set it apart from the mundane, Pullman green trains. In the digital age, I’m not sure it makes much difference. As for the airlines, I never care what the thing is painted. It’s if I have status and points. But I’ll leave that to the psychologists to figure out.


----------



## PVD

Because of where I generally get on and off, as well as time of day, I've just never gotten to appreciate the looks of the train as much as others. Nothing looks particularly snappy at NYP, WAS, or CHI. Arriving Denver is ok, but the sleepers are at the end where you just go into the station, its always late heading back so its usually dark when I board going home. When I take the LSL, I'll usually step off in Albany and walk the platform, thats's not bad...


----------



## PVD

moved to correct thread


----------



## sttom

NSC1109 said:


> It’s more than “just paint”. Early on in my business education at University, we were taught that branding is everything, and that not having a unified brand can lead to consumer confusion, a perception of “in-cohesiveness” within the company, and in the end, rising costs for doing things like individual websites for various services, painting costs, etc. I realize that most of us on this site don’t really care. But it’s a real problem in the transportation/business world.
> 
> A personal example that occurred earlier this year, pre-COVID: I had a passenger come up to me and ask me why her flight was being marketed as “on time” when the aircraft “obviously hadn’t arrived yet” and proceeded to make various demands (hotel, vouchers, etc). She didn’t realize that the aircraft she was flying on was a spare operated by one of Delta’s regional carriers (SkyWest) and the aircraft was lettered for SkyWest, not Delta Connection as per normal.
> 
> Branding matters.


Branding is important, but a consist of California Cars or Piedmont equipment or the Talgos aren't likely to get assigned outside of where they normally run. If anything, for marketing purposes, it would make more sense for the state supported trains to have their own branding from the rest of Amtrak in an attempt to say that they are more than the once a day train that run through most of the country.

If having a national brand was that important, Amtrak wouldn't have given the Acelas a different brand or attempt to give the whole NEC a different branding like the state supported trains were getting. 

As for people getting confused should a Horizon consist get subbed for whatever style of fleet, that is kind of on them. Planes get subbed or routed through different airlines all the time and I'm willing to be the confused woman you ran into wasn't a frequent traveler or if she was she was either extremely lucky to never have had a subbed plane or code shared onto a different airline or was trying to get a freebie from the airline. I once booked a flight to Europe that was on British Airways, and one leg was on Qatar Airways and the whole flight back was on Aer Lingus, but I didn't throw a fit because it was the "wrong airline".


----------



## Seaboard92

NSC1109 said:


> It’s more than “just paint”. Early on in my business education at University, we were taught that branding is everything, and that not having a unified brand can lead to consumer confusion, a perception of “in-cohesiveness” within the company, and in the end, rising costs for doing things like individual websites for various services, painting costs, etc. I realize that most of us on this site don’t really care.
> 
> Branding matters.



I agree with you completely it is always more than just paint. It shows how strong the brand is, and at the end of the day it doesn't look professional to have multiple paint schemes on one train. Look at the current Silvers right now, Phase Vb on the locomotives, Phase IVb for the coaches, and lounge, Phase IIIb for the diner, Phase IVb on the sleepers, and Phase IIIb on the baggage car. It isn't uniform and it looks bad. I understand it takes time to out shop cars in the new paint, and substitutions can happen. 

I am sad though to hear that Delta won't paint heritage jets because I love aviation history, and Delta has a very storied history. 



me_little_me said:


> When the states are forced to subsidize the trains or own them but pay Amtrak to run them, they are entitled to decide what they look like (the latter case) or at least have an input on it.



This is true when the state choses to run a train they can paint it in whatever paint they want if they are willing to pay for it. I believe most of the state paint schemes are local in design, and thought of to incorporate local elements. I believe both the Cascades and Pacific Surfliners are that way. I believe specifically on the Cascades the brown signifies coffee (Seattle Starbucks), the green is the forest, and the white is the snow on top of the Cascades range.



Crowbar_k said:


> I have a feeling that some state run trains don't even want to be associated with Amtrak. I believe the Peidmont trains don't have the word "Amtrak" written anywhere on them.



This is correct the Piedmont trains do not have any Amtrak markings on them period and they have their own reporting mark "RNCX" for their entire fleet. By far some of the best and nicest equipment in Amtrak service today.


----------



## me_little_me

Seaboard92 said:


> This is correct the Piedmont trains do not have any Amtrak markings on them period and they have their own reporting mark "RNCX" for their entire fleet. By far some of the best and nicest equipment in Amtrak service today.


I don't blame our state. One doesn't want to associate our equipment with "that other company" even if we have to pay them to run our trains. I understand the governor is trying to negotiate with Amtrak to loan is some P42s but the sticking point is that he wants them to be enclosed in brown paper bags. He's already asked Amtrak employees to use them in lieu of covid masks.


----------



## rickycourtney

Great news... earlier today (Tuesday) a test train consisting of five Siemens Venture cars, Charger 2108 and NPCU 90218 travelled from the ACE yard in Stockton to the Amtrak California yard in Oakland.


----------



## Steve4031

Awesome news.


----------



## NSC1109

rickycourtney said:


> Great news... earlier today (Tuesday) a test train consisting of five Siemens Venture cars, Charger 2108 and NPCU 90218 travelled from the ACE yard in Stockton to the Amtrak California yard in Oakland.



Any photos around? And I assume these are the CalTrans cars, not IDOT.


----------



## rickycourtney

There are pictures on the Calrailfans FB page.

It appears these are the Caltrans cars for the San Joaquins.

What's not clear to me is if these are test cars that will need modifications before final delivery.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

rickycourtney said:


> There are pictures on the Calrailfans FB page.



Unfortunately that's a private group....


----------



## rickycourtney

Metra Electric Rider said:


> Unfortunately that's a private group....


Yes it is. If you want to see the photos, request to join. There are also photos on Trainorders if you pay for a membership, or if you're okay looking at the free postage stamp sized photos.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

rickycourtney said:


> Yes it is. If you want to see the photos, request to join. There are also photos on Trainorders if you pay for a membership, or if you're okay looking at the free postage stamp sized photos.


I don't do fakebook....


----------



## Agent

Here's a video of the train of new Siemens coaches from yesterday taken by Roseville Sacramento Railfan.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Thanks! Nice looking - sleek and modern. Will be good for business.


----------



## rickycourtney

One complaint: the livery of the Venture cars doesn't really match up with the Charger livery... and it's a bit off-putting.


----------



## NSC1109

rickycourtney said:


> One complaint: the livery of the Venture cars doesn't really match up with the Charger livery... and it's a bit off-putting.



it was supposed to, so someone in the delivery acceptance department screwed up


----------



## jiml

What is the difference between the coaches with two yellow doors and those with one?


----------



## west point

Aren't yellow dos low level boarding and other high level ?w


----------



## rickycourtney

When you watch the video you can see some of the yellow doors are long for low platforms and some are short for high (or mini high) platforms. There’s also some cars with just one door and what appears to be a plate over where the other door would be.


----------



## NSC1109

rickycourtney said:


> When you watch the video you can see some of the yellow doors are long for low platforms and some are short for high (or mini high) platforms. There’s also some cars with just one door and what appears to be a plate over where the other door would be.



Yes, the CalTrans cars are designed generally with two boarding doors (one on each side). The IDOT cars will have four (two on each side).


----------



## rickycourtney

NSC1109 said:


> Yes, the CalTrans cars are designed generally with two boarding doors (one on each side). The IDOT cars will have four (two on each side).


It makes sense to me. Caltrans opted for semipermanent “open gangway” connection cars... so having side by side doors isn’t necessary.


----------



## Seaboard92

I assume if the IDOT cars are ready to head east they will move as a special move to Beech Grove to get the shops familiarized with them.


----------



## KnightRail

Seaboard92 said:


> I assume if the IDOT cars are ready to head east they will move as a special move to Beech Grove to get the shops familiarized with them.



Beech Grove really doesn‘t need to see them. They hopefully won’t need overhauling for awhile and when they do, who’s to say that Beech Grove will even be doing the work at this point. Chicago is the location that would need familiarization right away being the facility that would see them on a nightly basis for inspection and repair.


----------



## rickycourtney

I found that Amtrak published a new FY20-FY25 Asset Line Plan document. Unlike almost all of Amtrak's "plan" documents... this one is a total rabbit hole of information.

There's a whole section called "CALIDOT / Midwest & California State Partner Railcar Acquisition" and while it has a lot of information we knew, there are a few interesting nuggets in here...


Midwest and California state partners will receive 137 single-level Siemens single level railcars, a derivative of the Siemens Viaggio product family. Cars of this general design have received FRA certification and are in service on Brightline/Virgin Trains USA services in Florida. The new cars are currently forecast to arrive between FY 2021 and FY 2023.​​Specifically, the 137-car base order includes:​
Seven 7-car semi-permanently coupled trainsets, with cab control coach on one end, business class, and checked baggage, for use in California on the San Joaquins corridor.
Twenty single coaches for use on Midwest corridor routes.
Seventeen married pairs consisting of one coach and one business class/coach combination car for use on Midwest corridor routes.
Seventeen married pairs consisting of one coach and one café/coach combination car for use on Midwest corridor routes.
In addition to the 137 cars under manufacture for the original order, the Wisconsin state partner was awarded a federal discretionary grant to acquire nine additional cars for Hiawatha service. This acquisition includes six coaches and three cab control coaches to supplement the Midwest railcar order.​​The delivery of Siemens single level cars for the Midwest and California will replace most of our Horizon Fleet and about two dozen Amfleet I railcars currently in Midwest state corridor service. We plan to re-deploy these railcars to other state corridors to facilitate growth until sufficient Intercity Trainsets / Amfleet Replacement equipment enters service in the mid-to-late 2020s.​​The introduction of seven Siemens single level trainsets for San Joaquin service enables the re-deployment of some single level and bi-level equipment currently used on the route. Additional single-level corridor coaches will also likely remain available for re-deployment even after equipping the nationwide service expansions outlined above. We anticipate collaboration with our state partners in California over the next year to determine how available equipment can best be re-deployed to accommodate planned growth over the next decade, including the following proposed initiatives from the state’s 2018 Rail Plan:​
Proposed Coast Daylight service (San Francisco–Los Angeles–San Diego)
Proposed Los Angeles–Coachella Valley service
Capitol Corridor service improvements (Roseville, Salinas, and core frequency increases)
San Joaquins improvements (Natomas, added frequencies, integration with HighSpeed project)
Pacific Surfliner service improvements (more frequent service corridor-wide)


----------



## NSC1109

rickycourtney said:


> ...
> ​The introduction of seven Siemens single level trainsets for San Joaquin service enables the re-deployment of some single level and bi-level equipment currently used on the route. Additional single-level corridor coaches will also likely remain available for re-deployment even after equipping the nationwide service expansions outlined above. We anticipate collaboration with our state partners in California over the next year to determine how available equipment can best be re-deployed to accommodate planned growth over the next decade, including the following proposed initiatives from the state’s 2018 Rail Plan:​
> Proposed Coast Daylight service (San Francisco–Los Angeles–San Diego)
> Proposed Los Angeles–Coachella Valley service
> Capitol Corridor service improvements (Roseville, Salinas, and core frequency increases)
> San Joaquins improvements (Natomas, added frequencies, integration with HighSpeed project)
> Pacific Surfliner service improvements (more frequent service corridor-wide)



_Coast Daylight _would be HUGE, particularly between LA-SF. More than likely it'll terminate in Oakland, not SF proper, but it would be nice for Amtrak to be able to send their trains to CalTran Station instead of Oakland.


----------



## sttom

rickycourtney said:


> Proposed Coast Daylight service (San Francisco–Los Angeles–San Diego)
> Proposed Los Angeles–Coachella Valley service
> Capitol Corridor service improvements (Roseville, Salinas, and core frequency increases)
> San Joaquins improvements (Natomas, added frequencies, integration with HighSpeed project)
> Pacific Surfliner service improvements (more frequent service corridor-wide)



Any expansion beyond the existing corridors is going to be dead on arrival since the state of California doesn't really care about public transit in general. I doubt the service to Salinas would even be on the table if the local transit agency didn't lobby for service. Since California has embraced its "local control" mentality for intercity rail, it would have to do something to start new routes, which state level politicians are loathed to do. Speaking from experience from the Lobby Days I've gone to, legislators don't like doing doing things they would be on the hook for since all of them have political ambitions and having something that might not be looked at fondly on their resume will hurt their chances for advancement.


----------



## west point

Wjhat is this proposed coast daylight schedule compared to the present coast starlight ?


----------



## NSC1109

west point said:


> Wjhat is this proposed coast daylight schedule compared to the present coast starlight ?



It’s a daylight corridor service between LAX and SFO, maybe down to San Diego. No schedule exists as far as I know outside of the old SP schedule.


----------



## railiner

The last SP schedule....




__





The Coast Daylight - April, 1971 - StreamlinerSchedules.com


April 1971 timetable for the Coast Daylight passenger train at StreamlinerSchedules.com



www.streamlinerschedules.com





Since the Coast Starlight already runs close to that time slot, and its schedule is convenient for connections at each end, perhaps it would be more beneficial to run a second train from Los Angeles to San Francisco on an overnight schedule....


----------



## Crowbar_k

railiner said:


> Since the Coast Starlight already runs close to that time slot, and its schedule is convenient for connections at each end, perhaps it would be more beneficial to run a second train from Los Angeles to San Francisco on an overnight schedule....



Maybe they could experiment with something like an all sleeper car train (similar to night trains in Europe) where it leaves LA/SF in the evening and arrives at the other end in the morning making no stops in between. If you get to sleep the whole time, almost no time is wasted. You get to just be in your destination by morning. They can run this until the high speed train opens. I believe there is a bus service that does something similar. This idea will probably never happen though.


----------



## rickycourtney

Back to the primary topic...
A 4-car Amtrak Midwest test trainset was spotted heading west to Chicago. If you’re a member of the Amtrak Fans Facebook group... there’s a video of the move. The livery looks great. 

Here in Central California... the San Joaquins test trainset got to stretch its legs... doing a run from Oakland to Fresno and back to Stockton’s ACE yard. It stopped at stations to check clearances of the mechanical steps.


----------



## Crowbar_k

Sounds awesome. Hopefully there will be public photos and videos of them soon.


----------



## Crowbar_k

This video contains a picture of the Midwest train cars around the 30 minute mark. So far, that's the only picture I could find. I love the livery. it reminds of Deutsche Bahn or Eurostar.


----------



## jiml

railiner said:


> Since the Coast Starlight already runs close to that time slot, and its schedule is convenient for connections at each end, perhaps it would be more beneficial to run a second train from Los Angeles to San Francisco on an overnight schedule....


Not a bad idea, although the timekeeping of the southbound Star-late would have to improve to be ideal.


----------



## rickycourtney

Here’s the proposed schedule for the Coast Daylight as of 2016: https://www.slocog.org/sites/default/files/Amtrak Coast Daylight Study Final.pdf

This report doesn’t get into the considerable cost of upgrading the track from Gilroy to Santa Barbara. It’s mostly single track, with hand thrown switches and track warrant control.


----------



## railiner

rickycourtney said:


> Here’s the proposed schedule for the Coast Daylight as of 2016: https://www.slocog.org/sites/default/files/Amtrak Coast Daylight Study Final.pdf


I think it's too close to the Coast Starlight schedule....it would probably take a good portion of rider's from it...
That could be a 'good thing' however, when travel is heavy, allowing more space for thru traveler's....


----------



## rickycourtney

Keep in mind... these timetables are a very early proposal to show that a Coast Daylight *could* work.

It’s California... before this could happen we’d have to do several more studies that can be ignored by politicians who pick a plan they like.


----------



## NSC1109

railiner said:


> I think it's too close to the Coast Starlight schedule....it would probably take a good portion of rider's from it...
> That could be a 'good thing' however, when travel is heavy, allowing more space for thru traveler's....



Might not be a bad thing. If the Daylight ran close to the Starlight, the Starlight could make less station stops and remove a significant amount of time from the schedule.


----------



## railiner

NSC1109 said:


> Might not be a bad thing. If the Daylight ran close to the Starlight, the Starlight could make less station stops and remove a significant amount of time from the schedule.


That's true, but with just two or "two and a half" trips per day on a route, having a "local" followed by an "express", is not the best way to spread out schedules


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

railiner said:


> That's true, but with just two or "two and a half" trips per day on a route, having a "local" followed by an "express", is not the best way to spread out schedules


There also wouldn't be that many stations to cut. South of Santa Barbara, there is already frequent service so the CS could skip stations now without the Coast Daylight if that was desired. In between Santa Barbara and San Jose, there are currently only three Coast Starlight stations, with San Luis Obispo averaging about 35,000 passengers per year and Salinas around 20,000.


----------



## jiml

What if the Starlight simply had its times flip-flopped with PM departures at both ends? It's not like connections with it are a major factor currently. New Daylight fills the void. Just a curiosity question from someone who has arrived after midnight on Starlight trips in both directions.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

jiml said:


> What if the Starlight simply had its times flip-flopped with PM departures at both ends? It's not like connections with it are a major factor currently. New Daylight fills the void. Just a curiosity question from someone who has arrived after midnight on Starlight trips in both directions.


The route is too long to get from the SF Bay Area to Seattle in one day. A second overnight would be possible, but would put Portland in the middle of the night and eliminate the scenic appeal of the trip. If they could get the freight railroad to approve (which is doubtful), I'd like to see the CS routed through the Central Valley and have the Coast Daylight replace the southern portion of the current CS.


----------



## Anthony V

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> The route is too long to get from the SF Bay Area to Seattle in one day. A second overnight would be possible, but would put Portland in the middle of the night and eliminate the scenic appeal of the trip. If they could get the freight railroad to approve (which is doubtful), I'd like to see the CS routed through the Central Valley and have the Coast Daylight replace the southern portion of the current CS.


Other than the occasional Coast Starlight detour, UP has repeatedly said that they do not want any passenger trains on the Tehachapi Loop route. Even if they were willing to let the CS onto that route, there would be too many delays due to the heavy freight traffic on the route.


----------



## Crowbar_k

Ok. I found a video of the Midwest train cars getting delivered.


----------



## railiner

Anthony V said:


> Other than the occasional Coast Starlight detour, UP has repeatedly said that they do not want any passenger trains on the Tehachapi Loop route. Even if they were willing to let the CS onto that route, there would be too many delays due to the heavy freight traffic on the route.


If they did run the CS over Tehachapi from LAX, more than likely it would go via BNSF from Bakersfield onward...would not stay on the UP like it does on the detour trips...


----------



## rickycourtney

My one early complaint -- these paint schemes are all over the place.

On the San Joaquins Venture coaches, the thick blue/purple (blurple!) line through the windows doesn't match the line on the Charger locomotives. On the Amtrak Midwest Venture coaches, the red stripe at the bottom is much wider than the red stripe on the Charger locomotives.

These coaches and locomotives were both built by Siemens just months apart. My hope is that they can tweak the liveries to match since they appear to mostly be vinyl decals.

I know what the argument is going to be... passengers don't care, they are just happy to be on a train.

To that, I bring up a quote from industrial designer Cesar Vergara who designed Amtrak’s Genesis locomotive and the livery for the Cascades Talgo (including those big fins). When asked about railway equipment, he often said, “If it costs a million (dollars), it should look like a million (dollars). It doesn’t cost any more to design a railway vehicle or structure that is aesthetically appealing than it does to design one that’s unattractive or uncomfortable.”


----------



## NSC1109

rickycourtney said:


> My one early complaint -- these paint schemes are all over the place.
> 
> On the San Joaquins Venture coaches, the thick blue/purple (blurple!) line through the windows doesn't match the line on the Charger locomotives. On the Amtrak Midwest Venture coaches, the red stripe at the bottom is much wider than the red stripe on the Charger locomotives.
> 
> These coaches and locomotives were both built by Siemens just months apart. My hope is that they can tweak the liveries to match since they appear to mostly be vinyl decals.
> 
> I know what the argument is going to be... passengers don't care, they are just happy to be on a train.
> 
> To that, I bring up a quote from industrial designer Cesar Vergara who designed Amtrak’s Genesis locomotive and the livery for the Cascades Talgo (including those big fins). When asked about railway equipment, he often said, “If it costs a million (dollars), it should look like a million (dollars). It doesn’t cost any more to design a railway vehicle or structure that is aesthetically appealing than it does to design one that’s unattractive or uncomfortable.”



And we have a winner. Every time I bring up Amtrak’s paint and branding issues I get shot down by people saying that passengers don’t care. I can tell you, from both a business standpoint and personal experience, they do care. They’re going to notice if things don’t match. They’re going to wonder what kind of company Amtrak is if they can’t get their branding together.

The red paint on the bottom of the Midwest cars wasn’t in the original rendering. I’m not sure who’s idea it was, but the Chargers need to be brought in line to at least make it decent. Same with the San Joaquin cars.


----------



## Crowbar_k

rickycourtney said:


> My one early complaint -- these paint schemes are all over the place.
> 
> On the San Joaquins Venture coaches, the thick blue/purple (blurple!) line through the windows doesn't match the line on the Charger locomotives. On the Amtrak Midwest Venture coaches, the red stripe at the bottom is much wider than the red stripe on the Charger locomotives.
> 
> These coaches and locomotives were both built by Siemens just months apart. My hope is that they can tweak the liveries to match since they appear to mostly be vinyl decals.
> 
> I know what the argument is going to be... passengers don't care, they are just happy to be on a train.
> 
> To that, I bring up a quote from industrial designer Cesar Vergara who designed Amtrak’s Genesis locomotive and the livery for the Cascades Talgo (including those big fins). When asked about railway equipment, he often said, “If it costs a million (dollars), it should look like a million (dollars). It doesn’t cost any more to design a railway vehicle or structure that is aesthetically appealing than it does to design one that’s unattractive or uncomfortable.”



One small problem that I have with them is that you can see all the stuff underneath the car. They should have put a wall or fin underneath to give it a more sleek look like the Brightline versions or Viaggio Comfort versions.


----------



## John Santos

NSC1109 said:


> And we have a winner. Every time I bring up Amtrak’s paint and branding issues I get shot down by people saying that passengers don’t care. I can tell you, from both a business standpoint and personal experience, they do care. They’re going to notice if things don’t match. They’re going to wonder what kind of company Amtrak is if they can’t get their branding together.
> 
> The red paint on the bottom of the Midwest cars wasn’t in the original rendering. I’m not sure who’s idea it was, but the Chargers need to be brought in line to at least make it decent. Same with the San Joaquin cars.



Especially when they are brand-new and have to be painted anyway, there is no excuse not to make them look good. It doesn't really cost anything.

Same with washing the trains. It doesn't make them any faster or run more efficiently, but it does improve the experience, especially if you can see out the windows! Also, people are more inclined to treat them better and to have positive memories and expectations if they look nice. That's important if you are competing for tourist dollars.


----------



## rickycourtney

Crowbar_k said:


> One small problem that I have with them is that you can see all the stuff underneath the car. They should have put a wall or fin underneath to give it a more sleek look like the Brightline versions or Viaggio Comfort versions.


Agreed. Those skirts are a much better look... but my guess is that they come at an additional cost. The first coat of paint (or vinyl decals) should be included in the cost of these cars... so to go back to my quote, "It doesn’t cost any more to design a railway vehicle ... that is aesthetically appealing."


----------



## NSC1109

John Santos said:


> Especially when they are brand-new and have to be painted anyway, there is no excuse not to make them look good. It doesn't really cost anything.
> 
> Same with washing the trains. It doesn't make them any faster or run more efficiently, but it does improve the experience, especially if you can see out the windows! Also, people are more inclined to treat them better and to have positive memories and expectations if they look nice. That's important if you are competing for tourist dollars.



I will say that Amtrak does run at least their LD services, if not everything, through the wash at CUS but I’m not entirely sure how effective it is.


----------



## me_little_me

NSC1109 said:


> I will say that Amtrak does run at least their LD services, if not everything, through the wash at CUS but I’m not entirely sure how effective it is.


Annually whether they need it or not?


----------



## NSC1109

me_little_me said:


> Annually whether they need it or not?



I believe at the end of every run while the trainset is prepped for departure.


----------



## rickycourtney

me_little_me said:


> Annually whether they need it or not?


This made me laugh out loud.

But seriously, Amtrak has wash racks at several locations other than Chicago, including Los Angeles, Oakland, and Seattle... so most of the western LD trains could be washed every three days. They just need the time to do it (trains can't be hours late) and someone to make sure it gets done.


----------



## Bob Dylan

rickycourtney said:


> This made me laugh out loud.
> 
> But seriously, Amtrak has wash racks at several locations other than Chicago, including Los Angeles, Oakland, and Seattle... so most of the western LD trains could be washed every three days. They just need the time to do it (trains can't be hours late) and someone to make sure it gets done.


Does Albuqurque still clean the Windows during the Chiefs stop there? As a kid I remember when the Santa Fe's Super Chief was given a bath during the ststion stop there!


----------



## Steve4031

I can tell you my gf wont notice anything about the paint scheme. But she will appreciate the bathrooms being modern and functional and not too cold in January.


----------



## John Bredin

Metra has had three exterior decor schemes -- bare corrugated metal, red and blue striping, and orange and brown striping -- on its cars for decades, with no effort made to compose trains of one type. I've never heard of anyone who thinks less of Metra for it.


----------



## NSC1109

John Bredin said:


> Metra has had three exterior decor schemes -- bare corrugated metal, red and blue striping, and orange and brown striping -- on its cars for decades, with no effort made to compose trains of one type. I've never heard of anyone who thinks less of Metra for it.



In all fairness, Metra is not Amtrak. Metra is not as controversial as Amtrak. People actually use Metra and they're generally on time and reliable. Amtrak isn't.


----------



## rickycourtney

Also, Metra is doing that intentionally.

These state services are supposed to be intentionally buying railcars with liveries that match their locomotives. Not sure who dropped the ball here.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

NSC1109 said:


> In all fairness, Metra is not Amtrak. Metra is not as controversial as Amtrak. People actually use Metra and they're generally on time and reliable. Amtrak isn't.


The issue isn't on time performance and reliability. Appearance is more important some transit modes than others. For example, people would think twice about travelling on an ugly cruise ship, but don't care much about the paint schemes of the NYC Subway. Metra is a long established functional commuter rail system that is popular largely because it is faster and more convenient than cars at rush hour. Intercity travel such as Amtrak is in competition with sleek and modern looking planes and must appeal to new riders who gave never been exposed to train travel before.


----------



## MikefromCrete

All this talk about locomotive paint schemes matching cars and various paint schemes on different cars doesn't really mean anything. The average rider puts more emphasis on inside cleanliness and comfort. I would imagine the average rider couldn't tell the car's exterior's colors or whether they match the locomotive, if they even see the locomotives. Only railfans know the difference between Amtrak's various color schemes.


----------



## rickycourtney

MikefromCrete said:


> All this talk about locomotive paint schemes matching cars and various paint schemes on different cars doesn't really mean anything. The average rider puts more emphasis on inside cleanliness and comfort. I would imagine the average rider couldn't tell the car's exterior's colors or whether they match the locomotive, if they even see the locomotives. Only railfans know the difference between Amtrak's various color schemes.


Again -- if taxpayers are going to spend a million bucks on railway equipment, shouldn't they look a million bucks? (Actually, in this case, 371 million bucks.)

Branding matters. To sell it, you need a train that's both attractive and comfortable.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

MikefromCrete said:


> All this talk about locomotive paint schemes matching cars and various paint schemes on different cars doesn't really mean anything. The average rider puts more emphasis on inside cleanliness and comfort. I would imagine the average rider couldn't tell the car's exterior's colors or whether they match the locomotive, if they even see the locomotives. Only railfans know the difference between Amtrak's various color schemes.


The average rider does put more emphasis on "inside cleanliness and comfort", but that doesn't mean the outside appearance isn't relevant. The outside appearance could factor in to whether someone even considers traveling by train and researching the interior in the first place. The exact color scheme also isn't as important as consistency; the Acela and Cascades Talgos for example are both consistent and relatively modern-looking, despite having completely different color schemes.


----------



## railiner

Bob Dylan said:


> Does Albuqurque still clean the Windows during the Chiefs stop there? As a kid I remember when the Santa Fe's Super Chief was given a bath during the ststion stop there!


The original CZ got its windows, including domes washed at both ends, and twice enroute....at Denver and Portola. That train was all about sightseeing.


----------



## west point

This poster is neutral on outside appearances. However a very good measure of outside would be the Brightline paint jobs. Do they cause that service to be imprinted onto potential first time riders ? Outside appearances may attract persons to try the service but their reaction to the inside then takes over for repeat ridership.


----------



## AGM.12

Here's a simple idea that is inexpensive to apply and cheap to maintain: Pullman Green. After all, beauty is as beauty does. He says with tounge in cheek


----------



## railiner

My favorite color 'scheme' is fluted or corrugated, stainless steel...the way The Budd Company and the Burlington did it...


----------



## me_little_me

railiner said:


> The original CZ got its windows, including domes washed at both ends, and twice enroute....at Denver and Portola. That train was all about sightseeing.


Amtrak used to have cleaning vehicles. They had a big vertical brush that went up and down the train cleaning the windows and sides on every Albuquerque stop. I remember them. We'd get onboard and while the train was still in the station, the vehicle would come by and then the windows would be (somewhat) cleaner. It was probably in the '80s when I last saw them but I can't remember. They were still using the old single level cars (probably leftovers from SF) and the Chief in those days would do 90mph in Kansas. IIRC, they still had steam heat.

Then Amtrak stopped caring.


----------



## jiml

me_little_me said:


> Amtrak used to have cleaning vehicles. They had a big vertical brush that went up and down the train cleaning the windows and sides on every Albuquerque stop. I remember them. We'd get onboard and while the train was still in the station, the vehicle would come by and then the windows would be (somewhat) cleaner. It was probably in the '80s when I last saw them but I can't remember. They were still using the old single level cars (probably leftovers from SF) and the Chief in those days would do 90mph in Kansas. IIRC, they still had steam heat.
> 
> Then Amtrak stopped caring.


They had a truck on the platform with a spray arm in 1988 when we took the Sunset eastbound. Somewhere hot where there was a longer stop - El Paso maybe? Unfortunately it only did one side and we had a bedroom (when the Superliner sleepers all used to face the same direction) so didn't benefit. The windows in the hallway were nice and clean though. And yes, the P30's made it through the entire trip without breaking down.


----------



## frequentflyer

Stop with the branding doesn't matter bit. Airlines, freight railroads, trucking companies spend millions getting their livery correct and noticeable. If branding did not matter, then trains would be painted black with white lettering.

The fact some bureaucrat in charge of tax payer money cannot produce a consistent brand livery speaks to the problem, bureaucrats.


----------



## mfastx

It is ridiculous to me how many minor paint variations Amtrak has. It should all be the same. Exceptions can be made for specific train sets, but interchangeable cars should all match. It's just unprofessional when they don't.


----------



## Trogdor

mfastx said:


> It is ridiculous to me how many minor paint variations Amtrak has. It should all be the same. Exceptions can be made for specific train sets, but interchangeable cars should all match. It's just unprofessional when they don't.



Amtrak was so close to having a consistent paint scheme (excluding trainsets and specific state corridor trains), then they decided to paint the new Viewliners back in Phase III for whatever reason.


----------



## railiner

me_little_me said:


> Amtrak used to have cleaning vehicles. They had a big vertical brush that went up and down the train cleaning the windows and sides on every Albuquerque stop. I remember them. We'd get onboard and while the train was still in the station, the vehicle would come by and then the windows would be (somewhat) cleaner.


It was the same in Denver, when Amtrak took over...they no longer ran the train thru the Burlington's wash rack, when wyeing the SFZ. A pair of coach cleaner's would do as best they could with a brush and a washer vehicle going down both sides of the train...


----------



## rickycourtney

Photos of the Amtrak Midwest Siemens Venture trainsets from IDOT:

The livery looks awesome in my opinion (even with the big red stripe). The sides look like grey vinyl, not stainless.

One other minor complaint -- they put the digital destination display signs in the window closest to an inoperable plug -- and not a real door.


----------



## frequentflyer

rickycourtney said:


> Photos of the Amtrak Midwest Siemens Venture trainsets from IDOT:
> 
> The livery looks awesome in my opinion (even with the big red stripe). The sides look like grey vinyl, not stainless.
> 
> One other minor complaint -- they put the digital destination display signs in the window closest to an inoperable plug -- and not a real door.




Phase 3 Livery on steroids.


----------



## nullptr

And the follow-up tweet says they're several weeks from being put into regular Amtrak service, presumably if everything goes well. That's quicker than I expected.


----------



## Ziv

Mike, I agree to a certain extent, but I also realize that appearance matters. If the train looks like a hodge-podge collection of paint jobs, it doesn't look professional or appealing. 
Some of us are like, "Just get me from point A to point B!" But a lot of people care about the appearance of the vehicle. Otherwise Alaska Airlines wouldn't spend so much money painting portraits of Jerry Garcia on all their aircraft. JK.
Seriously, though, Amtrak should try to look as sharp as possible because looking sharp is a part of being sharp. it is worth spending some money on it but not a huge amount. Cleanliness is more important than paint, but paint is still important.



MikefromCrete said:


> All this talk about locomotive paint schemes matching cars and various paint schemes on different cars doesn't really mean anything. The average rider puts more emphasis on inside cleanliness and comfort. I would imagine the average rider couldn't tell the car's exterior's colors or whether they match the locomotive, if they even see the locomotives. Only railfans know the difference between Amtrak's various color schemes.


----------



## mfastx

So are they going to just slap those cars on existing Amtrak consists with older cars? Or will they at least use the new cars for entire train sets?


----------



## PVD

Wasn't the intent of the whole exercise to replace the cars that the states pay Amtrak to use?


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Looking forward to seeing these in service!


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

mfastx said:


> So are they going to just slap those cars on existing Amtrak consists with older cars? Or will they at least use the new cars for entire train sets?


The cars for California are organized in trainsets and have a different floor height than the bi-levels so they will not be mixed together. The Midwest cars are organized into married pairs as well as some individual cars so probably could be mixed with Amfleets and Horizons, but I don't know if they plan on doing so.





PVD said:


> Wasn't the intent of the whole exercise to replace the cars that the states pay Amtrak to use?


Yes, but they are not being delivered all at once so there will be a while where both types of cars are in service.


----------



## NSC1109

mfastx said:


> So are they going to just slap those cars on existing Amtrak consists with older cars? Or will they at least use the new cars for entire train sets?



(Some of) The new cars are semi-permanently coupled. They will have to be used as a trainset. These cars are to displace the Horizons and Amfleets for use around the system.


----------



## NSC1109

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> The cars for California are organized in trainsets and have a different floor height than the bi-levels so they will not be mixed together. The Midwest cars are organized into married pairs as well as some individual cars so probably could be mixed with Amfleets and Horizons, but I don't know if they plan on doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but they are not being delivered all at once so there will be a while where both types of cars are in service.



These cars will not be used for Amfleet/Horizon cars as far as I am aware. They are intended to fully replace the Midwest corridor fleet.


----------



## Steve4031

If I understand correctly sets of equipment generally operate on the same route day to day. I don’t know the exact number of consists needed to operate the Lincoln service, the number of consists needed for the Michigan service, Hiawatha Service, and service to Quincy. Unless there’s a maintenance issue the consists stay together. 

Based on these assumptions Amtrak would need enough Siemens cars to match the business class capacity and coach capacity for one Midwest train set. I suspect this first set might operate on the Lincoln service line or the Michigan line.


----------



## Crowbar_k

All this paint talk is driving me crazy. So the line on the coach is thicker than than the line on locomotive. WHO CARES? It still matches up and looks fine.


----------



## NSC1109

Crowbar_k said:


> All this paint talk is driving me crazy. So the line on the coach is thicker than than the line on locomotive. WHO CARES? It still matches up and looks fine.



Yeah that really isn’t what we’re talking about but it is a symptom of a larger problem. Amtrak is showing a tendency to paint first and think second. They had a generally unified brand until the Viewliner IIs started showing up in Phase III, the Empire Service P32s started being painted in Phase III, and now the first five ALC-42s are in this clown show livery.

It’s unprofessional. It can be seen by some as a symptom of a bigger issue. “If Amtrak’s marketing people can’t get a unified brand together, what might that mean for the rest of the company? Does anyone truly have a clue what they’re doing?” It’s a relatively extreme example but as a business student that would be #1 on my list and I’m sure I’m not alone.

I’m excited to see what VI (or VII or whatever we’re on now) has in store for Amtrak but they either need to repaint every piece of active rolling stock they own into the livery or its going to look haphazard and not properly thought out.


----------



## PVD

NYSDOT just paid for the P32-DM repaints. Not on Amtrak.


----------



## rickycourtney

Exactly, this isn't about paint, it's about having strong and consistent branding.


----------



## jis

As long as States are paying for the keep of the corridor trains they are free to paint their trains whichever way they want. What is so horrible about that (perhaps other than triggering some people's aesthetics) ? Even Amtrak does that on the NEC, which is branded differently from the rest of the network.


----------



## rickycourtney

Oh, I have absolutely no problem with states requesting their equipment be painted in custom liveries. In fact, I think it's a good thing, especially since Amtrak is no longer financially contributing to these services. A unique brand makes it clear that the state-supported services are different than the national network. (It also makes it easier for the states to "divorce" Amtrak in the future.)

My gripe is about things like the brand new California Venture trainsets not matching the nearly new California Charger locomotives. It's sloppy... but that's on Caltrans and Siemens.

But even more egregious is Amtrak's _*intentional *_hodgepodge of Phase V locomotives, Phase III Viewliner II cars, and the Phase VI Superliner/Viewliner I cars used on the National Network. It looks extremely sloppy. If Amtrak can't figure out something simple, like how to paint the trains, it speaks volumes about how disorganized the company is.


----------



## jis

rickycourtney said:


> My gripe is about things like the brand new California Venture trainsets not matching the nearly new California Charger locomotives. It's sloppy... but that's on Caltrans and Siemens.


As you allude to it, that is California State funded operation called Amtrak California and further sub branded into San Joaquin, Capitol, Surfliner etc. Nothing that Amtrak can control since they don't pay for it. I don't think Siemens has anything to do with it. They will paint things whichever way their customers want. What do they care as long as they get paid for it?

The branding of Amtrak National has been up in the air allegedly waiting for Congress to specify if and how much of it will continue to exist, and that will hopefully get settled with the new Authorization, but maybe not. My guess is it will continue to be a hogde podge like the service itself is.

The Phase III striping of the ACDMs is a NY State thing, and they pay for that service, so they get to do whatever they want with stuff that is exclusively assigned for their funded service. Eventually it is possible that NYSDOT will acquire its own rolling stock and paint it whatever they like, and possibly continue to use the "Empire Service" moniker.


----------



## Crowbar_k

comment removed


----------



## Crowbar_k

mfastx said:


> So are they going to just slap those cars on existing Amtrak consists with older cars? Or will they at least use the new cars for entire train sets?


I believe they will, since the café cars aren't expected to arrive until 2022. That would look horrible. I already think that Horizon cars coupled with Amfleet cars look bad, so I can't even imagine how out of place the older cars would look.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Here are a few pictures from the Chicago yard this afternoon.


----------



## Crowbar_k

Thanks


----------



## nti1094

Bob Dylan said:


> Does Albuqurque still clean the Windows during the Chiefs stop there? As a kid I remember when the Santa Fe's Super Chief was given a bath during the ststion stop there!



Just last week I noticed that they do clean the windows. Not with the motorized vehicle with the moving cleaner head that used to drive along beside the train scrubbing. It’s a large handheld cleaner they walk along the train washing


----------



## NSC1109

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20Activities%20Reports/2020/August/305%20activities%20report%20-%20monthly%207-31-20.pdf



Expect IDOT cars to be out and about in August or September for 238.111 testing. This should include the_ Lincoln Service, Wolverine, _and potentially _Hiawatha_ corridor routes.


----------



## Seaboard92

Here is the thing paint matters because it is your first impression as a company. If a train shows up in the three different paint schemes that are currently offered it looks unprofessional. 

Lets look at the current Silver Meteor before the crazy four day a week garbage pushed by Amtrak's executives. 

Loco X2 Phase Vb
Four Amfleet II Coach Phase IVb
Amfleet II Lounge Phase IVb
Viewliner II Diner Phase IIIb
Viewliner I Sleeper x 3 Phase IVb (Occasionally the one Phase III one shows up)
Viewliner II Baggage Phase IVb. 

The locomotive to coaches paint doesn't really matter much because everyone sorta understands the locomotives are not cars, and aren't stainless. But then you jump between Phase IVb and Phase IIIb at least three times, sometimes five if you get lucky enough to get "New River" on a train. Now do you see my argument. Now once on the train the differences in paint make no difference. But that initial impression matters. 

Heritage locomotives are ok because everyone can see that they are something special even those who aren't railfans. Especially because each of the heritage units has 1971-2011 on them. We can all see that they are special. 

Having one conclusive brand matters. 

Now for the midwest coaches it doesn't matter those coaches will stay local to that area. Same with the California or Cascade corridor trains. 

Now if you really want to be a nitpick but the general public won't notice the stainless on the Viewliners and the Amfleets are slightly different, and when we had heritage cars they were way different. 

And in other fluted equipment you can tell a Pullman, AC&F car from a Budd just on the fluting. Maybe I notice that more because I work very closely with Budds.


----------



## jis

Seaboard92 said:


> Lets look at the current Silver Meteor before the crazy four day a week garbage pushed by Amtrak's executives.
> 
> Loco X2 Phase Vb
> Four Amfleet II Coach Phase IVb
> Amfleet II Lounge Phase IVb
> Viewliner II Diner Phase IIIb
> Viewliner I Sleeper x 3 Phase IVb (Occasionally the one Phase III one shows up)
> Viewliner II Baggage Phase IVb.


Viewliner II Baggage Car is Phase IIIb, not Phase IVb.


----------



## rickycourtney

4 more Amtrak Midwest cars are en route to Chicago.


----------



## Mailliw

Cool, have any interior photos been released yet?


----------



## DSS&A

Here is a Railway Age article on the arrival and testing of the new IDOT cars:









For IDOT, New Siemens Ventures - Railway Age


The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) has begun taking delivery on 88 new Siemens “Venture” single-level passenger cars. According to WSP USA Senior Engineering Manager Art Peterson, who supplied these photos to Railway Age, the first four arrived in Chicago in mid-August, and four...




www.railwayage.com


----------



## west point

Were they not on the CAL Z because the cars had not been fully certified to be on revenue passenger trains ?


----------



## Steve4031

In the video above they operated as a separate movement over UP.


----------



## MisterUptempo

Mailliw said:


> Cool, have any interior photos been released yet?


I posted these in another thread a few weeks ago-






A mock-up of the IDOT cafe car.


----------



## Bob Dylan

MisterUptempo said:


> I posted these in another thread a few weeks ago-
> 
> View attachment 18713
> View attachment 18714
> View attachment 18715
> 
> 
> A mock-up of the IDOT cafe car.
> View attachment 18712


The Colors remind me of the 70s!


----------



## MisterUptempo

Bob Dylan said:


> The Colors remind me of the 70s!



Well, to be Scrupulously Fair, here's a shot of an Amtrak interior from the 70s. 

I'd imagine that fabric was named something along the lines of "Earth Tone Vomit".

But, perhaps, the retro interior is intentional. We'll know for sure if the Midwest states introduce a "new" uniform for all conductors and service personnel...


----------



## Bob Dylan

MisterUptempo said:


> Well, to be Scrupulously Fair, here's a shot of an Amtrak interior from the 70s. View attachment 18716
> 
> I'd imagine that fabric was named something along the lines of "Earth Tone Vomit".
> 
> But, perhaps, the retro interior is intentional. We'll know for sure if the Midwest states introduce a "new" uniform for all conductors and service personnel... View attachment 18717


I remember those Amtrak 70s Colors well! ( no wonder we drank so much on the Trains! lol)

It was more so Automobile Seats and Furniture I was remembering, but all forms of Transportation seats were pretty Vomit inducing in the 70s!!


----------



## Mailliw

Thanks for the pics!


----------



## Seaboard92

west point said:


> Were they not on the CAL Z because the cars had not been fully certified to be on revenue passenger trains ?



Special move on Union Pacific Sacramento-Chicago via the Overland Route all the way.


----------



## railiner

Seaboard92 said:


> Special move on Union Pacific Sacramento-Chicago via the Overland Route all the way.


Did it run via Donner Pass?


----------



## Seaboard92

railiner said:


> Did it run via Donner Pass?



I believe it did, and via Wyoming and the former CN&W Omaha east


----------



## railiner

Did it run via Omaha, or the bypass thru Blair?
Only asking because curious about some 'rare mileage' possibilites...


----------



## Steve4031

I remember the 70s too. But not that outfit the lady is wearing next to the turbo train. Those shoes definitely would not work for safety compliance imho.


----------



## Thunder

Kinda funny the BNSF handed it off to us


----------



## Steve4031

According to posts on train orders more cars are headed east. They are being moved on the UP line through Wyoming and Nebraska.


----------



## jiml

Steve4031 said:


> According to posts on train orders more cars are headed east. They are being moved on the UP line through Wyoming and Nebraska.


There's a string of them behind UP power moving through Kearney on yesterday's VR Grab Bag video around the 7 minute mark IIRC.


----------



## Agent

Video by James Tray showing the new cars passing through Ottumwa, Iowa yesterday (October 3).


----------



## west point

How did the cars have electric ? Noticed door lights active


----------



## me_little_me

west point said:


> How did the cars have electric ? Noticed door lights active


It's amazing what LEDs with a couple of rechargeable AAA batteries can do these days!


----------



## AmtrakBlue

west point said:


> How did the cars have electric ? Noticed door lights active


Wouldn't they be hooked up to the engine's power? Don't they have to have the markers lit up?


----------



## Dutchrailnut

all LED and cars do have sizable battery banks of 64 volt . the battery power has to be on for slip/slide system to be able to protect wheels


----------



## jiml

AmtrakBlue said:


> Don't they have to have the markers lit up?


Interesting. Some previous moves like this behind freight power have had the single flashing freight-style FRED attached, but this one did indeed have the markers illuminated - especially visible on the nighttime YouTube footage.


----------



## Crowbar_k

mfastx said:


> So are they going to just slap those cars on existing Amtrak consists with older cars? Or will they at least use the new cars for entire train sets?



Ok. I just saw an interview with someone from IDOT. He said that since the café cars will not arrive until 2022, the initial consist will be 4 Venture coaches and a legacy café/business car. He also said that they will be going to the Lincoln Service first. That makes sense, given that it is the most travelled of the Midwest routes (except the Hiawatha, which is getting its own separate fleet).


----------



## rickycourtney

NGEC finally posted an update, dated September 30, 2020 



> Update – Multi-State Rail Car Procurement (provided by Caltrans) as of 9-22-20:
> 
> Design review for the standard coach is complete. The Cab Car structure FDR is complete and the structural test plans have been reviewed and are in revision. Reviews for Vending Cars, Cab Car Interiors, Diagnostic Systems and Safety Appliances were scheduled for the week of September 28th in Sacramento. IDOT Café Car releases are ongoing with design reviews continuing through September. The Café Car IDR has been approved.
> 
> Travel to Europe from the U.S. for testing is being investigated in order to support workstation table testing. The first Maintainability Demonstration took place in Stockton last week. NEC testing for standard coach is complete and comments to the report are being clarified with FRA. Caltrans 238.111 testing is complete, and the report is in work. The IDOT 238.111 test runs on the IDOT corridors are expected to begin end of September or early October.
> 
> 54 cars total are in production or have been produced at Siemens Sacramento Facility. System-level FAIs and the Complete Coach FAI are now approved for the standard coach. There are nine cars delivered to the Stockton facility. The first IDOT cars shipped end of July and the second shipment occurred August 28.
> 
> The project teams continue to monitor potential production and schedule impacts due to the coronavirus and are receiving frequent updates from SCOA and Siemens.


----------



## Agent

Another special move of new Siemens cars passed through Iowa today (Monday). The numbers on the cars were small, but it looked like the five coaches were IDTX (if that's the reporting mark they're using) 4014, 4015, 4016, 4017, and 4018.


----------



## jis

Agent said:


> Another special move of new Siemens cars passed through Iowa today (Monday). The numbers on the cars were small, but it looked like the five coaches were IDTX (if that's the reporting mark they're using) 4014, 4015, 4016, 4017, and 4018.
> View attachment 19622


They seem to have a distinctly IDTX livery.


----------



## jamess

Anyone have an update on these? I thought they were expected in service by the end of 2020?


----------



## MikefromCrete

jamess said:


> Anyone have an update on these? I thought they were expected in service by the end of 2020?



Last seen they were at the coach yard south of Union Station, awaiting testing.


----------



## NSC1109

MikefromCrete said:


> Last seen they were at the coach yard south of Union Station, awaiting testing.



I’d imagine they’ll be tested on the Michigan Line first, since it’s Amtrak-operated and there aren’t many conflicting movements right now.


----------



## nullptr

NSC1109 said:


> I’d imagine they’ll be tested on the Michigan Line first, since it’s Amtrak-operated and there aren’t many conflicting movements right now.



Scott Speegle, the IDOT passenger rail & transit communications manager said they would be first rolled out on the Lincoln service starting this year, then to the other midwest routes. My biased opinion agrees with you though.



I was also wondering if there have been any photos of the finished interiors? I don't remember seeing any, except for the factory mock-ups from a while back.


----------



## MikefromCrete

nullptr said:


> Scott Speegle, the IDOT passenger rail & transit communications manager said they would be first rolled out on the Lincoln service starting this year, then to the other midwest routes. My biased opinion agrees with you though.
> 
> 
> 
> I was also wondering if there have been any photos of the finished interiors? I don't remember seeing any, except for the factory mock-ups from a while back.




Let's see, one of the guys in charge of the equipment says one thing, yet you agree with somebody who is just expressing an opinion without any backing. Good thinking.


----------



## nullptr

It was just a light-hearted comment, obviously I know they'll show up on the Lincoln service first.


----------



## GiantsFan

Does anyone know when the CA cars are supposed to arrive?


----------



## nullptr

GiantsFan said:


> Does anyone know when the CA cars are supposed to arrive?



They started to receive deliveries before the midwest group did. Here is a video posted earlier in the thread showing them being tested.



Agent said:


> Here's a video of the train of new Siemens coaches from yesterday taken by Roseville Sacramento Railfan.





The December NGEC minutes say Caltrans has received 12 cars already in their Stockton facility.


----------



## GiantsFan

Ahhh nice! Hope to see a set in San Jose sometime!


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

GiantsFan said:


> Ahhh nice! Hope to see a set in San Jose sometime!


They're intended primarily for the San Joaquins so will not normally operate to San Jose.


----------



## NSC1109

nullptr said:


> Scott Speegle, the IDOT passenger rail & transit communications manager said they would be first rolled out on the Lincoln service starting this year, then to the other midwest routes. My biased opinion agrees with you though.
> 
> 
> 
> I was also wondering if there have been any photos of the finished interiors? I don't remember seeing any, except for the factory mock-ups from a while back.




Not talking full service, just training runs to break them in, train crews, etc. AML would be the ideal place for it because they aren’t dealing with a foreign railroad dispatcher or (many) conflicting movements. Once the revenue service begins yes it will clearly be on fhe



MikefromCrete said:


> Let's see, one of the guys in charge of the equipment says one thing, yet you agree with somebody who is just expressing an opinion without any backing. Good thinking.



That wasn’t really necessary. I wasn’t clear in my original comment and all this person was saying was that a Michigan Line introduction would make a little more sense given the Amtrak-operated infrastructure and few other movements right now.


----------



## GiantsFan

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> They're intended primarily for the San Joaquins so will not normally operate to San Jose.



Ahhh that’s right, forgot the San Joaquains stops in EMY. that’s why I haven’t seen em! Lol


----------



## NSC1109

Amtrak has announced that the new Siemens cars will begin testing on the Michigan Line starting Monday, 1/25.


----------



## Steve4031

That’s a surprise. But I’m glad for the news. I’m booking the inaugural run.


----------



## MikefromCrete

I guess I owe an apology to a couple of AU'ers from Michigan. You were right. I was wrong.


----------



## PerRock

@MikefromCrete As a Michigander, I'm surprised (and wrong) I would have put money on them testing them on the IL HSR line... that is the line they started testing the Chargers on, so one would figure they'd start testing on the same line.

@Steve4031 they said they're testing on the MI line, so these are most likely not going to be revenue trains. If you're booked on an MI train on Monday you're 99% likely to still have Horizons & Amfleets.

peter


----------



## jis

MikefromCrete said:


> I guess I owe an apology to a couple of AU'ers from Michigan. You were right. I was wrong.


The moral of the story is that stated plans do often change in details, unpredictably. So no point in getting worked up about it.


----------



## IndyLions

MikefromCrete said:


> I guess I owe an apology to a couple of AU'ers from Michigan. You were right. I was wrong.


It happens to all of us. Kudos to owning up to it. (I’m not one of the ones from Michigan that you’d be apologizing to - I just grew up there).


----------



## nullptr

MikefromCrete said:


> I guess I owe an apology to a couple of AU'ers from Michigan. You were right. I was wrong.



I managed to still be wrong about it by agreeing with you. So it goes, I guess. 



PerRock said:


> As a Michigander, I'm surprised (and wrong) I would have put money on them testing them on the IL HSR line... that is the line they started testing the Chargers on, so one would figure they'd start testing on the same line.



And anecdotally, the Chargers seemed to take a comparatively long time to show up on the wolverine. I assumed that was due to the ITCS system that is used on the line, but I don't know if that was ever confirmed or if it was for some other reason, and probably wouldn't be an issue for passenger cars...

In any case, I look forward to seeing the cars in action.


----------



## Steve4031

@Steve4031 they said they're testing on the MI line, so these are most likely not going to be revenue trains. If you're booked on an MI train on Monday you're 99% likely to still have Horizons & Amfleets.

peter
[/QUOTE]

I understand these are non revenue. I’m assuming the inaugural run will be announced in a few months. I’ll ride then.


----------



## NSC1109

MikefromCrete said:


> I guess I owe an apology to a couple of AU'ers from Michigan. You were right. I was wrong.



No sweat chief. It was announced early on that the equipment would enter revenue service on IDOT sponsored lines. Testing itself is just easier on the AML because Amtrak controls the whole show.


----------



## NSC1109

nullptr said:


> I managed to still be wrong about it by agreeing with you. So it goes, I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> And anecdotally, the Chargers seemed to take a comparatively long time to show up on the wolverine. I assumed that was due to the ITCS system that is used on the line, but I don't know if that was ever confirmed or if it was for some other reason, and probably wouldn't be an issue for passenger cars...
> 
> In any case, I look forward to seeing the cars in action.



If I remember correctly, it was indeed because the ITCS system wouldn’t interlock with the Charger units correctly.


----------



## west point

It may well be a test train as the test train may start out slow then each additional test train make incremental speed increases much like the Acela-2s. If you were on a regular trip this next few days you might run around the test train.


----------



## IndyLions

If Amtrak is serious about new Corridor services, they need to figure out how to very quickly promote these new train sets.

For the US at least, CHI-DET & CHI-STL are the two best corridors from which to promote shiny new, and _practical_ corridor service. It’s not true HSR, but these corridors will offer increasing sections of 115mph running and sharp new train sets. And while expensive, they don’t carry with them the seemingly impossible leap of funding of true HSR.

Can Amtrak gets these train sets fully deployed and these corridor running speeds optimized in time? Biden and Mayor Pete will only be around for so long. Will Amtrak take advantage? That’s what I want to know.


----------



## NSC1109

IndyLions said:


> If Amtrak is serious about new Corridor services, they need to figure out how to very quickly promote these new train sets.
> 
> For the US at least, CHI-DET & CHI-STL are the two best corridors from which to promote shiny new, and _practical_ corridor service. It’s not true HSR, but these corridors will offer increasing sections of 115mph running and sharp new train sets. And while expensive, they don’t carry with them the seemingly impossible leap of funding of true HSR.
> 
> Can Amtrak gets these train sets fully deployed and these corridor running speeds optimized in time? Biden and Mayor Pete will only be around for so long. Will Amtrak take advantage? That’s what I want to know.



The western half of the AML is already 110mph barring slow orders due to maintenance or ITCS failure. The real trick has been getting everything east of Kalamazoo up to par. NS left it in pretty bad shape when MDOT bought up the line. Work has been proceeding slowly over the last few years and they’re pretty much done, but the tight curves on the eastern half limit how fast the services can get. I think they cap out at 70 in some areas.


----------



## NSC1109

IDOT has informed me that the test train left Chicago at 7:20 Central this morning. Should be on the AML now barring any delays.


----------



## PerRock

I'm hanging out near ARB, would expect it to be here within the hour... No sign of it yet.

Peter


----------



## NSC1109

PerRock said:


> I'm hanging out near ARB, would expect it to be here within the hour... No sign of it yet.
> 
> Peter



I don’t think it’s passed through Kalamazoo yet unless I missed it. Haven’t heard anything this morning


----------



## PerRock

Which would mean it's been very delayed... Sigh.

Peter


----------



## PerRock

MDOT just showed up on Chelsea to plan shots. Said it's about an hour out.

Peter


----------



## Agent

YouTube user EJF215 has posted a video of the test train at Hammond, Indiana.


----------



## NSC1109

Oh heavens, what's with the Heritage diner in the middle of the consist? Axle count?


----------



## Steve4031

That is an old sleeping car. It is a place for Amtrak officials to work. It is strange that it is in the middle. Maybe they are checking how the Siemens cars connect to non-Siemens cars. Should be interesting process in the snow. The plan in the future is to run Siemens cars with horizon and amfleet snack cars until the snack cars from Siemens arrive.


----------



## nullptr

Photos from MDOT twitter, so close to an interior shot....


----------



## GiantsFan

It bugs me that the stripe on the locomotive and cars don’t match up lol


----------



## NSC1109

nullptr said:


> Photos from MDOT twitter, so close to an interior shot....




Ye ask and ye hath received.


stolen off Twitter. There are more but I can’t post right now


----------



## Steve4031

Looks like the seats are lined up with the windows.


----------



## NSC1109

Again, all stolen off Twitter. Can’t remember the user’s handle but they aren’t my photos.

So far I like what I see. Very spacious and the windows look great.


----------



## jiml

New car smell?  Seriously though, those pair very well with heritage cars - not that it's a factor.


----------



## railiner

Anyone know what those stainless (or aluminum?) compartments are in the overhead racks?


----------



## PVD

They look like access panels in the ceiling that open for maintenance access, and they are in the open position


----------



## PerRock

Here's my video of them passing Chelsea. Sadly most of my pictures didn't come out well.



Peter


----------



## frequentflyer

GiantsFan said:


> It bugs me that the stripe on the locomotive and cars don’t match up lol



Bureaucrats, what were you expecting?


----------



## jis

The car interior still has a distinctly European look and feel to it. The Brightline ones even more so, but most of that has been retained in these as it seems.


----------



## railiner

PVD said:


> They look like access panels in the ceiling that open for maintenance access, and they are in the open position


On a longer look, I believe you are correct...at first glance I thought they might be for holding emergency equipment, but now see what you mean...thanks...


----------



## IndyLions

Has anyone seen any interior photos of Business Class? Are there bike racks anywhere in the train?


----------



## Mailliw

I've seen photos, but I can't find them. Business class is going to be 2:1. I'm really curious about the cafe cars.


----------



## PerRock

IndyLions said:


> Has anyone seen any interior photos of Business Class? Are there bike racks anywhere in the train?



I believe the metal apparatus on the left in this picture (from above) might be a bike rack. It's got some odd bits (the U-shaped piece and the pipe with a ball on it) that don't make sense for a baggage rack, but I could see using on a bike rack.






Edit: Looking at it more, it's clear that there is a baggage rack that swings down in. It may be one of those, bike rack when up, baggage rack when down systems.


----------



## nullptr

PerRock said:


> I believe the metal apparatus on the left in this picture (from above) might be a bike rack. It's got some odd bits (the U-shaped piece and the pipe with a ball on it) that don't make sense for a baggage rack, but I could see using on a bike rack.
> 
> Edit: Looking at it more, it's clear that there is a baggage rack that swings down in. It may be one of those, bike rack when up, baggage rack when down systems.




The bit that the trash bag is hanging from? The end seems too bulbous to fit between the spokes of a bike wheel, which is how I've seen hanging racks usually work. It might just be the perspective of this photo though.


----------



## PerRock

nullptr said:


> The bit that the trash bag is hanging from? The end seems too bulbous to fit between the spokes of a bike wheel, which is how I've seen hanging racks usually work. It might just be the perspective of this photo though.



My primary thought for bike rack was the round "U-shaped" looking bit near the mouth of the trash bag. I could easily be open on one end and clamp down on the tire... but in reality I don't know, just taking a guess.

peter


----------



## Steve4031

The bike thing only works if people can carry their own bikes on and off the train and then secure them in the bike rack. An individual unable to do this is going to interfere with other passengers boarding the train and subsequently cause delays.

Bikes not in the bike rack are not an acceptable alternative. These would block areas used by employees or passengers.


----------



## John Bredin

Steve4031 said:


> The bike thing only works if people can carry their own bikes on and off the train and then secure them in the bike rack. An individual unable to do this is going to interfere with other passengers boarding the train and subsequently cause delays.


 I imagine most railways that allow bicycles require passengers with bikes to carry and secure their bikes themselves. Metra, with three (within the train, four practically) steps up to board all non-electric trains, is very clear that the crew will not deploy the lift for bicycles. But most bicyclists end up having to lift their bike at some point in regular usage anyhow.



> Bikes not in the bike rack are not an acceptable alternative. These would block areas used by employees or passengers.


A fare-paying bicyclist is also a passenger.  When I see piles of luggage in the open wheelchair area on some Amtrak trains, I don't see a bicycle in the same space as unacceptable.

Of course, every railway is free to require its passengers use a bike rack. But some don't. Metra has no bike racks on its present equipment (it's buying cars with racks) and expects cyclists to bungee their bikes in the area of perpendicular folding seats between the vestibule and the regular seats. Cyclists must defer to disabled (the folding-seat area is also the wheelchair area) and senior passengers in that area but have priority over other passengers to secure their bike in that designated area.


----------



## RPC

John Bredin said:


> I imagine most railways that allow bicycles require passengers with bikes to carry and secure their bikes themselves. Metra, with three (within the train, four practically) steps up to board all non-electric trains, is very clear that the crew will not deploy the lift for bicycles. But most bicyclists end up having to lift their bike at some point in regular usage anyhow.
> 
> A fare-paying bicyclist is also a passenger.  When I see piles of luggage in the open wheelchair area on some Amtrak trains, I don't see a bicycle in the same space as unacceptable.
> 
> Of course, every railway is free to require its passengers use a bike rack. But some don't. Metra has no bike racks on its present equipment (it's buying cars with racks) and expects cyclists to bungee their bikes in the area of perpendicular folding seats between the vestibule and the regular seats. Cyclists must defer to disabled (the folding-seat area is also the wheelchair area) and senior passengers in that area but have priority over other passengers to secure their bike in that designated area.


SEPTA also allows bikes despite not having racks. On a Silverliner 4 the bicycle storage area is right behind the "cab", so bicyclists have to wheel their bikes the entire length of the car to the storage area.


----------



## jis

It seems to me that the bike storage area should be as close to the door as possible.


----------



## kbmiflyer

IndyLions said:


> For the US at least, CHI-DET & CHI-STL are the two best corridors from which to promote shiny new, and _practical_ corridor service. It’s not true HSR, but these corridors will offer increasing sections of 115mph running and sharp new train sets. And while expensive, they don’t carry with them the seemingly impossible leap of funding of true HSR.



There are currently no plans to run trains over 90 mph on the CHI-STL section. But agree that it would be good for Amtrak to promote the new cars.


----------



## Trogdor

kbmiflyer said:


> There are currently no plans to run trains over 90 mph on the CHI-STL section. But agree that it would be good for Amtrak to promote the new cars.



They had 110 on a brief stretch for a short time circa 2012, but it got downgraded back to 79 in the intervening years. I hadn't heard that the project has been abandoned, and/or they've lowered their goals to 90. Is this documented somewhere?


----------



## PVD

Actually, the luggage piled up in the wheelchair area * and *a bicycle in that space are both unacceptable. The fact that crews don't enforce the rules about luggage doesn't make it right for someone else to violate them with a bicycle. I always enjoy watching the crew forced to make the dreaded "get your crap out of the wheelchair space" announcement when the space is needed for its intended (and lawful) purpose.


----------



## railiner

John Bredin said:


> Of course, every railway is free to require its passengers use a bike rack. But some don't. Metra has no bike racks on its present equipment (it's buying cars with racks) and expects cyclists to bungee their bikes in the area of perpendicular folding seats between the vestibule and the regular seats. Cyclists must defer to disabled (the folding-seat area is also the wheelchair area) and senior passengers in that area but have priority over other passengers to secure their bike in that designated area.


The LIRR's bicycle policy is here...








Bike regulations for Long Island Rail Road


Here's what you need to know to bring your bike on Long Island Rail Road trains.




new.mta.info





Added Metro North's...








Bike regulations for Metro-North Railroad


Here are rules for taking your bike on Metro-North trains.




new.mta.info


----------



## John Bredin

PVD said:


> Actually, the luggage piled up in the wheelchair area * and *a bicycle in that space are both unacceptable. The fact that crews don't enforce the rules about luggage doesn't make it right for someone else to violate them with a bicycle. I always enjoy watching the crew forced to make the dreaded "get your crap out of the wheelchair space" announcement when the space is needed for its intended (and lawful) purpose.


You're right, I meant that a bike isn't *more* unacceptable than luggage in that area. Some people overlook or tolerate luggage-piling because luggage is common but look at bikes as interlopers.


----------



## IndyLions

Accommodating bicyclists in a reasonable, safe way is good business for Amtrak. Bicyclists and train travelers are two demographics that overlap fairly significantly.

I know I have spent several thousand dollars on train travel for trips where a primary purpose was to explore a new city by bike.

Generally, Amtrak has done a pretty good job with bicycles despite the challenges that they have to effectively retrofit bicycle support on all of their existing equipment - because it is so old. Frankly, where they have struggled supporting bicycles is in crew/employee education. No surprise there - that seems to be a weakness at Amtrak regardless of the topic.

With this new equipment, they had the opportunity to plan ahead with a more elegant solution that’s better for all passengers. After looking at that interior photo again more closely, I feel reasonably confident that there is a bike apparatus there.


----------



## Steve4031

I agree that luggage is problematic when someone brings more than their allocation. Putting the luggage in the handicap area is not appropriate. This would also cause a delay to the train as people are forced to move luggage at the last minute to accommodate a wheel chair. The other annoying practice is placing extra luggage in the shower room.


----------



## tricia

Steve4031 said:


> I agree that luggage is problematic when someone brings more than their allocation. Putting the luggage in the handicap area is not appropriate. This would also cause a delay to the train as people are forced to move luggage at the last minute to accommodate a wheel chair. The other annoying practice is placing extra luggage in the shower room.



Since most of Amtrak's LD stations no longer offer checked baggage, the problem isn't so much passengers bringing "more than their allocation." It's that Amtrak is unwilling to employ its baggage cars to actually hold most baggage.


----------



## PVD

The problem is generally not a LD station not offering checked bags problem, it's trains that wouldn't have a baggage car any way. The shower situation is unique to the Viewliner sleeper, it doesn't have much luggage space in the rooms, nor a downstairs rack, and many stations don't have checked bags. Also, there are people who don't like to check bags, and SCA are pretty lenient on what gets dragged on. The Superliners have racks downstairs, it is an issue most likely to be seen on single level trains, the greatest majority are no baggage trains and have been for many years.


----------



## me_little_me

They are planning to put bike racks on the roof - like the cars that drive around with bikes sitting upright on top. They just haven't figured a few issues out like how to make passengers load/unload bikes, low tunnels, and other minor problems.


----------



## railiner

John Bredin said:


> You're right, I meant that a bike isn't *more* unacceptable than luggage in that area. Some people overlook or tolerate luggage-piling because luggage is common but look at bikes as interlopers.


Hey! I object!
If they are going to make provision's to carry bicycles on Amtrak trains, then they should also make provisions on the same trains to carry auto's, like the Auto Train does.... 
,
Just kidding.


----------



## jiml

me_little_me said:


> They are planning to put bike racks on the roof - like the cars that drive around with bikes sitting upright on top. They just haven't figured a few issues out like how to make passengers load/unload bikes, low tunnels, and other minor problems.


Adds a whole new meaning to double-stack.


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> Adds a whole new meaning to double-stack.


More practical might be full width gangways between cars and put the bike racks on one side of the gangway, avoiding the necessary moving parts of course.


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> More practical might be full width gangways between cars and put the bike racks on one side of the gangway, avoiding the necessary moving parts of course.


I recently watched a European video showing something very similar. Certainly more efficient than taking up seating or luggage space.


----------



## west point

Look between the cars. It appears that there are even more connections between cars. I could believe that there would be one ore for a fiber cable connection but what are the other additional.? .Just for the test train ? Or maybe it is for a more robust control of the trailing loco. ?


----------



## jrud

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20Activities%20Reports/2020/December/305%20activities%20report%20-%20monthly%2012-31-20.pdf



December minutes of NGEC. Some of this is slightly out-of-date already, but there is interesting information.


----------



## jrud

GiantsFan said:


> It bugs me that the stripe on the locomotive and cars don’t match up lol


My guess is that Amtrak decided on a new overall look with the wide red stripe on the bottom, etc. It ended up on the Acela 21 and these Venture cars. And, the Midwest locomotives were before that decision. Does anyone know?

The mostly blue LD scheme on the Chargers is supposed to be replaced by a new scheme on later locomotives. Maybe those will have the same striping. Not that it helps the Midwest.


----------



## jis

Besides, it really is not all that hard to change the livery of a dozen or two locomotives anyway.


----------



## jamess

Do the seats recline?


----------



## Cal

NSC1109 said:


> View attachment 20443
> View attachment 20444
> View attachment 20445
> 
> Again, all stolen off Twitter. Can’t remember the user’s handle but they aren’t my photos.
> 
> So far I like what I see. Very spacious and the windows look great.


Gotta say, the seats looks smaller and less comfortable then current Amtrak seats. Hopefully it's not like that.


----------



## PVD

I can't speak to their comfort or recline, but if the aisle is wider, then the seats would be a touch narrower, also if there is an armrest in between the seats that would matter also.


----------



## Cal

PVD said:


> I can't speak to their comfort or recline, but if the aisle is wider, then the seats would be a touch narrower, also if there is an armrest in between the seats that would matter also.


Yea... Not looking forward to that. That was one big plus to Amtrak, as the seats were very large and comfy...


----------



## Mailliw

We should be grateful for the armrest.


----------



## Cal

Mailliw said:


> We should be grateful for the armrest.


It'd be nice if they kept the seat a little wider though..


----------



## IndyLions

Amtrak can specify whatever seat they want of course – but I thought it would be interesting to check the seat width for Brightline. Brightline seats are 19” and 21” wide respectively in the two classes of service.

From the information I can find, Amtrak seats are traditionally 23 inches wide – they’re probably not all uniform, though.

Since the trend is for wider aisles, I am guessing that Amtrak will narrow their seats as well. Of course, that’s nothing more than my speculation.


----------



## sttom

I've been on the "modern" trains in Europe and no their seats are not particularly comfortable. They work pretty much like cheap office chairs and if that's your thing, than you will be fine. But if you want or expect something as comfortable as what is on Amtrak trains presently, you will be SOL. I will say, that those are not the worst possible seats they could have chosen. I rode "First Class" on a refurbished Polish train and the seats felt like Greyhound seats. but this is what you get when you buy "off the shelf" and someone is not being a pain about the quality of something.


----------



## Mailliw

How comfortable are Brightline's seats?


----------



## jis

Mailliw said:


> How comfortable are Brightline's seats?


To some extent that is a personal taste question. For me, I have found them to be very comfortable, and they do recline, by pushing the base forward, which seems to be what most recent seat designs do.


----------



## nti1094

kbmiflyer said:


> There are currently no plans to run trains over 90 mph on the CHI-STL section. But agree that it would be good for Amtrak to promote the new cars.



Wait, all that money spent on “Illinois High Speed Rail, all that track rebuilding, and a test segment for revenue 110 operation and a whole decade and all we get is 90mph? Wow.


----------



## 9900

nti1094 said:


> Wait, all that money spent on “Illinois High Speed Rail, all that track rebuilding, and a test segment for revenue 110 operation and a whole decade and all we get is 90mph? Wow.


Which would you rather have? 3 - 110mph round trips or 10 - 90mph round trips? 

I’ll take the 10 round trip option (even at 79mph) any day of the week.


----------



## nti1094

9900 said:


> Which would you rather have? 3 - 110mph round trips or 10 - 90mph round trips?
> 
> I’ll take the 10 round trip option (even at 79mph) any day of the week.



In all honesty I think the difference between 90 and 110 only produced about 3 minutes of time savings. So I’ll go with more round trips.


----------



## nti1094

For a vast majority of the country, there is much greater time saving potential in just double tracking or adding much longer passing loops. As long as they can sustain a steady 79mph, including while passing much slower freight trains, there will be significant savings in total travel time. Also at 79 mph there is a huge savings in track inspections for FRA compliance and extra maintenance for the more complex grade crossing circuits required for anything above 79. 
Plus I can only imagine the extra wear and tear on the locomotives that would come back and bite us hard in a short timeframe. They seem to have huge issues as it is with the new Chargers. 

I don’t want to spark yet another ongoing debate about the new Chargers, it seems to be a volatile topic. But since everything is powered off the main inverter output bus (no independent HEP, so that, emissions control, traction motors, command and sensing control, pumps, compressors, etc) I question how sturdy they will hold up if run hard. You can see as it is how a failure cascades through everything killing the engines. 
I guess since the midwest isn’t getting cab cars (Caltrans required cab cars and will use them also for baggage and large bike parking, and push-pull ops) they will continue the practice of a loco on each end, which might help a lot. But that could eat into the operations budget and higher maintenance costs causing less service.


----------



## railiner

nti1094 said:


> For a vast majority of the country, there is much greater time saving potential in just double tracking or adding much longer passing loops. As long as they can sustain a steady 79mph, including while passing much slower freight trains, there will be significant savings in total travel time. Also at 79 mph there is a huge savings in track inspections for FRA compliance and extra maintenance for the more complex grade crossing circuits required for anything above 79.
> Plus I can only imagine the extra wear and tear on the locomotives that would come back and bite us hard in a short timeframe. They seem to have huge issues as it is with the new Chargers.
> 
> I don’t want to spark yet another ongoing debate about the new Chargers, it seems to be a volatile topic. But since everything is powered off the main inverter output bus (no independent HEP, so that, emissions control, traction motors, command and sensing control, pumps, compressors, etc) I question how sturdy they will hold up if run hard. You can see as it is how a failure cascades through everything killing the engines.
> I guess since the midwest isn’t getting cab cars (Caltrans required cab cars and will use them also for baggage and large bike parking, and push-pull ops) they will continue the practice of a loco on each end, which might help a lot. But that could eat into the operations budget and higher maintenance costs causing less service.


Seems like the opposite of some old, EMD E-9's, so far as redundancy is concerned.
IIRC, some had, in addition to their two 12-567 prime movers for traction power, two separate Detroit Diesel engine-generator sets for HEP replacing the original steam generators....


----------



## IndyLions

nti1094 said:


> Wait, all that money spent on “Illinois High Speed Rail, all that track rebuilding, and a test segment for revenue 110 operation and a whole decade and all we get is 90mph? Wow.



It’s infuriating. My understanding (albeit limited) is that the Class I went with a PTC system (I-IETMS) that they only found out later was too slow and delay-filled to run trains faster than 90.

It can only be resolved by installing a sensor based system in the sections they want to run fast. The satellite based system was cheaper to install and the Class I’s really could care less about passenger trains. They figure they got a free track rebuild, so why not.


----------



## IndyLions

nti1094 said:


> In all honesty I think the difference between 90 and 110 only produced about 3 minutes of time savings. So I’ll go with more round trips.





9900 said:


> Which would you rather have? 3 - 110mph round trips or 10 - 90mph round trips?
> 
> I’ll take the 10 round trip option (even at 79mph) any day of the week.



You are not going to get 10 round trips at 90mph or 79mph. Unless you want half as overnights at 0-dark-30. You need to get the schedule below 4 hours.

While “the perfect is the enemy of the good” - rail travel advocates need to start demanding better.


----------



## nullptr

IndyLions said:


> It’s infuriating. My understanding (albeit limited) is that the Class I went with a PTC system (I-IETMS) that they only found out later was too slow and delay-filled to run trains faster than 90.



I do think that was the problem initially, but Brightline is now having Wabtec install I-IETMS on their Florida corridor, which is supposed to get up to 125 mph. So it must not be a fundamental limit of the technology, though the implementations in the two locations could be different. My understanding is almost certainly also limited. I've been trying to find more information about the original ptc/speed issues in Illinois but haven't come across much so far.


----------



## jis

Brightline maybe using track mounted transponders to help with precise train position tracking, instead of depending only on GPS, in their implementation. That would make a significant difference in what top speeds would be workable. FEC already has the passive transponders in place that they used for their previous ATC system which they may have figured out a way of repurposing.

One neat thing about the transponder overlay is that trains that do not go over say 90mph (restricted to MAS of 90) may be operated with locomotives not equipped with transponder readers. They would be classified as something like Category B trains. Only those that travel at higher than 90mph would be classified as Category A trains and transponder equipment would be mandatory for that category. So for example, only Brightline trains would be category A trains. Tri-Rail trains could be category B trains and FECR freights could be category C trains with 70mph MAS or some such.

Incidentally, I think Amtrak has 5 category of trains on the NEC with different physical requirements which are spelled out in the working timetable.

Here is a nice Powerpoint slideset on PTC that I came across, provided by Amtrak.



https://media.amtrak.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Amtrak-Dec.-2017-PTC-Deck-1.pptx


----------



## daybeers

nti1094 said:


> In all honesty I think the difference between 90 and 110 only produced about 3 minutes of time savings. So I’ll go with more round trips.


I agree, but the Illinois taxpayers might have some words about the promises made with millions of their money and not much of it panning out. Aren't the corridor trains there still severely delayed sometimes? I thought that was the less flashy but more important part of the project: reliability.


----------



## Steve4031

I think infer how those transponders work in snow?


----------



## jis

Steve4031 said:


> I think infer how those transponders work in snow?


They work fine in Siberia and North of the Arctic Circle in Norway and Sweden, not to mention, all of Switzerland. 

But I am sure Illinois will find a good excuse for why it won't work there.


----------



## MisterUptempo

nti1094 said:


> In all honesty I think the difference between 90 and 110 only produced about 3 minutes of time savings. So I’ll go with more round trips.


From the video I viewed, 90 mph is an intermediate step. 110 mph running will take a few years, but it is the eventual endpoint. Alstom has supposedly been contracted to make it happen.

I'm trying to recall another project like this one, in which the vast majority of a line owned by a marginally cooperative Class I was fully rebuilt to Class 6 standards with money that was not their own, where the construction is supervised by UP, on UP's schedule, and UP making IDOT's decision on a PTC system, however inferior, for them.


----------



## jis

Alstom being pulled in is an interesting piece of information. Alstom is the master of the use of transponder based position and even train to track communication (recall TVM430 used by TGVs before ERTMS L2 came by, was transponder based invention of Alstom as is the ACSES transponder based overlay on the NEC coded track circuit based cab signaling system - the NEC PTC).


----------



## nti1094

railiner said:


> Seems like the opposite of some old, EMD E-9's, so far as redundancy is concerned.
> IIRC, some had, in addition to their two 12-567 prime movers for traction power, two separate Detroit Diesel engine-generator sets for HEP replacing the original steam generators....


I noticed that the RFP put out by Metro-North for dual mode locomotives had 3 interested companies issue interest, but ultimately 2 dropped out and didn’t bother bidding, leaving only Siemens for that order as well. Considering EMD’s disaster of a product with Metrolink (although much better looking aesthetically) it looks like we are down to one captive builder for pretty much all passenger locomotives in the USA now. 
I know if you ask engineers about them, they absolutely hate the Chargers. If I’m not mistaken, I believe the winter weather this past month has pretty much knocked almost all the chicago fleet out of service. That is scary to think of. Amtrak does not have the option of putting everything in on a lemon product. 


daybeers said:


> I agree, but the Illinois taxpayers might have some words about the promises made with millions of their money and not much of it panning out. Aren't the corridor trains there still severely delayed sometimes? I thought that was the less flashy but more important part of the project: reliability.


Also, a few years ago CNN’s Anderson Cooper did a hit piece on the long delayed project in IL and how after years and hundreds of millions spent only a very short segment was upped to 110. I would hate for this project to be used in the future to argue against improvements to other corridors.


----------



## neroden

The moral of the Illinois fiasco is "If you're going to pay to upgrade the tracks, buy them." UP is basically just stealing money from the state and federal governments at this time.


----------



## John Bredin

After watching a couple videos of presentations by the High Speed Rail Alliance (former Midwest HSR Association), I'm less worried about the 90 vs. 110 mph issue on the Lincoln Service than about how many -- or how relatively few -- of the new train cars have been ordered.

Of the $1.886 billion spent on the Lincoln Service, only about $200 million of that was spent on the flawed signaling/PTC system. The rest (stretches of double-tracking, longer sidings, improved grade crossings, new or remodeled stations, and the new trainsets) is still useful, and we don't know how much of the PTC system is salvageable. As I understand it, the flawed system is the one the freight railroads settled upon [link] so they have an incentive to salvage it, but on the other hand they may consider adequate a system that works up to 90 mph but not faster. 

Once we're past Covid and have enough new trainsets, I'd rather see Amtrak & Illinois DOT get more Lincoln Service trains running at 90mph *then* deal more decisively with the signaling/PTC issue, rather than waiting until we can get to 110mph to expand service with the new trainsets.

The 88 new train cars for the Midwest is 17 trainsets: 17 cafe/coaches, 17 business/coaches, and the rest coaches. But 17 trainsets seems like just enough for the existing Midwest service. Looking at the pre-Covid schedules, and not accounting for any creative use of trainsets, I see 17 trainsets in use.* (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.) If Wisconsin adds to the order for the Hiawathas or a second train to St. Paul, as some have said, that frees up two trainsets for planned Quad Cities service *or* Rockford service but not both. Any further expansion would require either exercising options I hope IDOT has, or continuing to use some of the existing Horizon/Amfleet trains in daily service.

*4 Lincoln Service, 3 for the Wolverines, 2 each for the Missouri River Runner, Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg, Illini/Saluki, and Hiawathas, and 1 each for the Pere Marquette and Blue Water.


----------



## nullptr

John Bredin said:


> *4 Lincoln Service, 3 for the Wolverines, 2 each for the Missouri River Runner, Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg, Illini/Saluki, and Hiawathas, and 1 each for the Pere Marquette and Blue Water.



Not that it changes your conclusion much, but I don't think the two Hiawatha trainsets are included in the 17 trainset number. They were ordered separately and will be getting 9 cars (three of which are cab-coach).





__





U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao Announces $272 Million in ‘State of Good Repair’ Program Grants | FRA


(eLibrary page)WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) today announced more than $272 million in grant funding to 10 rail projects in 10 states. Funding is provided through FRA’s Federal-State Partnership for State of Good Repair Program (SOGR...




railroads.dot.gov


----------



## neroden

Your revised calculations are correct: the state orders are quite specifically enough to replace all the existing short-haul midwest services, plus Quad Cities. Rockford equipment is not funded at this time. That is correct. Any further expansions would mean ordering more trainsets.

On the other topic, the double-tracking, grade separations, and so forth are nice, except that ***UP owns them***. Free money for UP to upgrade its line. This should have been done after the State of Illinois bought the track, so that the state was upgrading its *own* line. This is, in the end, what is being done in Michigan, Virginia, North Carolina, and Massachusetts, where the states are upgrading lines where they own the track. If you upgrade someone else's line, they are perfectly likely to steal the capacity for themselves, as CSX did with the several (I think it was four) "passenger bypass tracks" for Acca Yard funded at one time or another by Virginia before Virginia wised up.


----------



## jrud

The 2021 NGEC annual meeting includes information on many items including the single level cars.





__





AASHTO - High Speed Rail - Section 305 Committee







www.highspeed-rail.org


----------



## rickycourtney

TL;DR: The operator of the San Joaquins is planning to dump Amtrak when it comes to maintaining the Venture cars.

In a board resolution packed with California governmental jargon... the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) plans to transfer custody and control as well as maintenance of the Venture cars to the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA)... the SJJPA in turn says it plans to contract with the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) to provide maintenance of the Venture cars... the SJRRC will almost certainly sub-contract the actual _work_ to Herzog Transit Services who operates the SJRRC's brand new maintenance facility in Stockton for the Altamont Corridor Express trains.

Clear as mud, right?

The move isn't totally surprising. Stacey Mortensen, the Executive Director of the SJJPA (who is also the Executive Director of the SJRRC) has been a vocal critic of Amtrak's opaque accounting practices.


----------



## Bob Dylan

rickycourtney said:


> TL;DR: The operator of the San Joaquins is planning to dump Amtrak when it comes to maintaining the Venture cars.
> 
> In a board resolution packed with California governmental jargon... the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) plans to transfer custody and control as well as maintenance of the Venture cars to the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA)... the SJJPA in turn says it plans to contract with the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) to provide maintenance of the Venture cars... the SJRRC will almost certainly sub-contract the actual _work_ to Herzog Transit Services who operates the SJRRC's brand new maintenance facility in Stockton for the Altamont Corridor Express trains.
> 
> Clear as mud, right?
> 
> The move isn't totally surprising. Stacey Mortensen, the Executive Director of the SJJPA (who is also the Executive Director of the SJRRC) has been a vocal critic of Amtrak's opaque accounting practices.


California gets alot of deserved criticism for its Government Operations, but they do seem to be doing OK with their Trains!


----------



## Trogdor

rickycourtney said:


> TL;DR: The operator of the San Joaquins is planning to dump Amtrak when it comes to maintaining the Venture cars.



Amtrak is the operator of the San Joaquins. SJJPA is the managing agency.


----------



## nti1094

rickycourtney said:


> TL;DR: The operator of the San Joaquins is planning to dump Amtrak when it comes to maintaining the Venture cars.
> 
> In a board resolution packed with California governmental jargon... the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) plans to transfer custody and control as well as maintenance of the Venture cars to the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA)... the SJJPA in turn says it plans to contract with the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) to provide maintenance of the Venture cars... the SJRRC will almost certainly sub-contract the actual _work_ to Herzog Transit Services who operates the SJRRC's brand new maintenance facility in Stockton for the Altamont Corridor Express trains.
> 
> Clear as mud, right?
> 
> The move isn't totally surprising. Stacey Mortensen, the Executive Director of the SJJPA (who is also the Executive Director of the SJRRC) has been a vocal critic of Amtrak's opaque accounting practices.


This would be the first step in getting ready to move operations over to, say... Herzog. (Stacey would love to have that be the case, and for good reason.)

Interestingly it seems that BNSF is supportive of that as well. It is not entirely clear to me why that is, but its another sign.


----------



## Cal

So the San Joaquins will not longer be an Amtrak service? Or simply not operated by Amtrak


----------



## rickycourtney

Cal said:


> So the San Joaquins will not longer be an Amtrak service? Or simply not operated by Amtrak


Right now -- it's just talk.

The big things that tie Amtrak and the San Joaquins together are the T&E (Train and Engine crews) contract and the ticketing systems contract.

In terms of the T&E contract, the leadership of the San Joaquins seems to be signaling that they'd like to drop Amtrak as their T&E contractor in favor of Herzog.

When it comes to the ticketing contract, the state is looking at launching a new ticking system called the "California Integrated Travel Program" (Cal-ITP).

If Cal-STA can be fully integrated into Amtrak's Arrow ticketing system... I'm not sure this question matters that much. I'd be able to book a ticket from Fresno to Denver and back... just like how American Airlines can book me onto a British Airways flight.


----------



## railiner

This makes me curious...how many non-Amtrak train services including commuter, does Amtrak operate around the country, and which are they?
IIRC, Amtrak lost one very large one, the MBTA commuter routes out of Boston.
I wonder how much profit Amtrak makes on these services?


----------



## Cal

railiner said:


> This makes me curious...how many non-Amtrak train services including commuter, does Amtrak operate around the country, and which are they?
> IIRC, Amtrak lost one very large one, the MBTA commuter routes out of Boston.
> I wonder how much profit Amtrak makes on these services?


They also operate Metrolink routes out of Los Angeles.


----------



## Cal

railiner said:


> This makes me curious...how many non-Amtrak train services including commuter, does Amtrak operate around the country, and which are they?
> IIRC, Amtrak lost one very large one, the MBTA commuter routes out of Boston.
> I wonder how much profit Amtrak makes on these services?


In addition to MARC


----------



## PVD

Downeaster and Piedmont come to mind


----------



## Cal

PVD said:


> Downeaster and Piedmont come to mind


You can still book those on the Amtrak website though, so I don't think they count.


----------



## PVD

I was just looking at it in terms of someone elses' service that they operate, even if integrated (like most of Ca) as opposed to an Amtrak route that is subsidized by a state like Adirondack or Empire Service...


----------



## Cal

PVD said:


> I was just looking at it in terms of someone elses' service that they operate, even if integrated (like most of Ca) as opposed to an Amtrak route that is subsidized by a state like Adirondack or Empire Service...


Fair


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> This makes me curious...how many non-Amtrak train services including commuter, does Amtrak operate around the country, and which are they?
> IIRC, Amtrak lost one very large one, the MBTA commuter routes out of Boston.
> I wonder how much profit Amtrak makes on these services?



The other one that Amtrak lost while throwing a massive hissyfit was VRE.

Amtrak is not allowed to make any loss on these contracts, i.e. they cannot divert money from regular Amtrak account to fund any outages in these contracts. Occasionally they do make some money on these Commuter contracts, but not any huge amount since the States are very careful in making sure they are not overpaying.



PVD said:


> I was just looking at it in terms of someone elses' service that they operate, even if integrated (like most of Ca) as opposed to an Amtrak route that is subsidized by a state like Adirondack or Empire Service...


Actually they are no different except in who provides the equipment and sometimes variations in the OBS. New York State chooses to lease the equipment from Amtrak, whereas California, which used to lease equipment has progressively transitioned to their own equipment. North Carolina uses their own equipment for Piedmont and leases Amtrak equipment for the Carolinian.

As far as accounting goes, they are all PRIIA 209 services.


----------



## railiner

What about the Capitol corridor?
Is that one?

And where else...what about Seattle based?


----------



## PVD

The Downeaster is different in the way it was established in that it uses non Amtrak food service....


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> The Downeaster is different in the way it was established in that it uses non Amtrak food service....


As I said, some have different food OBS arrangements. Piedmonts have vending machines, and use their own equipment, unlike the Downeasters, which use Amtrak equipment.


railiner said:


> What about the Capitol corridor?
> Is that one?
> 
> And where else...what about Seattle based?


All of Amtrak California with its various corridors are operated by Amtrak at present. I am sure if a corridor is hived off and contracted to someone else, it will lose the "Amtrak" moniker in its branding. Amtrak California and other Caltrans service cooperate closely on the LosSan Corridor too.

Cascades are also another example of PRIIA 209 service run by Amtrak using sometimes state provided equipment and sometimes Amtrak equipment, with state sponsored OBS, staffed by Amtrak AFAIR.

In contrast to these PRIIA 209 services, things like Metrolink or MARC are self standing operating contracts and are not covered by PRIIA 209.


----------



## me_little_me

jis said:


> North Carolina uses their own equipment for Piedmont and leases Amtrak equipment for the Carolinian.


I thought the Carolinian was an Amtrak train, not owned or leased by NC and, basically, in the same category as the Palmetto.


----------



## Cal

me_little_me said:


> I thought the Carolinian was an Amtrak train, not owned or leased by NC and, basically, in the same category as the Palmetto.


Nope, it would use Amtrak equipment then.


----------



## jis

me_little_me said:


> I thought the Carolinian was an Amtrak train, not owned or leased by NC and, basically, in the same category as the Palmetto.


It is a State of North Carolina PRIIA 209 train off the NEC. I am not quite sure what it is on the NEC.



Cal said:


> Nope, it would use Amtrak equipment then.


Carolinian does use Amtrak Regional equipment from the NEC pool.

But at least veryr ecently you used to get a few extras beyond the normal Amtrak fare - which is mostly nothing other than soft drink and coffee in BC. And there used to be a car attendant in the BC. I am sure at least for the duration of COVID that is all on hold.


----------



## Cal

jis said:


> Carolinian does use Amtrak Regional equipment from the NEC pool.
> 
> But at least veryr ecently you used to get a few extras beyond the normal Amtrak fare - which is mostly nothing other than soft drink and coffee in BC. And there used to be a car attendant in the BC. I am sure at least for the duration of COVID that is all on hold.


Whoops, got mixed up with the Piedmont


----------



## Eric S

Amtrak operates MARC (Penn Line only), Metrolink, and Shore Line East, right? Any other commuter services (not Amtrak-branded/operated intercity services, like Downeaster, Piedmont, etc.)?


----------



## PerRock

Eric S said:


> Amtrak operates MARC (Penn Line only), Metrolink, and Shore Line East, right? Any other commuter services (not Amtrak-branded/operated intercity services, like Downeaster, Piedmont, etc.)?



That looks to be it at this time. They used to operate a lot more, but it would seem the Herzog has taken over as the primary operator in the US (followed by Bombardier, then BNSF & Amtrak being close to tied [didn't count the number BNSF had]).

peter


----------



## jis

In Florida we have:

TriRail (Miami) Herzog
SunRail (Orlando) Bombardier/Alstom

And of course Brightline is Brightline, when they start running trains again later this year.


----------



## nullptr

I don't know exactly when amtraks service line plan was published (Its old enough not to include metrolink that was awarded in December?) but they also list sound transit (I'm assuming for the sounder), and sunrail (edit to pointout they are maintenance contracts, not operations)



Aavailable here https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/...lanning/Amtrak-Service-Line-Plans-FY21-25.pdf


----------



## jis

SunRail has Amtrak Sanford do heavy maintenance and FRA mandated checks on their equipment. The trains are actually dispatched and operated by Bombardier. Three Amtrak trains are also dispatched over the CFRC territory (Deland - Poinciana) by Bombardier.


----------



## PerRock

Sound Transit, they maintain the equipment, while BNSF operates it.


----------



## Trogdor

nullptr said:


> I don't know exactly when amtraks service line plan was published (Its old enough not to include metrolink that was awarded in December?)



Amtrak has operated Metrolink since 2009 (and before that, until 2005), when Connex was dumped following the Chatsworth collision.


----------



## nullptr

Trogdor said:


> Amtrak has operated Metrolink since 2009 (and before that, until 2005), when Connex was dumped following the Chatsworth collision.


 
Ah yep, I missed the fine print a few pages before, they didn't include it because it was still up for renewal and not guaranteed at the time of the service plan



> Plan do not assume bidding on or winning any new opportunities, and assume Amtrak does not continue the Metrolink Train & Engine crew contract after its expiration on December 31, 2020.


----------



## jiml

Lots of shiny new Amtrak cars headed east at 21:01 and 25:20 in this video:


----------



## Cal

jiml said:


> Lots of shiny new Amtrak cars headed east at 21:01 and 25:20 in this video:



They look very nice, so much better than the horizons. Still annoyed the Charger paint doesn't match up though


----------



## jis

There is a bit of the Pennsylvanian with a PV on its tail going around the Horseshoe Curve in the middle there.


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> There is a bit of the Pennsylvanian with a PV on its tail going around the Horseshoe Curve in the middle there.


Saw that. Any idea which one? As a frequent viewer I can say it's not one of the "regulars" that show up every few weeks.


----------



## PerRock

Have they gotten any cafe cars yet? All the delivery train videos & the test run I witnessed were lacking a cafe.

peter


----------



## John Bredin

PerRock said:


> Have they gotten any cafe cars yet? All the delivery train videos & the test run I witnessed were lacking a cafe.


As I recall, the plan is to deliver the new train cars without cafes, which will be forthcoming in 2022. The plan was (again, as I recall) silent on what would be done for cafe service in the meantime as some trainsets are to enter service in 2021, but as the Midwest trains except the _Hiawatha _have cafes I presume they'd run an Amfleet or Horizon Cafe in the trainsets in the interim.


----------



## PVD

I'm pretty sure that is it, and Amfleet or Horizon cars are being used in the interim...


----------



## Eric S

PVD said:


> I'm pretty sure that is it, and Amfleet or Horizon cars are being used in the interim...


Yeah, pretty sure I read that somewhere as well. I want to say it was an Amtrak or IDOT Twitter account, perhaps in response to an inquiry.


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> Saw that. Any idea which one? As a frequent viewer I can say it's not one of the "regulars" that show up every few weeks.


High likelihood that it was Babbling Brook, but it could also be the other NYC obs lounge that makes the rounds, the name of which I forget.


----------



## Steve4031

Yes. A fleet or horizon cars until food service and business class cars arrive. I’ll be riding coach to try out the new cars.


----------



## rickycourtney

John Bredin said:


> As I recall, the plan is to deliver the new train cars without cafes, which will be forthcoming in 2022. The plan was (again, as I recall) silent on what would be done for cafe service in the meantime as some trainsets are to enter service in 2021, but as the Midwest trains except the _Hiawatha _have cafes I presume they'd run an Amfleet or Horizon Cafe in the trainsets in the interim.


You are correct. The midwestern states will use the new Siemens coaches paired with Horizon/Amfleet cafe cars in the interim. They may also need to use Horizon/Amfleet business class or cafe/business class cars depending on the delivery schedules.

It appears Siemens is pumping out the coach cars as fast as possible right now (presumably they are easiest to produce).

That means that the San Joaquins won't be getting cab cars anytime soon either -- so expect to see new Venture cars paired with NPCUs ("cabbages") in the interim.

According to the NGEC meeting minutes -- behind the scenes -- work is underway to get final signoffs on the cafe car and cab car prototypes. Once that happens, production can begin.


----------



## jrud

One item that I found interesting in the NGEC annual meeting minutes from February is that the VIA test trains being constructed include cab cars. 



http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/Annual%20Meetings/2021/10.%20NGEC%20-%20Via%20Rail_New%20Fleet%20Update%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20Feb%202021_Final.pdf


----------



## jrud

Pages 10-14 cover the deployment schedule for the different kinds of cars at the time this was published. Vending deliveries starting before cab cars. 



https://sjjpa.com/wp-content/uploads/SJJPA-Board-Meeting-May-31-2019-Presentation-3.pdf


----------



## jiml

jrud said:


> One item that I found interesting in the NGEC annual meeting minutes from February is that the VIA test trains being constructed include cab cars.


I'm not sure that's still the plan until they get their own (proposed) ROW. There had been concerns about cab cars on a route with so many level crossings traversed at high speed. My guess would be a locomotive on either end - at least initially. Ontario's GO Transit has gone to considerable expense to migrate to second-floor cabs over track-level ones and they share a lot of the same tracks (and crossing concerns). VIA doesn't have that option with a single-level fleet.


----------



## jrud

jiml said:


> I'm not sure that's still the plan until they get their own (proposed) ROW. There had been concerns about cab cars on a route with so many level crossings traversed at high speed. My guess would be a locomotive on either end - at least initially. Ontario's GO Transit has gone to considerable expense to migrate to second-floor cabs over track-level ones and they share a lot of the same tracks (and crossing concerns). VIA doesn't have that option with a single-level fleet.


It’s been a while since I read this information, but I thought the Siemens Venture cab cars were supposed to be strengthened specifically to address this general concern.


----------



## jiml

jrud said:


> It’s been a while since I read this information, but I thought the Siemens Venture cab cars were supposed to be strengthened specifically to address this general concern.


I agree that was certainly the original plan.


----------



## Seaboard92

jiml said:


> Saw that. Any idea which one? As a frequent viewer I can say it's not one of the "regulars" that show up every few weeks.



Yep that's John Webb's New York Central "Babbling Brook" one of the more active PVs out there.


----------



## nti1094

Cal said:


> They also operate Metrolink routes out of Los Angeles.


They operated the initial metrolink system at startup and hit many years, then they lost the contract on the early to mid 2000’s, then won the contract back at some point.


----------



## Steve4031

So . . . I see that there are new posts in the thread about the Siemens cars. I discovered one post about babbling brook, a private car, and a second about metro link in LA. I just wasn’t to know when I’m going to get to ride the new cars.


----------



## PerRock

I'm traveling on the Wolverine next week so asked MDOT on twitter if they would be running by then... sadly they said no, with no real new information provided.



peter


----------



## Crowbar_k

So, what's the deal with the Caltrans trainsets? The cab cars aren't supposed to enter service for another 2 years, so will any cars enter service on that line considering that they use permanently coupled trainsets? If so, how will the cars be coupled together?


----------



## jrud

Crowbar_k said:


> So, what's the deal with the Caltrans trainsets? The cab cars aren't supposed to enter service for another 2 years, so will any cars enter service on that line considering that they use permanently coupled trainsets? If so, how will the cars be coupled together?


If they’re still following the plan from a while ago, it’s on pages 10-14 of this document.



https://sjjpa.com/wp-content/uploads/SJJPA-Board-Meeting-May-31-2019-Presentation-3.pdf


----------



## IndyLions

jrud said:


> If they’re still following the plan from a while ago, it’s on pages 10-14 of this document.
> 
> 
> 
> https://sjjpa.com/wp-content/uploads/SJJPA-Board-Meeting-May-31-2019-Presentation-3.pdf


There's a lot of things to like in that document - but "vending cars" is not one of them...eek

Don't we ever learn from the past? Those have been tried and hated in just about every generation. I guess we have to try and hate them in this generation as well...


----------



## sttom

IndyLions said:


> There's a lot of things to like in that document - but "vending cars" is not one of them...eek
> 
> Don't we ever learn from the past? Those have been tried and hated in just about every generation. I guess we have to try and hate them in this generation as well...



Automats are why I am starting to think the San Joaquin JPA is either trying to scuttle the service with a death by 1000 cuts approach or they don't ride the trains and don't understand that there is a difference between regional and intercity rail and that there will be different expectations for product level for each. Even SMART, which I am assuming the Marin parts of the board are trying to kill, have a snack bar with a person running it. Public transportation here in California is a mess.


----------



## nullptr

This has probably been discussed here before, and people living California probably have better insight than me on this, but the SJJPA executive director's comments on amtrak's operation of the San Joaquin makes it sound like she would prefer if it operated more like the ACE.


https://transportation.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Mortensen%20Testimony.pdf


----------



## MARC Rider

sttom said:


> Automats are why I am starting to think the San Joaquin JPA is either trying to scuttle the service with a death by 1000 cuts approach or they don't ride the trains and don't understand that there is a difference between regional and intercity rail and that there will be different expectations for product level for each. Even SMART, which I am assuming the Marin parts of the board are trying to kill, have a snack bar with a person running it. Public transportation here in California is a mess.


I'm not sure why some folks think that if there's no food service on the train, the train is going fail. Unlike the long distance trains, there are short trips. Back East the Keystone service runs between New York and Harrisburg (about 200 Miles) with absolutely no food service at all, and it is successful. The Piedmont trains in North Carolina (Raleigh - Charlotte 173 miles) have vending machines with what I think is a totally inadequate selection, and they're successful, too. Most people ride trains to travel somewhere, not to eat. They do that before they get on board or after they arrive. (If you're riding the Piedmont, and are getting off hungry in Salisbury, I'd suggest trying The Smoke Pit. A short walk from the station and excellent barbecue. Far better than anything served in a cafe car.)

The SJJPA is not the Southern Pacific Railroad, and it's not the 1960s. The SP wanted to get rid of the passenger trains, especially the long-distance ones, so they cut needed on-board service as a way of driving business away. This worked because riders of long distance trains need decent food service because of the longer trips they take. It's a completely different situation from the state-supported corridor services.

The SJJPA exists for the purpose of running the trains. Why would they want to drive customers away and eliminate their reason for existence? It's possible that their market research shows that most of their customers are satisfied with minimal food service. From the RPA ridership statistics, 75% of the trips on the San Joaquin's are less than 200 miles. They are dealing with a decline in ridership, but I don't think that has anything to do with the food service. I think the new equipment will help far more than whether or not there's a cafe car with a human attendant.


----------



## frequentflyer

jrud said:


> If they’re still following the plan from a while ago, it’s on pages 10-14 of this document.
> 
> 
> 
> https://sjjpa.com/wp-content/uploads/SJJPA-Board-Meeting-May-31-2019-Presentation-3.pdf



How do semi permanent couplers improve ride quality ?

Reading this, two things struck me. California sets the standard in marketing their rail services and this is pretty much the Amfleet 1 replacement with a few locomotives thrown in.


----------



## IndyLions

MARC Rider said:


> I'm not sure why some folks think that if there's no food service on the train, the train is going fail.



Who said anything about a train failing? That’s a leap from a complaint about vending machines.



MARC Rider said:


> From the RPA ridership statistics, 75% of the trips on the San Joaquin's are less than 200 miles. They are dealing with a decline in ridership, but I don't think that has anything to do with the food service. I think the new equipment will help far more than whether or not there's a cafe car with a human attendant.



I’ve ridden tons of trains in multiple continents. All else being equal, the ones with a lounge car for 2-4 hour trips (<200 miles) are always nicer. It’s an amenity that makes a trip better. It gives you an alternative place to “go” instead of just walking up and down the aisles. It can also be more productive, as in some cases it provides an alternate place to work.

Yes, the new cars are nice - but history has shown they will be around 40 years. So that means 40 years with a vending machine. I’d rather have a cafe car.


----------



## Cal

Wait so, will the Venture Cars have a cafe?


----------



## west point

1. Age of equipment is only one factor in replacing rail equipment. That metric is the ability to get replacement parts. IMHO any rail contract for new equipment has to have clauses that before a builder or sub contractor phases out providing any replacement part the contractor will pass to the buyer all patents, copyrights , etc without cost. That includes results of bankruptcies. 
2. The integrity condition of the actual equipment is more important. Frame bents or non repairable cracks are more likely to cause a car to be scrapped.
3. Any car built needs to be built with easily replaceable parts. A big one is the HVAC units. Quick disconnects need to allow for a unit to be slid out and an operable unit in inserted and in service in one hour. That way spare units can be located at strategic maintenance locations. Especially true for western trains. In the east units at Sanford, CLT, Florence, Toledo, Albany the same.
4. The V-2s having an access panel to remove and replace sleeper units is a good example of easily replaceable construction.
5. Wiring of older cars and locos is one of the main items listed in rebuilding. A problem was that the AM-1s and probably Am-2s wiring was not having the wiring using Kapton insulation. Just not the available when they were built. But new cars and locos as well as well when rewiring older equipment needs that wiring needs to be Kapton. For comparison the FAA has had that requirement since the late 1990 for all new and replacement wiring on aircraft. 
6. The wear and tear of major equipment and structures probably depends on the track conditions and mileage on those tracks. Previous Amtrak reports noted that AM-2s had 50 - 70% more average mileage than AM-1s. Many AM-1s that were sidelined were not rebuilt until the Obama rebuilding program circa 2009. (50+?) Those have less than 50% mileage. That was why Amtrak originally wanted to replace some AM-2s first. But Anderson pulled all those reports and instead only concentrated on calendar age of Amfleets.
7. There is no reason that the interiors of AM-1s that are in good physical condition cannot have new interiors installed. That is quicker and less expensive for getting additional equipment in service.. I suspect that this summer and thru the Christmas season that seat availability is going to be tight to non existence on Amtrak. 

Do not get me wrong. There are problems with AM-1s v. AM-2s. 2 vestibules, narrow windows, seat views blocked, seats, reading lights, etc. But just retiring them because of calendar age is IMO just wrong !


----------



## jis

Cal said:


> Wait so, will the Venture Cars have a cafe?


According to Siemens, what they call a standard Venture consist has the option of having a Cafe/Coach car in it. See their publication:



https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:27f1e78e-c414-4f33-b032-e46fbcddb86e/venture-trainset-single-page-lores.pdf


----------



## Mailliw

Cal said:


> Wait so, will the Venture Cars have a cafe?


The ones for Amtrak Midwest will have married pairs of cafe cars & coach cars.


----------



## sttom

IndyLions said:


> Who said anything about a train failing? That’s a leap from a complaint about vending machines.



I did. California at the state level is largely ambivalent at worst when it comes to train travel, but there are still a lot of constituencies across the state that are anti public transit in general. The normal way for them to go about cutting service is make it worse till it fails or their constituency learns to live with diminished service. A large portion of Marin county politicians were like this when SMART was getting planned. Its partially the reason why they picked the rolling stock they did, where some stations are located and their current fight over continued dedicated funds. Given what the San Joaquin's board is doing, I'm not ruling out their actions having ulterior motives...granted that should be a given when dealing with politicians and pet projects.


----------



## MARC Rider

sttom said:


> I did. California at the state level is largely ambivalent at worst when it comes to train travel, but there are still a lot of constituencies across the state that are anti public transit in general. The normal way for them to go about cutting service is make it worse till it fails or their constituency learns to live with diminished service. A large portion of Marin county politicians were like this when SMART was getting planned. Its partially the reason why they picked the rolling stock they did, where some stations are located and their current fight over continued dedicated funds. Given what the San Joaquin's board is doing, I'm not ruling out their actions having ulterior motives...granted that should be a given when dealing with politicians and pet projects.


I think I (sort of) understand what you're saying, but you're being a little vague. "California at the state level" is ambivalent about train travel? What part of "California at the state level?" The governor? Members of the legislature? Staff at Caltrans? I gather that there's something in the political culture of the state that induces the legislature to shift responsibility for these services to these local authorities. Are you saying that some of the local authorities actually oppose the service that is the reason for the authorities' existence? What are the "constituencies across the state that are anti-public transport?" Is there a partisan lean to anti-public transportation sentiment? What are the political dynamics that lead to this situation?

All that being said, there may be some logic to the idea of getting the ridership learning to live with diminished service. It has worked very well for the airlines, who have made big bucks doing so. These operating authorities aren't out to get rich, but if they can provide a diminished level of service at lower cost, that can help them with political struggles relating to budget priorities. In other words, better to have a San Joaquin service with only vending machines than no San Joaquin service at all.


----------



## sttom

MARC Rider said:


> I think I (sort of) understand what you're saying, but you're being a little vague. "California at the state level" is ambivalent about train travel? What part of "California at the state level?" The governor? Members of the legislature? Staff at Caltrans? I gather that there's something in the political culture of the state that induces the legislature to shift responsibility for these services to these local authorities. Are you saying that some of the local authorities actually oppose the service that is the reason for the authorities' existence? What are the "constituencies across the state that are anti-public transport?" Is there a partisan lean to anti-public transportation sentiment? What are the political dynamics that lead to this situation?
> 
> All that being said, there may be some logic to the idea of getting the ridership learning to live with diminished service. It has worked very well for the airlines, who have made big bucks doing so. These operating authorities aren't out to get rich, but if they can provide a diminished level of service at lower cost, that can help them with political struggles relating to budget priorities. In other words, better to have a San Joaquin service with only vending machines than no San Joaquin service at all.



By state level I do mean the Governor and Legislature. I have met with legislatures over the years and they are ambivalent about a lot of things. The political culture that induces the legislature to kick things off onto local entities is the Governor and Legislature not wanting to be on the hook for anything. The good thing with this is there tend to be fewer abuses of power since that would mean responsibility, but that does tend to mean a lot less coordination of services when coordination and a more centralized system would make the services overall better and cheaper. As far as the politics of the central valley goes, its suburbanizing, but there are still parts of it that are Republican. I'm saying that there is potential the people on JPA boards don't support the services they are charged with overseeing.

And this point gets more into the philosophy of government, the people on the JPA boards are elected to different positions. For example members of the BART board are on the Capitol Corridors board. This may seem nice, but these people are ultimately going to be judged based on the performance of the governments they are elected to serve, not what happens with the Capitol Corridor. For example, Debra Allen who is one of the people on the BART board ran in the last election opposing building new housing near BART stations on land BART owns, the Capitol Corridor wasn't mentioned at all in the election material I read. Just like my local bus agency, which is also a JPA is run by members of the various city councils and the county that are served. (I'm picking on her because she is my BART board rep) People on these boards don't generally run their performance with respects to Amtrak. They might when they run for a legislative seat or other elected position. Its my personal belief that vital public services such as transportation be run by people who's primary job in public service is the agency they are running and not running a specialized agency as a side project. BART's board on the other hand is elected from its own constituencies. Ruining BART would put these people out of a job, ruining or neglecting the Capitol Corridor won't. Which as far as politicians go is a perverse incentive.

As for the funding for the San Joaquin, as far as I know, the funding still comes out of the state budget since JPAs usually don't have taxing authority and we don't have a dedicated statewide tax to pay for Amtrak. The other way this service could be funded would be each county paying for some portion of it. CalTrain had a fight over that this last election. The thing was though, the counties were the ones that were raising taxes to give to CalTrain, not the JPA itself. Then you get into the weird instance of SMART being a district who's board is selected the same way as a JPA instead of being elected like BART's is, California is a mess to put it bluntly and our political leaders refuse to look outside our borders for ideas. But, having a snack stand manned by a person isn't going to break the bank for the service. If it were, there would be service cuts planned on the other 2 routes which they aren't and the automat has been planned since before COVID. Which makes me think the cost cutting is more about resume padding on the part of some of the board members and potentially their desire to make the service less attractive.

Where this intersects with how I would want Amtrak treated by the feds is that I strongly believe that Amtrak should have a qualified board running it. A board that has largely worked in transportation, for a railroad or hospitality industries. I have the same view on the state level here. I would much prefer a statewide agency with a qualified board appointed to run it instead of the legislature burying its collective head in the sand by making what are state level concerns local so they can dodge some of the responsibilities they were elected to have. I am not the kind of person that thinks having something done locally excuses things from being done with care and run competently. And the JPA structure does not meet my personal standard and that's beyond my normal distrust of politicians.


----------



## rickycourtney

sttom -- I get what you're saying, I really respect and understand your opinion, but I think your concerns are perhaps a touch overblown. They're also not concerns that are exclusive to this board. They're ultimately the concerns that impact all boards here in California. Members can be directly elected, but few voters will know what they're voting for -- Members can be appointed in hopes that they're more knowledgable, but who's doing the appointing (Governor? local politicians?) and what are they getting in exchange -- or you can do this system where you make local elected politicians serve on a board.

But let's be real here. Stacey Mortensen and her ACE rail team are really the ones running the show, guided by the wishes of the board members. Most time the board stays out of the way until it gets into a more political decision. If it's a really bad decision, they can theoretically be voted out of their "day job" for it.


----------



## rickycourtney

Ultimately it seems like the SJJPA is extremely interested in "reforming" the way intercity rail service is operated in California.

SJJPA has signaled that they want to drop Amtrak as the contract operator in an effort to extract a better value... and because they don't agree with Amtrak's accounting practices.

The board also seems intent on "fixing" the underperformance of the café car. The JPA staff has pointed out that it's not revenue positive, but it is an attractive marketing amenity. In 2017, the JPA staff "put Amtrak on notice" to improve café cost recovery, but by 2019, the losses actually increased. I know at that time, the staff suggested getting a third-party vendor to run the café instead of Amtrak... but a few months later the Siemens Venture café cars were replaced with vending machines.

In my opinion, the biggest loss will be that vending machines won't be able to sell me the same regional craft beers. I'd lament the loss of the former dining cars now being used as café/lounge cars, but the state long ago decided that room wasn't needed and ordered the Pacific Surfliner cars as just basic cafés without a lounge area.

Ultimately, I support the decision if the machines have a good selection of products, and the costs are lowered for me as a passenger and helps the JPA spend more money on running trains instead of cafés.


----------



## PVD

west point said:


> 1. Age of equipment is only one factor in replacing rail equipment. That metric is the ability to get replacement parts. IMHO any rail contract for new equipment has to have clauses that before a builder or sub contractor phases out providing any replacement part the contractor will pass to the buyer all patents, copyrights , etc without cost. That includes results of bankruptcies.
> 2. The integrity condition of the actual equipment is more important. Frame bents or non repairable cracks are more likely to cause a car to be scrapped.
> 3. Any car built needs to be built with easily replaceable parts. A big one is the HVAC units. Quick disconnects need to allow for a unit to be slid out and an operable unit in inserted and in service in one hour. That way spare units can be located at strategic maintenance locations. Especially true for western trains. In the east units at Sanford, CLT, Florence, Toledo, Albany the same.
> 4. The V-2s having an access panel to remove and replace sleeper units is a good example of easily replaceable construction.
> 5. Wiring of older cars and locos is one of the main items listed in rebuilding. A problem was that the AM-1s and probably Am-2s wiring was not having the wiring using Kapton insulation. Just not the available when they were built. But new cars and locos as well as well when rewiring older equipment needs that wiring needs to be Kapton. For comparison the FAA has had that requirement since the late 1990 for all new and replacement wiring on aircraft.
> 6. The wear and tear of major equipment and structures probably depends on the track conditions and mileage on those tracks. Previous Amtrak reports noted that AM-2s had 50 - 70% more average mileage than AM-1s. Many AM-1s that were sidelined were not rebuilt until the Obama rebuilding program circa 2009. (50+?) Those have less than 50% mileage. That was why Amtrak originally wanted to replace some AM-2s first. But Anderson pulled all those reports and instead only concentrated on calendar age of Amfleets.
> 7. There is no reason that the interiors of AM-1s that are in good physical condition cannot have new interiors installed. That is quicker and less expensive for getting additional equipment in service.. I suspect that this summer and thru the Christmas season that seat availability is going to be tight to non existence on Amtrak.
> 
> Do not get me wrong. There are problems with AM-1s v. AM-2s. 2 vestibules, narrow windows, seat views blocked, seats, reading lights, etc. But just retiring them because of calendar age is IMO just wrong !


Honestly, the refreshed interiors in the Amfleets aren't bad at all for the services most of them run on. Whatever we say as regards to passing things on, the ability of a bankruptcy court to reject contracts is tough to overcome. They can reject as they see fit most contract terms. But even if I have the plans or designs for a part doesn't mean I can mfg it economically or practically.


----------



## west point

PVD I forgot to include the tooling to make a part(s) instead of tooling being scrapped.t


----------



## jamess

MARC Rider said:


> The SJJPA exists for the purpose of running the trains. Why would they want to drive customers away and eliminate their reason for existence? It's possible that their market research shows that most of their customers are satisfied with minimal food service.



These same folks did a bunch of research and came up with a Sacramento focused service plan, including cutting one train from Bakersfield. It was an enormous failure. 

Pure coincidence, Im sure, but all of them are based in the north valley and probably have never been to Bakersfield.

The busiest traffic driver to the San Joaquin is actually LA. All the data told them this, but they ignored it.

The same folks boarding in Bakersfield, btw, came from a 2 hour bus ride. Theyre probably hungry.


----------



## sttom

"Fixing the underperformance of the cafe car" isn't that literally the line Amtrak's board and Republicans in Congress used to cut dining service on the East Coast along with cutting station staff and other amenities that add value to customers and thus attract them? I wonder what will be their next hair brained idea after cutting one trip to Sacramento to have a morning Fresno trip and then backtracking it. I wonder what is the next thing they will cut in an attempt to "reform and innovate", my guess is cutting station staff. They already probably learned that people need the trains to go to Bakersfield, so bustituting south of Fresno for more Fresno trips won't happen. 

My point still is, that I do not believe JPAs in any form should exist. Even if you want to ignore what the SJJPA has done, others have been at best unremarkable once past their first few years. A dedicated tax to fund CalTrain was nearly killed so one person in San Francisco could extract concessions. Hell, it took a dedicated JPA to build the new Transbay Terminal. Needing to have a dedicated entity to build a building is ridiculous considering other states would just have a regional transit agency who's job it would be to handle such things, mostly because it would be the primary user of such station. Metrolink also has varying degrees of service because of what each county decides to pay, which is a similar set up to my local bus operator. The CCJPA and LOSSAN have been fairly unremarkable. 

I view this as both an institutional failure and a failure of political culture. The people running these JPAs might be as competent as your average politician, but that is a low bar to clear and I frankly have higher expectations of public services than the least worst level of incompetent or worst level of competence. California will never have an integrated public transit system that can compete with driving without more direction from the state. That doesn't mean we need to go to the extent that New Jersey did with 1 transit agency statewide, but that does mean we need better direction from the state, state level funding to act as a carrot to comply with a statewide plan and a consistent structure for public transit across the state. But that would mean treating Amtrak California like the statewide transportation it effectively is and reorganizing local and regional transit too.

Will this happen? It might or something similar to what I have said might in the next few years. When COVID hit, a bunch of transit officials in the Bay Area said that having as many agencies as we have was more of a hindrance than helpful. Two years ago, transit officials were laughing at the idea that we might start consolidating agencies and try to form a regionwide transit agency. COVID has shown that our current way of doing things across the US doesn't work, couple that with generational turn over and the current ways might be bound for the history books.


----------



## rickycourtney

jamess said:


> These same folks did a bunch of research and came up with a Sacramento focused service plan, including cutting one train from Bakersfield. It was an enormous failure.
> 
> Pure coincidence, Im sure, but all of them are based in the north valley and probably have never been to Bakersfield.
> 
> The busiest traffic driver to the San Joaquin is actually LA. All the data told them this, but they ignored it.


The huge elephant in the room is CAHSR -- the state seems unwilling at the moment to invest in major improvements to traditional rail service between SoCal, Central CA, and the Bay Area.

SJJPA was looking for something that they could do that would complement the future HSR business plan.

Personally, I think it's a bad idea to focus on the "Merced and north" market until HSR is closer to completion -- but that's where the political winds are blowing.


----------



## jamess

rickycourtney said:


> The huge elephant in the room is CAHSR -- the state seems unwilling at the moment to invest in major improvements to traditional rail service between SoCal, Central CA, and the Bay Area.
> 
> SJJPA was looking for something that they could do that would complement the future HSR business plan.
> 
> Personally, I think it's a bad idea to focus on the "Merced and north" market until HSR is closer to completion -- but that's where the political winds are blowing.



I get what theyre doing, but it doesnt even make sense post HSR.

My memory is that the biggest station pair on the San Joaquin is Hanford-Fresno. Thats a market that wont get served by HSR! Maintaining the existing SJ service for stations like Hanford, Madera, Wasco etc is a perfectly good way to complement HSR.

When they build CA-99, they didnt close Golden State. They left it there to continue to serve local trips. Rail should be no different.


----------



## rickycourtney

jamess said:


> I get what theyre doing, but it doesnt even make sense post HSR.
> 
> My memory is that the biggest station pair on the San Joaquin is Hanford-Fresno. Thats a market that wont get served by HSR! Maintaining the existing SJ service for stations like Hanford, Madera, Wasco etc is a perfectly good way to complement HSR.
> 
> When they build CA-99, they didnt close Golden State. They left it there to continue to serve local trips. Rail should be no different.


Actually, the first segment of HSR is going to include Fresno-Hanford (although not downtown Hanford). Your point is taken, but that’s not the business plan. The current plan is to abandon the alignment south of Madera once HSR opens.


----------



## jamess

rickycourtney said:


> Actually, the first segment of HSR is going to include Fresno-Hanford (although not downtown Hanford). Your point is taken, but that’s not the business plan. The current plan is to abandon the alignment south of Madera once HSR opens.



My understanding was that the Visalia/Hanford station is still a maybe


----------



## PVD

When did Hanford get something called a downtown? It didn't look like much when my sister taught there.


----------



## rickycourtney

PVD said:


> When did Hanford get something called a downtown? It didn't look like much when my sister taught there.


Fair point.  Town square?



jamess said:


> My understanding was that the Visalia/Hanford station is still a maybe


I thought it was going to happen... unless the local governments throw up a bunch of red tape.


----------



## PVD

Actually she graduated Fresno State, lived there for some time, all I remember about Fresno was Blackstone and Peach, and she had a little condo near rail tracks and a place they loaded vegetables on trains. When she taught in Hanford, she lived on Neville, but I never stayed there on a visit.


----------



## EchoSierra

I do apologize if this was mentioned before, but I didn't really find anything specific on this with a quick search.

Does Amtrak California *need* bilevels? Since the contract has been taken over by Siemens for single level cars, is there still a need for bilvels? If so, could Amtrak just do tack on order on the Metra/VRE/MARC order of (North American-ized) Alstom Coradia multilevel cars and swap with the single level Siemens cars to augment other single level routes on Amtrak? Or, alternatively, could whoever owns these Siemens cars (State of CA?) offer them to other state funded Amtrak corridors or commuter operations and order the Alstom bilevels instead?

The Alstom cars that Metra is ordering looks like what the order initially awarded to Sumitomo was trying to accomplish.


----------



## NSC1109

EchoSierra said:


> I do apologize if this was mentioned before, but I didn't really find anything specific on this with a quick search.
> 
> Does Amtrak California *need* bilevels? Since the contract has been taken over by Siemens for single level cars, is there still a need for bilvels? If so, could Amtrak just do tack on order on the Metra/VRE/MARC order of (North American-ized) Alstom Coradia multilevel cars and swap with the single level Siemens cars to augment other single level routes on Amtrak? Or, alternatively, could whoever owns these Siemens cars (State of CA?) offer them to other state funded Amtrak corridors or commuter operations and order the Alstom bilevels instead?
> 
> The Alstom cars that Metra is ordering looks like what the order initially awarded to Sumitomo was trying to accomplish.



From what I know about the California services, those bi-levels are owned by Cal DOT, at least on the Capitol Corridor. I’m pretty sure the Surfliner equipment is State owned too.

Those lines, especially the Surfliner, are pretty popular. You could check out the ridership states on Amtrak’s website or RPA. They should break it down by state and specific service.


----------



## Cal

NSC1109 said:


> Those lines, especially the Surfliner, are pretty popular. You could check out the ridership states on Amtrak’s website or RPA. They should break it down by state and specific service.


The Capitol is pretter popular from what I can tell as well, they have more weekday round trips than the Surfliner as well. 

Not sure about the California ones, but the Surfliner ones were ordered in two batches. One batch was bought by Amtrak, the other was bought by the State. You can tell which is which by the seats, they have a difference design.


----------



## PRR 60

Why are the cars, many having been delivered months ago, still not in service. This may be the reason (from the Sacramento Bee, 6/2/21):



> Nine years after the contract was announced, not a single car has gone into service. The original manufacturer couldn’t make cars that met crashworthiness tests. And now the second manufacturer — the Siemens assembly plant in Sacramento, which took over in 2017 — has been wrestling for months with a plumbing-fixture problem that rendered the cars unfit for passengers.
> 
> The issue with Siemens: Excessive levels of lead have been found in some of the cars’ restroom water supplies, discovered during routine testing last November, said Caltrans spokesman Christopher Clark.



The full article can be found here: SacBee


----------



## Dutchrailnut

not sure any Murican is sane enough to drink water from a railcar spigot, most will even drink bottled water in own home.


----------



## me_little_me

Lead in the restrooms. Probably from the lead lining because of the radiation leaks!


----------



## joelkfla

PRR 60 said:


> Why are the cars, many having been delivered months ago, still not in service. This may be the reason (from the Sacramento Bee, 6/2/21):
> 
> 
> 
> The full article can be found here: SacBee


I'm wondering whether Brightline's cars have been tested for lead.


----------



## NSC1109

PRR 60 said:


> Why are the cars, many having been delivered months ago, still not in service. This may be the reason (from the Sacramento Bee, 6/2/21):
> 
> 
> 
> The full article can be found here: SacBee


Interesting. I’m not sure if maybe it was missed somewhere, but I don’t recall ever once reading about any of that in the NGEC meeting notes.


----------



## west point

Could be water source. Bet the water authority is getting big flak with this article. After Flint there is going to be demands from public to verify no lead in water. It only takes on water fountain that back flows into system to cause lead.


----------



## Steve4031

I wonder how long it will take to fix this issue. Is it complicated?


----------



## MARC Rider

PRR 60 said:


> Why are the cars, many having been delivered months ago, still not in service. This may be the reason (from the Sacramento Bee, 6/2/21):
> 
> 
> 
> The full article can be found here: SacBee


Redacted, someone beat me to it.


----------



## neroden

There are no details on the source of the problem. I know two likely sources: using the wrong weld to put the plumbing together (the progress towards lead-free welding was slow); and buying mislabeled, lead-contaminated brass plumbing parts from China (you have to be very careful about what plumbing parts you order; I discovered that when doing a renovation project on my own house). I am sure it will get fixed by replacing the at-fault parts.


----------



## nullptr

NSC1109 said:


> Interesting. I’m not sure if maybe it was missed somewhere, but I don’t recall ever once reading about any of that in the NGEC meeting notes.



The way this came out is pretty odd. They have known for 7 months and this is the first time its been reported? Caltrans gave a presentation about the Venture cars in February where they listed issues they had found and solutions they had come up with, but I don't see any mention of this lead issue.



http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/Annual%20Meetings/2021/6.%20NGEC%202021%20Annual%20Meeting_CALIDOT__210129.pdf



I was curious and looked through recent SJJPA board meeting minutes as well. They recently took custody of the cars, which were transferred from Caltrans, but no mention there either. (Item 5 here https://sjjpa.com/wp-content/uploads/SJJPA-March-26-2021-Board-Packet.pdf)

Maybe everyone else involved doesn't think its as big of an issue as this article makes it out to be?


----------



## plane2train

Dutchrailnut said:


> not sure any Murican is sane enough to drink water from a railcar spigot, most will even drink bottled water in own home.



Many simply do not have access to good-tasting water. Just look at Flint and the amount of lead in the water and the health disaster that was. Have you tasted Amtrak water? It's disgusting and not appropriate for drinking. The NL has great, soft water that many places in the States do not have because of the high degree of mineralization in their water. City pipes are also old, so you either have to filter the water or use bottled water if you actually want to drink it. The only way train water would be consumed is if it came out of a water dispenser with a bottle on top.


----------



## railiner

neroden said:


> There are no details on the source of the problem. I know two likely sources: using the wrong weld to put the plumbing together (the progress towards lead-free welding was slow); and buying mislabeled, lead-contaminated brass plumbing parts from China (you have to be very careful about what plumbing parts you order; I discovered that when doing a renovation project on my own house). I am sure it will get fixed by replacing the at-fault parts.


What really irks me is that we find it necessary to buy plumbing parts, or any parts for that matter, from China, or other foreign places. I feel that we need to go back and reinvent manufacturing in this country, and not have to depend on getting building materials and manufactured goods, abroad...that would be the best way to insure a vibrant national economy, good paying jobs, and even national security....JMHO....


----------



## joelkfla

plane2train said:


> NL


???


----------



## PVD

Lots of plumbing parts still made here, but they cost more, and many consumers will not spend the extra money....


----------



## nti1094

jamess said:


> I get what theyre doing, but it doesnt even make sense post HSR.
> 
> My memory is that the biggest station pair on the San Joaquin is Hanford-Fresno. Thats a market that wont get served by HSR! Maintaining the existing SJ service for stations like Hanford, Madera, Wasco etc is a perfectly good way to complement HSR.
> 
> When they build CA-99, they didnt close Golden State. They left it there to continue to serve local trips. Rail should be no different.


Exactly! It is one of the many oddities of the San Joaquins. It is in fact one of the busiest city pairs in the Amtrak system (something like mild-40th place). But the demographics seem to indicate that there is no way this will move over to the High Speed rail line. Although there HSR might find another market, its unlikely since the station is a little outside Hanford and still a 15 to 20 minute driver from the largest source market of Visalia. 

Also I think the local transit authority buys bulk tickets and sells them at a discount to residents for travel between Corcoran and Hanford. 

On one level they get that LA is the biggest generator of passengers, but on an other they fail. The combined system with the Merced Connector track does cut some time off the whole trip, but not enough to be a game changer. Its even less a time savings from Tulare/Kings and Fresno, with the added inconvenience (admittedly a quick cross-platform one) of a transfer of trains in Merced. No matter how easy they make this, the idea of changing trains is a deterrent for many. 

The current plan they seem to hint at is that the San Joaquins will begin and end in Merced utilizing the new downtown HSR station accessed via the Merced Intermodal Connector Track which will be built to connect the BNSF and UP right of way. They will have to terminate there because otherwise it would involve a backup move and reversal of direction to get back on the BNSF line. There is no other point where they connect until Bakersfield. (Even in Fresno where they cross back over each other there is a diamond but no connection).


----------



## nti1094

NSC1109 said:


> Interesting. I’m not sure if maybe it was missed somewhere, but I don’t recall ever once reading about any of that in the NGEC meeting notes.


Nor have I heard any mention at all of this issue either officially or otherwise from the board. The only ongoing issue I know of is that they are working out the maintenance and CONOPS that take into consideration that will be going on at the ACE facility in Stockton. (a sign of the further deteriorating relationship with Amtrak I suppose). I certainly hope it turns out to be a source issue and not a parts issue. We are talking about ripping out the plumbing for almost 50 cars at this point!


----------



## nti1094

joelkfla said:


> I'm wondering whether Brightline's cars have been tested for lead.


Thats my first thought.


----------



## John Santos

joelkfla said:


> ???


I think "NL" means the Netherlands because plane2train was replying to dutchrailnut. It took me a while to puzzle out, too. I'm also a little surprised, because the Netherlands is a low-lying coastal area, and you would think there would be salt water intrusions into the water table, at least frequently enough over geological time, that the soil and aquifer would be at least a little salty. (That always bugs me about the ads for Fiji Water... Fiji probably has terrible water.)


----------



## nti1094

Cal said:


> The Capitol is pretter popular from what I can tell as well, they have more weekday round trips than the Surfliner as well.
> 
> Not sure about the California ones, but the Surfliner ones were ordered in two batches. One batch was bought by Amtrak, the other was bought by the State. You can tell which is which by the seats, they have a difference design.


When the Surfline order was placed the state added on to the options from Alstom for the Northern CA IPC fleet. As those were being delivered they began to cycle the original Morrison Knudsen built cars through the Alstom plant to correct for a design flaw in the car underfloor that threatened to fore early retirement of those cars. They should have, but did not at that time u[pdate the interiors tom eliminate the stupid overhead bins. Another feature of the Alstom version is an upstairs bathroom, which allows higher capacity downstairs. I forget the total number built for the northern shared fleet, it wasn't that big an order. It was a few coaches and at least 3 cab cars that I know of.


----------



## nti1094

NSC1109 said:


> From what I know about the California services, those bi-levels are owned by Cal DOT, at least on the Capitol Corridor. I’m pretty sure the Surfliner equipment is State owned too.
> 
> Those lines, especially the Surfliner, are pretty popular. You could check out the ridership states on Amtrak’s website or RPA. They should break it down by state and specific service.


The Surfliner fleet is mostly Amtrak owned. The cars built during that order that were meant for the Northern CA shared fleet were Caltrans owned. Same with the F59PHI inn southern CA, which unlike the Northern fleet locomotives is quickly being replaced, this time with Caltrans owned chargers. (most of the F59PHI's were sold to Metra I think). They are retiring 2 of the F59's this month up north as part of a deal for new tier 4 locomotives with the ARB, but I think there are no plans for a full fleet replacement, especially since they all recently had their prime movers replaced and are part of an alternate bio-diesel experiment.


----------



## nti1094

PVD said:


> When did Hanford get something called a downtown? It didn't look like much when my sister taught there.


They have a very cute downtown, and a station that was built by the San Francisco and San Joaquin Railroad (which was immediately taken over by Santa Fe upon reaching Bakersfield). The station is original, built in 1892 I believe, but rebuilt with modern amenities. 

Hanford has been a long time opponent of the HSR project, but Visalia (much larger city) and Tulare county have been a big supporter and in fact purchased the cross valley former SP local brach with the hope of eventually connecting everything with the HSR station and diesel light rail line. The HSR station is a few miles closer to Visalia on the east side of Hanford. 
Under the current plan it looks like Hanford, Corcoran, and Wasco will all be losing service when the blended system starts running. Of course they could always form an agency and partner with Kern County to keep a train running along the BNSF corridor south of Merced, but that means local funding and I doubt there is the political appetite for that level of commitment.


----------



## nti1094

IndyLions said:


> There's a lot of things to like in that document - but "vending cars" is not one of them...eek
> 
> Don't we ever learn from the past? Those have been tried and hated in just about every generation. I guess we have to try and hate them in this generation as well...


Are they insane. Everything about this is stupid! Even the SP did better than this.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

pretty sure those cars, do not have copper/soldered water plumbing but PEX , so the lead contamination is probably from outside .


----------



## PerRock

Even with PEX piping, you still are going to have sections with traditional metal & soldering; such as the fixtures. I think the article talked about swapping a part, which would indicate is is something internal that is introducing the lead. Also the fact that this is effecting both the Caltrans & the Midwest cars would point towards it being an internal fault.

peter


----------



## Gemuser

John Santos said:


> at least frequently enough over geological time, that the soil and aquifer would be at least a little salty. (That always bugs me about the ads for Fiji Water... Fiji probably has terrible water.)


Actually Fiji has pretty good water and that sold as "Fiji" comes from the highlands on the NE section of the main island and is very good.


----------



## MARC Rider

John Santos said:


> I think "NL" means the Netherlands because plane2train was replying to dutchrailnut. It took me a while to puzzle out, too. I'm also a little surprised, because the Netherlands is a low-lying coastal area, and you would think there would be salt water intrusions into the water table, at least frequently enough over geological time, that the soil and aquifer would be at least a little salty. (That always bugs me about the ads for Fiji Water... Fiji probably has terrible water.)


Salt water is denser than fresh water, so in coastal areas aquifers can contain freshwater even at some distance offshore. This, of course, is under "equilibrium" conditions where recharge of fresh water into upland areas provides enough hydraulic head to keep the salt water at bay. Salt-water intrusion is a problem in coastal areas because they're usually heavily populated with lots of wells pumping lots of fresh water out of the aquifers, messing up the natural ground-water flow, reversing head gradients, and allowing salt water to flow inland towards the wells. I imagine that the Netherlands is having or will have some serious problems with this, as it's not only a flat coastal area, but a lot of the country is reclaimed "polder" land that's below sea level. Plus sea level is rising.

Lens (hydrology) - Wikipedia


----------



## Burns651

I would assume that they also need to be careful with lead because the coffee maker uses train water.


----------



## Steve4031

Saw these in Chicago as I was Arron 6. Don’t know if they have had the water issue addressed


----------



## Steve4031

Departing on 301. Saw these plus a couple more sitting on tracks closer to the river.


----------



## daybeers

Any word on when revenue service will start?


----------



## Steve4031

daybeers said:


> Any word on when revenue service will start?



I'm wondering too. This lead in the water pipes is just ridiculous imho. Should not have happened. There should not be months of no updates from the Amtrak and Siemens.


----------



## jis

Steve4031 said:


> I'm wondering too. This lead in the water pipes is just ridiculous imho. Should not have happened. There should not be months of no updates from the Amtrak and Siemens.


Actually the updates really should come from Illinois DOT since they are the responsible customer counter party in the deal with Siemens.


----------



## NSC1109

Steve4031 said:


> I'm wondering too. This lead in the water pipes is just ridiculous imho. Should not have happened. There should not be months of no updates from the Amtrak and Siemens.



There are updates, just not public ones because it’s not good news. I’m not at liberty to share specific information but suffice to say these cars will not be in service for quite some time….


----------



## Steve4031

NSC1109 said:


> There are updates, just not public ones because it’s not good news. I’m not at liberty to share specific information but suffice to say these cars will not be in service for quite some time….



Thank you. I appreciate your updates. The news is disheartening to say the least. I’m at the point now where I suspthese cars will never enter service.


----------



## NSC1109

Steve4031 said:


> Thank you. I appreciate your updates. The news is disheartening to say the least. I’m at the point now where I suspthese cars will never enter service.



Oh they’ll enter service. It’s just been delayed until these issues can be worked out. There are a lot of problems that have cropped up that thankfully occurred in storage versus in revenue service, or so I’ve been told by a very reliable source.


----------



## jis

Should be interesting to see what problems, if any, crop up in the new sets that Brightline is supposed to get later this year.


----------



## neroden

NSC1109 said:


> Oh they’ll enter service. It’s just been delayed until these issues can be worked out. There are a lot of problems that have cropped up that thankfully occurred in storage versus in revenue service, or so I’ve been told by a very reliable source.


I'm going to wildly speculate that there was a bad subcontracting or parts acquisition problem; there's been a known problem in household plumbing with Chinese suppliers supplying "lead free" products which when tested were full of lead.

If I can just ask you one question: I hope none of the problems are with the structural shell. Is that correct? Internal fit-out problems can be worked through, structure problems can't, as we saw with Nippon-Sharyo.


----------



## NSC1109

neroden said:


> I'm going to wildly speculate that there was a bad subcontracting or parts acquisition problem; there's been a known problem in household plumbing with Chinese suppliers supplying "lead free" products which when tested were full of lead.
> 
> If I can just ask you one question: I hope none of the problems are with the structural shell. Is that correct? Internal fit-out problems can be worked through, structure problems can't, as we saw with Nippon-Sharyo.



As far as I am aware the issues are all fitting out problems and not structural, otherwise I would imagine we’d be seeing the Brightline cars get pulled too.

As far as the exact issues, it seems like the problems stem from either bad subcontracting or poor quality control, the latter being something I don’t typically associate with Siemens products so I’m hesitant to say that they screwed up.


----------



## neroden

Probably a symptom of the larger problem with fraudulent "lead free" products which aren't lead-free then.

By the way, if you're doing household plumbing? Worth getting your own tests to make sure they're genuinely lead-free, because of this.


----------



## MisterUptempo

NSC1109 said:


> Oh they’ll enter service. It’s just been delayed until these issues can be worked out. There are a lot of problems that have cropped up that thankfully occurred in storage versus in revenue service, or so I’ve been told by a very reliable source.


It tells you something when the PRIIA 305 Committee reports, as of early September, that of 94 railcars under construction or completed that IDOT has conditionally accepted only 8 cars and Caltrans has not yet conditionally accepted a single railcar.

Caltrans is the lead agency on the project, but Sumitomo is technically the lead contractor, no? Does Sumitomo have any decision making authority at this point, and, if so, were they engaging in "value engineering" by going cheap on some of the finishes and fittings? Did the Sumitomo cash run out and Caltrans and/or IDOT are trying to get these cars under the wire by pinching pennies?

ETA - Happy 1800th post on this thread!


----------



## NSC1109

MisterUptempo said:


> It tells you something when the PRIIA 305 Committee reports, as of early September, that of 94 railcars under construction or completed that IDOT has conditionally accepted only 8 cars and Caltrans has not yet conditionally accepted a single railcar.
> 
> Caltrans is the lead agency on the project, but Sumitomo is technically the lead contractor, no? Does Sumitomo have any decision making authority at this point, and, if so, were they engaging in "value engineering" by going cheap on some of the finishes and fittings? Did the Sumitomo cash run out and Caltrans and/or IDOT are trying to get these cars under the wire by pinching pennies?
> 
> ETA - Happy 1800th post on this thread!



There should be information on the 305 website regarding $ on hand still. Whether or not that’s money that includes what was put towards these cars is not something I know.

I believe the lack of acceptance of the cars started with the lead issue and then other problems slowly started revealing themselves. I can tell you as a stone cold fact that there are more than eight of the new cars sitting in Chicago. Last count I had was something like 32, but it was from a distance and could easily be in error.


----------



## Steve4031

If the cars are sitting in the Chicago yard does this mean they’ve been accepted to be put into service? If not where do the improvements get done?


----------



## NSC1109

Steve4031 said:


> If the cars are sitting in the Chicago yard does this mean they’ve been accepted to be put into service? If not where do the improvements get done?



I would imagine the changes are being done by either Amtrak Mechanical or a Siemens contractor. For the time being they are simply in storage.


----------



## neroden

NSC1109 said:


> I would imagine the changes are being done by either Amtrak Mechanical or a Siemens contractor. For the time being they are simply in storage.


If it's a matter of parts which were supposed to be lead-free but contained lead -- as we all suspect -- then they're waiting for the replacement parts to arrive. And there's nothing they can do until the parts arrive. And there are supply chain delays in everything, worldwide, right now.


----------



## Cal

I thought they never even left the Chicago yards after the test runs?


----------



## NSC1109

neroden said:


> If it's a matter of parts which were supposed to be lead-free but contained lead -- as we all suspect -- then they're waiting for the replacement parts to arrive. And there's nothing they can do until the parts arrive. And there are supply chain delays in everything, worldwide, right now.



The issues are beyond suspected lead in components. 



Cal said:


> I thought they never even left the Chicago yards after the test runs?



As far as I am aware, that is correct. The cars have been used for test runs but none have entered revenue service. Currently around 30 sitting at the 14th Street Yard, I’m not sure if there are any at Brighton Park.


----------



## neroden

NSC1109 said:


> The issues are beyond suspected lead in components.


So you're saying there are issues they *could* be fixing right now? Hmm. 

I was just pointing out that if it was a matter of waiting for replacement components, it would explain why they're sitting without anything being done.


----------



## NSC1109

neroden said:


> So you're saying there are issues they *could* be fixing right now? Hmm.
> 
> I was just pointing out that if it was a matter of waiting for replacement components, it would explain why they're sitting without anything being done.



I am not sure how the issues are being fixed, only that they exist and are the reason that the cars have not entered service yet.

Ceiling panels falling at random would probably not be something IDOT wants to show off…


----------



## MARC Rider

NSC1109 said:


> I am not sure how the issues are being fixed . . . .Ceiling panels falling at random



Nothing that can't be fixed with duct tape!!


----------



## jis

MARC Rider said:


> Nothing that can't be fixed with duct tape!!


Everything can be fixed either with duct tape or WD-40


----------



## Steve4031

NSC1109 said:


> I am not sure how the issues are being fixed, only that they exist and are the reason that the cars have not entered service yet.
> 
> Ceiling panels falling at random would probably not be something IDOT wants to show off…




Jesus. Something so damn basic. I rode similar cars in Austria this summer. And ceiling panels were not falling on my head. To be fair, we were not riding on the CN route to Carbondale. Those tracks could cause a suitcase to fall on your head!


----------



## PerRock

Steve4031 said:


> Jesus. Something so damn basic. I rode similar cars in Austria this summer. And ceiling panels were not falling on my head. To be fair, we were not riding on the CN route to Carbondale. Those tracks could cause a suitcase to fall on your head!



Brightline has the same cars, and I've not heard any reports of the ceiling panels falling.

peter


----------



## NSC1109

PerRock said:


> Brightline has the same cars, and I've not heard any reports of the ceiling panels falling.
> 
> peter



Indeed, neither have I, which is part of the reason why I’ve been so hesitant to share specifics. I trust the source, he’s one who would know what’s going on with the equipment. But I don’t understand why Brightline cars aren’t affected unless the interior fittings are drastically different.


----------



## Cal

NSC1109 said:


> Indeed, neither have I, which is part of the reason why I’ve been so hesitant to share specifics. I trust the source, he’s one who would know what’s going on with the equipment. But I don’t understand why Brightline cars aren’t affected unless the interior fittings are drastically different.


What was the gap between the time the two orders of cars were built? Would it be enough for something to change (maybe with how it was built, or the supplier)? Sorry for my, lack of proper terms, not familiar with this stuff.


----------



## John Santos

NSC1109 said:


> Indeed, neither have I, which is part of the reason why I’ve been so hesitant to share specifics. I trust the source, he’s one who would know what’s going on with the equipment. But I don’t understand why Brightline cars aren’t affected unless the interior fittings are drastically different.


I can think of three ways ceiling panels might be attached, and different ways the attachments might fail for one particular set of cars. 1) If they are glued on, they might have a bad batch of glue. The fix would probably be to remove them and reattach with good glue, but some of the panels might only be partially loose and difficult to remove without breaking them, so they would need at least some replacement panels. Also, having fixed them, they might have to let them just sit for a month or more to make sure they are okay. Think Space Shuttle heat-shield tiles, which were a major pain for the shuttle program. 2) If they are bolted on, there might be a defective batch of bolts, or a design error of having an insufficient number of bolts, or bad threads in the roof where the panels attach. You would think the only difference between different sets of cars would be the color of the panels, but maybe Amtrak insisted on something different. 3) The panels snap into place and there was a defective set of snaps on the panels or the fittings on the roof of the cars that the panels snap into. Bad batch of parts? Maybe they changed the design to make them cheaper or easier to fasten or more reliable, and instead made them worse in every way? 4) The ceiling panels are massive concrete structures supported by pins epoxied into holes drilled into the ceiling and both the design, materials and installation were incompetent. This is what happened to the $15B Big Dig/Ted Williams Tunnel in Boston when it first opened, killing a couple of people when one of the panels fell on their car and costing millions to repair.


----------



## John Santos

PerRock said:


> Brightline has the same cars, and I've not heard any reports of the ceiling panels falling.
> 
> peter


Isn't Brightline mostly running on brand-new track specifically designed for high speed? Not ancient, Civil War Era track that hasn't been properly maintained by a freight railroad noted for trying to maximize passenger discomfort and delays?


----------



## jis

John Santos said:


> Isn't Brightline mostly running on brand-new track specifically designed for high speed? Not ancient, Civil War Era track that hasn't been properly maintained by a freight railroad noted for trying to maximize passenger discomfort and delays?


New tracks yes. High speed, not really. At least none of the service that has run commercially so far has been above 79mph like our mundane Amtrak services outside the northeast and California.


----------



## John Santos

jis said:


> New tracks yes. High speed, not really. At least none of the service that has run commercially so far has been above 79mph like our mundane Amtrak services outside the northeast and California.


Hmm, by "High Speed", I meant 100-110mph, not true first world high speed like Europe or Asia, nor even "second world" high speed like the Acela, but Brightline seems to be, let's say, optimistic. They claim 110mph for Palm Beach to Cocoa and 125mph for Cocoa to Orlando, but neither of those segments is open, and the existing Miami-Palm Beach is 79mph like you said. So if the coaches start falling apart when they open the newer segments, we'll know they have generic design or manufacturing problems, but if they are fine, then we'll know Amtrak has just gotten a bad batch. Hope for the latter because it will be fixable, and quickly, and at Siemens' (or their subcontractors') expense. Hasn't Siemens been building these things for decades and shouldn't they know how by now?


----------



## jis

My sources at Brightline tell me that their coaches do not have any of the problems that the California and Midwest cars appear to have. They also point out that they do not share common internal fittings in many areas. 

But of course we will see. 

At this point I am more interested in seeing if the new Brightline sets they are about to receive have been infected in any way by Midwest and California. Of course their power heads are also different in many details including power rating.


----------



## PerRock

I think Brightline wasn't tied to Buy America, so they could source parts from their suppliers they use in Germany; whereas the Midwest & Cali sets are Buy America tied, so have to use US suppliers.

peter


----------



## jis

PerRock said:


> I think Brightline wasn't tied to Buy America, so they could source parts from their suppliers they use in Germany; whereas the Midwest & Cali sets are Buy America tied, so have to use US suppliers.
> 
> peter


But Brightline has self-certified that they did abide by Buy America. Hopefully they were not blatently lying when they did that. But it is possible that they used more expensive parts from alternative American sources in many cases since they were not tied to the myriads of restrictions even other than Buy America that comes with federal funding.


----------



## me_little_me

Steve4031 said:


> Jesus. Something so damn basic. I rode similar cars in Austria this summer. And ceiling panels were not falling on my head. To be fair, we were not riding on the CN route to Carbondale. Those tracks could cause a suitcase to fall on your head!


True, even if the suitcase was on the floor before it hit those tracks!


----------



## neroden

As noted by others, ceiling panel issues could definitely also be a "waiting for parts" issue.


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> Everything can be fixed either with duct tape or WD-40


Reminds me of TWA planes shortly after the AA takeover in 2002. They had an ample supply (of duct tape) on-hand.


----------



## NSC1109

jiml said:


> Reminds me of TWA planes shortly after the AA takeover in 2002. They had an ample supply (of duct tape) on-hand.



can only imagine using WD-40 to get an aircraft cabin door open…

Does anyone out west know if there are still cars being shipped from Sacramento to Chicago?


----------



## jis

NSC1109 said:


> Does anyone out west know if there are still cars being shipped from Sacramento to Chicago?


The only shipments out of Sacramento that we have heard about recently are those to VIA and the ones going to Brightline soon, as soon as they have tracks ready to move them to the brand spanking new maintenance center at Orlando International Airport.

In my experience at least, I never managed to get any heads up about any deliveries to California or Illinois until the cars were actually moving and someone caught them on camera en route. It is very hush hush thing somehow. For VIA and Brightline I usually hear when they are leaving Sacramento, the rough routing and which railroad is handling them.


----------



## NSC1109

jis said:


> The only shipments out of Sacramento that we have heard about recently are those to VIA and the ones going to Brightline soon, as soon as they have tracks ready to move them to the brand spanking new maintenance center at Orlando International Airport.
> 
> In my experience at least, I never managed to get any heads up about any deliveries to California or Illinois until the cars were actually moving and someone caught them on camera en route. It is very hush hush thing somehow. For VIA and Brightline I usually hear when they are leaving Sacramento, the rough routing and which railroad is handling them.



Didn't even realize that VIA was already receiving cars, impressive.

Thanks for the info


----------



## Cal

NSC1109 said:


> Didn't even realize that VIA was already receiving cars, impressive.
> 
> Thanks for the info


Their first full set was out on the tracks two days ago I believe. There are videos of it.


----------



## Steve4031

There were a bunch of these cars parked in union station by the platforms for what would be tracks 30 and


----------



## IndyLions

Every single seat on my Wolverine train to CHI was full today. They really need more capacity big time on this line. And I know the lounge cars won’t be ready when they finally deploy the new Siemens cars, but I will say the Amfleet BC/lounge I rode today was pretty decently refreshed.


----------



## Eric S

IndyLions said:


> Every single seat on my Wolverine train to CHI was full today. They really need more capacity big time on this line. And I know the lounge cars won’t be ready when they finally deploy the new Siemens cars, but I will say the Amfleet BC/lounge I rode today was pretty decently refreshed.


Out of curiosity, do you know how many cars your train had? Wondering how the consist compares to pre-pandemic norms.


----------



## PerRock

When I took the wolverine on Thursday, the train didn't appear and different than pre-pandemic average... Although I didn't count the cars.


----------



## IndyLions

Eric S said:


> Out of curiosity, do you know how many cars your train had? Wondering how the consist compares to pre-pandemic norms.



Three (3) Coach plus the Business/Cafe. It was the Wolverine that arrives in CHI around 2pm.


----------



## NSC1109

IndyLions said:


> Three (3) Coach plus the Business/Cafe. It was the Wolverine that arrives in CHI around 2pm.



Just the four cars and the power? I thought the minimum axle count for trains on CN is 32 axles.


----------



## IndyLions

NSC1109 said:


> Just the four cars and the power? I thought the minimum axle count for trains on CN is 32 axles.


Now that you mention it, there were at least 4 coach plus the BC car.


----------



## Anthony V

Are efforts underway to remedy the leaded water problem in the Midwest and California Venture cars that is delaying them from entering service? How long would a remedy for the problem take? I saw on a reddit post that IDOT said that they hope to have the cars in revenue service in 2022.


----------



## neroden

I am certain efforts are underway. I would expect this involves Siemens finding a new supplier, getting samples from the new supplier, testing the new samples, checking up on the reputation of the new supplier, signing a contract with the new supplier, testing everything they get from the new supplier, and also suing the old supplier. It can take... time.


----------



## sttom

Also given the bottleneck at some ports, I can imagine that getting new supplies is going to take time. If they went with a Chinese supplier the first time, I doubt they would shift to one in the US or Canada or maybe even Mexico. While saving a few hundred dollars on something worth $3 million isn't a big deal to us, it is to them.


----------



## neroden

sttom said:


> Also given the bottleneck at some ports, I can imagine that getting new supplies is going to take time. If they went with a Chinese supplier the first time, I doubt they would shift to one in the US or Canada or maybe even Mexico.


Oh, if the Chinese supplier gave them parts with lead, they absolutely will shift to a non-Chinese supplier. However, they'll discover that all those suppliers have backlogs of months or years because *everyone else is having the same problem and switching suppliers at the same time.*


----------



## PVD

Always hard to figure out what parts are covered under the Buy American rules


----------



## jis

PVD said:


> Always hard to figure out what parts are covered under the Buy American rules


Usually it is a threshold percentage of the total value added thing rather than specific parts.

For example Rotem managed to stay within the thresholds of Buy America by purchasing the Stainless Steel in the US, shipping it to Korea for fabrication of body shell parts, then shipping assembled skeletal car bodies back to the US to finish and furnish the cars for the SEPTA order. Apparently they got around a substantial bit of the dearth of expert Stainless Steel welders in the US. Go figure. And the rules keep changing in odd ways as some politician or the other tries to plug yet another hole.

At one time I managed to get roped into a training course on this for being peripherally involved in a federal contract team. It was quite fascinating and mind-boggling at the same to time to put it mildly.


----------



## sttom

neroden said:


> Oh, if the Chinese supplier gave them parts with lead, they absolutely will shift to a non-Chinese supplier. However, they'll discover that all those suppliers have backlogs of months or years because *everyone else is having the same problem and switching suppliers at the same time.*


One supplier in a country as big as China is unlikely to get all the companies in a country black listed. That would be irrational especially for a global company like Siemens. Almost as dumb as swearing off all Japanese cars because a Nissan sucks.


----------



## west point

IMHO there is a big effort to keep the problem(s) of no service completely clouded over. Why hasn't someone made effort to uncover the real problem(s) stopping service ?


----------



## neroden

sttom said:


> One supplier in a country as big as China is unlikely to get all the companies in a country black listed. That would be irrational especially for a global company like Siemens. Almost as dumb as swearing off all Japanese cars because a Nissan sucks.


While this is true, Siemens almost certainly used a big-name company the first time (it would be very odd if they didn't) and if they got burned, it means the country that company is from *doesn't have a functioning regulator* to enforce the rules.

Switching to a country where the quality standards for preventing lead in plumbing are enforced by a regulator would be the logical move. Germany qualifies. I'm not sure the US does!


----------



## sttom

neroden said:


> While this is true, Siemens almost certainly used a big-name company the first time (it would be very odd if they didn't) and if they got burned, it means the country that company is from *doesn't have a functioning regulator* to enforce the rules.
> 
> Switching to a country where the quality standards for preventing lead in plumbing are enforced by a regulator would be the logical move. Germany qualifies. I'm not sure the US does!


Doing a complete blacklist of Chinese suppliers would get Siemens blacklisted from China. While China might not need Siemens, Siemens would like to do business in China and they are a lot more than their transportation division. Is lead contamination of US made products a big deal? I'd be more surprised if we even made piping in this county. I'm also surprised that Siemens isn't going with Pex piping or even how plastic could become lead contaminated....well Boeing did get composites with Teflon contamination so who know?


----------



## neroden

Plastic can be lead contaminated. :-(


----------



## Crowbar_k

Not exactly Amtrak, but I think their trains will be similar.


----------



## Cal

Crowbar_k said:


> Not exactly Amtrak, but I think their trains will be similar.



Love it, although from recent comments on bright line seats I question the comfort of the seats. I just wish Amtrak went with that cab car design


----------



## Mailliw

I'm curious as to what the "semi-private conference pods" in Business Class look like.


----------



## NSC1109

Lincoln Service 303 and 306 have Siemens cars on them effective today for testing.


----------



## jis

Another possible indication that it is getting close to the deployment of the Venture Cars in San Joaquin service is that recently SJRRC has announced bidding on the following project:

Vending Machines Provisioning and Service 22-J-45-00 

Bidding information is apparently on PlanetBids according to a post in trainorders.

As you may recall the California Venture sets do not have a Cafe but they do have a car with space for vending machines.


----------



## Mailliw

Mailliw said:


> I'm curious as to what the "semi-private conference pods" in Business Class look like.


VIA released new photos of the Business Class car. You can see the pods, but not from the inside.


----------



## Agent

Video by MidwestRailfan81 taken today in St. Louis shows Amtrak #303 arriving with the first revenue run with Venture coaches.


----------



## Crowbar_k

That amfleet car in the middle just looks wrong. It would be a little better if it was on the end.


----------



## Cal

Crowbar_k said:


> That amfleet car in the middle just looks wrong. It would be a little better if it was on the end.


What's also wrong is that the livery doesn't even line up correctly between the engine and cars.


----------



## IndyLions

Mailliw said:


> VIA released new photos of the Business Class car. You can see the pods, but not from the inside.


That business class arrangement looks great - at first peek. Has anyone seen preview photos of Midwest BC ?


----------



## Amtrak25

The Midwest seats look bad enough, but at least they are not getting a redux of H&H Automat food service like the San Joaquin passengers will get.


----------



## Ziv

Are new Venture Cafe cars being built and on their way to service?
On edit: Sorry if the answer is somewhere upstream on the thread! I have been looking all over and it looks like the lead problem might have contributed to a late arrival for the Cafe cars. Not sure though.



Crowbar_k said:


> That amfleet car in the middle just looks wrong. It would be a little better if it was on the end.


----------



## cocojacoby

I really want to see how those car profiles match up with the Viewliners. Just curious if Amtrak decides on these for LD Amfleet II replacements.


----------



## jis

Ziv said:


> Are new Venture Cafe cars being built and on their way to service?
> On edit: Sorry if the answer is somewhere upstream on the thread! I have been looking all over and it looks like the lead problem might have contributed to a late arrival for the Cafe cars. Not sure though.


The design finalization of the Cafe cars happened very recently. The first ones are just in production now as I understand it.



cocojacoby said:


> I really want to see how those car profiles match up with the Viewliners. Just curious if Amtrak decides on these for LD Amfleet II replacements.


They have not yet. At present all that has been decided and ordered are corridor train sets.

But there appears to be a high likelihood that these shells and trucks will form the basis of an Amfleet II replacement order. Time to wait and see what happens.

The roof lines will not match the Viewliners which has a more square profile. The Ventures have a more UIC-like profile at the roof line.


----------



## cocojacoby

I can now answer my own question. Just found this video:



I think it should work pretty well if the paint schemes match.


----------



## mfastx

cocojacoby said:


> I can now answer my own question. Just found this video:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it should work pretty well* if the paint schemes match*.




Yeah, like that'll ever happen... lol.


----------



## cocojacoby

mfastx said:


> Yeah, like that'll ever happen... lol.


Why do you say that? Are you saying Amtrak won't order a LD version of the Venture car to replace Amfleet II LD coach equipment? Seems like a logical solution to most of us.


----------



## pennyk

MODERATOR NOTE: posts that pertained to automat/vending machine food were moved to a new thread in the AU Lounge. Thank you for keeping comments in this thread on topic.



https://www.amtraktrains.com/threads/automat-vending-machine-food.81038/


----------



## Mailliw

Has the Midwest order changed? I thought the married pairs were going to consist of economy coaches mated to cafe cars and business/ economy coaches mated to economy coaches, but I keep seeing references to business class cafe/coach pairs? Like in this article for example? Is this because of the cafe cars being redesigned? Also the 26" business class seats in a 2:1 configuration seems positively luxurious, and just 36 seats per car!


----------



## Amtrak25

What I remember reading was married pairs of coach-coach, coach-cafe, and coach-biz. So it is unlikely the business car would be coupled to the cafe car, or you'd have coach passengers schlepping thru biz car to get to the cafe. IMO, not the smartest configuation, though it resembles NEC Regionals, though they are mostly 8 and 9 cars.


----------



## mfastx

cocojacoby said:


> Why do you say that? Are you saying Amtrak won't order a LD version of the Venture car to replace Amfleet II LD coach equipment? Seems like a logical solution to most of us.



No, I'm saying that the paint schemes will never match as lately there's been a different one for each new set of equipment, with no update to the old equipment.


----------



## cocojacoby

mfastx said:


> No, I'm saying that the paint schemes will never match as lately there's been a different one for each new set of equipment, with no update to the old equipment.


I got it. Yeah I agree. Amtrak needs to pick a scheme and stick with it. Phase III is fine with me and looks good on the new Viewliners.


----------



## penguinflies

Are all Lincoln Service trains offering the new cars or is Amtrak just running 303/306 with the equipment?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

penguinflies said:


> Are all Lincoln Service trains offering the new cars or is Amtrak just running 303/306 with the equipment?


For now it's just 303 and 306.


----------



## nti1094

cocojacoby said:


> I really want to see how those car profiles match up with the Viewliners. Just curious if Amtrak decides on these for LD Amfleet II replacements.



Just for reference these are the AAR plate specs for various car types or freight loading gauge. Plate H is double stack deep well, for reference. As far as passenger car standards around the world I think there is only one place where you find anything bigger than a Superliner. In Finland they have a massive loading gauge as well as a broad track guage which led to some gigantic sleeper cars for a few services.


----------



## Crowbar_k

Ziv said:


> Are new Venture Cafe cars being built and on their way to service?
> On edit: Sorry if the answer is somewhere upstream on the thread! I have been looking all over and it looks like the lead problem might have contributed to a late arrival for the Cafe cars. Not sure though.



In this video, around the 25:25 mark, you can see what appears to be an IDOT car with permanent coupling for a married pair. You can also see a cab car under construction


----------



## jis

Mailliw said:


> Has the Midwest order changed? I thought the married pairs were going to consist of economy coaches mated to cafe cars and business/ economy coaches mated to economy coaches, but I keep seeing references to business class cafe/coach pairs? Like in this article for example? Is this because of the cafe cars being redesigned? Also the 26" business class seats in a 2:1 configuration seems positively luxurious, and just 36 seats per car!


No. The order has not changed. People who think there is Cafe and BC pair are confused as they project from the half cafe half BC cars of today. 

Interestingly 36 seats is just about double of what we have today in the Cafe/BC Amfleet ex-Metroclub cars.



nti1094 said:


> As far as passenger car standards around the world I think there is only one place where you find anything bigger than a Superliner. In Finland they have a massive loading gauge as well as a broad track guage which led to some gigantic sleeper cars for a few services.


I thought the Princess Cruise Lines Observation Cars on Alaska Railroad and some of the Observation Cars on the Rocky Mountaineer in Canada are taller than Superliners. They are a shade over 18' tall.









New Carriages For Rocky Mountaineer Delivered


Without much publicity, Stadler delivered in 2018 and 2019 a batch of ten double deck cars to Rocky Mountaineer (RM), which runs luxury train services in western Canada.




www.railvolution.net


----------



## Crowbar_k

New Trains in the Midwest | High Speed Rail Alliance (hsrail.org) 

Some pictures of them in revenue service, and some interesting info.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Crowbar_k said:


> Some pictures of them in revenue service, and some interesting info.



Nice write up, thanks for posting! I think the significant thing is, at least to me, "first new in 30 years" in the Midwest....


----------



## Mailliw

Cool, but their info on the San Joaquin trainsets is wrong. Also I'm still confused about Business Class is it going to be a full car married to a coach car, or a BC/coach car married to a full coach car? I'd thought it was the latter, but how does that work 36 extra wide seats in a 2:1 configuration?


----------



## MisterUptempo

Mailliw said:


> Cool, but their info on the San Joaquin trainsets is wrong. Also I'm still confused about Business Class is it going to be a full car married to a coach car, or a BC/coach car married to a full coach car? I'd thought it was the latter, but how does that work 36 extra wide seats in a 2:1 configuration?


The latest information I saw is that the IDOT order will have -
17 married pairs of 1 all econ coach and 1 café/lounge car
17 married pairs of 1 all econ coach and 1 business/econ coach combo car
20 individual econ coach cars

Siemens' flyer for the Venture rail cars indicates that an all-business class car would be 50 seats - 16 rows of 2 + 1 seating, plus ADA seating; a full econ coach car is 70 seats - 17 rows of 2 + 2 seating plus ADA seating. IDOT's 36 business class 2 + 1 seats would take up 12 rows, which leaves 4 or 5 rows for 2 + 2 econ coach seating, give or take ADA seating.

The next scheduled annual meeting of the NGEC is scheduled for Friday, February 25, 2022. Caltrans is slated to give a presentation on the progress of the car order. Perhaps if there are any changes in the order, it will be reported then. With any luck, we might get a photo/rendering or two.

I'm just curious if the IDOT café cars will be set up in a café/coach configuration, as presented in the Siemens flyer, or if it will be a galley and service counter with café seating throughout the entire car. For rail cars dedicated to shorter, regional routes, a full-size café car would be quite generous, indeed.


----------



## cocojacoby

nti1094 said:


> In Finland they have a massive loading gauge as well as a broad track guage which led to some gigantic sleeper cars for a few services.



Yeah they use the Russian 5 foot guage which supposedly allows wider equipment but does 3.5 inches really make that much of a difference?

Here's a fun little video on their version of the Pendolino and also the way customs should be handled:


----------



## jis

Metra Electric Rider said:


> Nice write up, thanks for posting! I think the significant thing is, at least to me, "first new in 30 years" in the Midwest....


Indeed! Soon there will be very little old left in Midwest regional service.


----------



## cocojacoby

Not sure if anyone has posted this before but here's an article by the Points Guy. Those seats really do not look comfortable to me. Add the reclining limitations and the backward facing seating . . . not great. Let's hope the Amfleet II version is a giant step backwards in seat design:









Faster Wi-Fi but slimmer seats: Here’s a first look on board Amtrak’s newest trains - The Points Guy


These new trains are a glimpse into the future of Amtrak -- and subsequently, for train travelers across the country.




thepointsguy.com


----------



## penguinflies

I was on 301 yesterday and it was a real mix of cars. 1 Venture, then amfleet, horizon, amfleet, horizon, & amfleet cafe made up the rear. Super light load.


----------



## Cal

penguinflies said:


> I was on 301 yesterday and it was a real mix of cars. 1 Venture, then amfleet, horizon, amfleet, horizon, & amfleet cafe made up the rear. Super light load.


Was the venture open to the public?


----------



## penguinflies

Cal said:


> Was the venture open to the public?


I didn't ask and wasn't aware till we detrained in stl. It appears only the rear 2 cars were loaded with passengers


----------



## jamess

cocojacoby said:


> Not sure if anyone has posted this before but here's an article by the Points Guy. Those seats really do not look comfortable to me. Add the reclining limitations and the backward facing seating . . . not great. Let's hope the Amfleet II version is a giant step backwards in seat design:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faster Wi-Fi but slimmer seats: Here’s a first look on board Amtrak’s newest trains - The Points Guy
> 
> 
> These new trains are a glimpse into the future of Amtrak -- and subsequently, for train travelers across the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thepointsguy.com



Yeah the comfort looks poor. Ok for a commuter railroad, not so good for some 6+ hour routes these trains will be on (Bakersfield to Oakland).

The removed width is necessary for ADA, so thats fine, but the padding looks to be as thin as Spirit and the recline just as poor.


----------



## Trogdor

jamess said:


> Yeah the comfort looks poor. Ok for a commuter railroad, not so good for some 6+ hour routes these trains will be on (Bakersfield to Oakland).
> 
> The removed width is necessary for ADA, so thats fine, but the padding looks to be as thin as Spirit and the recline just as poor.



I suspect many people sit in an office chair with less padding for 8 hours/day, 5 days/week with no issue.


----------



## Steve4031

Trogdor said:


> I suspect many people sit in an office chair with less padding for 8 hours/day, 5 days/week with no issue.




As a teacher, I have sat in some pretty lousy chairs over my career. The kindergarten classroom with those super small chairs was the most challenging. The regular student chairs that were in there were not much better. When the students in the back row needed help with math, I spent 45 minutes on the super small chair between two of the students. I was ok until I had to get up. On a few days, when my arthritis was acting up, they may have learned a few new vocabulary words. 

The one thing that I observed in these new cars is that the window cill is flat. If I place my elbow on the window sill, and then my chin on my hand, I have a nice comfortable position for sitting and looking out the window.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

jamess said:


> Yeah the comfort looks poor. Ok for a commuter railroad, not so good for some 6+ hour routes these trains will be on (Bakersfield to Oakland).
> 
> The removed width is necessary for ADA, so thats fine, but the padding looks to be as thin as Spirit and the recline just as poor.


I rode Spirit for the first time a few weeks ago. The seats were comfortable for my 2+ hour flights. I don’t think they would have become uncomfortable for a longer flight.


----------



## IndyLions

AmtrakBlue said:


> I rode Spirit for the first time a few weeks ago. The seats were comfortable for my 2+ hour flights. I don’t think they would have become uncomfortable for a longer flight.



Definitely a “buyer beware“ scenario with those seats.

My flight from Indy to Las Vegas caused me to swear off that airline. I’m not particularly large and not particularly small – a little above average in height and weight. It was a brutally uncomfortable flight for me. To the point where I basically have decided that I am flying either comfort plus or first class from now on (of course where possible I’ll be flying Amtrak)

I do appreciate the fact that this airline exists, and others like it – allowing more people to travel more places. But I never want to fly this airline again.

But on the new Amtrak seats in the Midwest – I am anxious to try them out – but more than likely I’ll be doing everything in my power to travel in (as of yet not available) business class. But I’ll reserve judgment on the coach seats until I sit in one.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

lets wait for people who actually sat in these seats vs those who think they saw .....


----------



## cocojacoby

I know on Brightline that the "Premier Class" seats are 2" wider but are they padded any more, recline more or provide more leg room? I don't believe so.

However, the Brightline seats do LOOK more comfortable than those on the Amtrak cars. Just an observation of course.


----------



## keelhauled

Trogdor said:


> I suspect many people sit in an office chair with less padding for 8 hours/day, 5 days/week with no issue.


My judgement of comfort is colored significantly by whether I'm paying money for the experience or getting paid for it, though.


----------



## Trogdor

keelhauled said:


> My judgement of comfort is colored significantly by whether I'm paying money for the experience or getting paid for it, though.



I suppose. But I also suppose people traveling from Chicago-St. Louis are paying for transportation, not “experience.”


----------



## keelhauled

I'd call them one and the same. Probably "service" would have been the better word. Anyway, the point is, Amtrak charges a bunch of money to use. Personally, I often find it justifiable because it's usually pretty comfortable, but "slimline seat" and "no recline" aren't phrases I associate with comfort, in general. So that changes the value proposition.


----------



## Arctifox

I've had the opportunity to take the new Venture coaches recently and and all in all I have to say they are pretty good - I think it does compare very well to the Railjet in Austria (which is where I'm from), both the good and the bad. The car itself is great, very spacious, very modern, the ride comfort is very good as well. The seats are definitely the big "but" when talking about the new cars. They definitely do recline (it's not just the seat cushion moving around), but considering that the unreclined status feels like a very unnatural, almost vertical angle, I see why people might say it doesn't. However, I don't really understand why people are so bothered by the lack of proper recline, so I don't mind the lack of a bigger recline.

Overall I have to say that the new cars are great and a big upgrade. It's great to have a modern car feels very spacious and has proper windows (which are not orange), good ride comfort and a modern passenger information system (even though I think they could have thought about more/better information than what is currently shown).


----------



## MARC Rider

Arctifox said:


> Overall I have to say that the new cars are great and a big upgrade. It's great to have a modern car feels very spacious and has proper windows (which are not orange), good ride comfort and a modern passenger information system (even though I think they could have thought about more/better information than what is currently shown).


Also, considering that the cars they're replacing are pushing 50 years old, all sorts of mechanical failures will be less likely to happen. Plus, if they need repair, the manufacturer is still in business, and the correct spare parts are readily available.


----------



## cocojacoby

I guess this photo shows the amount of recline. Note the seat cushion is slid a couple of inches forward AND the seat back looks like it is a couple of inches back compared to the seat next to it. Maybe enough for most shorter trips but far from what Amtrak customers are used to especially on LD Amfleet II.


----------



## neroden

cocojacoby said:


> I guess this photo shows the amount of recline. Note the seat cushion is slid a couple of inches forward AND the seat back looks like it is a couple of inches back compared to the seat next to it. Maybe enough for most shorter trips but far from what Amtrak customers are used to especially on LD Amfleet II. View attachment 27164


Good to know that the seat back does move, if not much.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

each order is different , do we actually know what seats Amtrak is ordering ?


----------



## Trogdor

Has Amtrak even ordered Amfleet II replacements yet? I thought it was obvious that these cars are only operating on short-distance trains.


----------



## cocojacoby

Trogdor said:


> Has Amtrak even ordered Amfleet II replacements yet? I thought it was obvious that these cars are only operating on short-distance trains.



It makes sense for Amtrak to order the same cars for Amfleet II replacements for Eastern LD trains. I would guess they could have similar mechanicals but offer different seating which would be more comfortable for longer overnight trips.

One interesting question though . . . since the LD trains are all turned at their termination points (?) could Amtrak order all forward-facing fixed seats?


----------



## joelkfla

cocojacoby said:


> One interesting question though . . . since the LD trains are all turned at their termination points (?) could Amtrak order all forward-facing fixed seats?


Or maybe they wouldn't need to turn them anymore.


----------



## jis

Dutchrailnut said:


> each order is different , do we actually know what seats Amtrak is ordering ?



No. We do not know what sort of seats Amtrak is ordering for the Regional Amfleet I replacement train set order yet.



Trogdor said:


> Has Amtrak even ordered Amfleet II replacements yet? I thought it was obvious that these cars are only operating on short-distance trains.



We do not know what Amtrak will order for the Amfleet II replacement yet, though there is speculation that there is a high probability that whatever is ordered will be based on the basic Venture car body and trucks. As for what will go inside, there isn't even a vague hint from anyone at Amtrak yet.


----------



## jis

cocojacoby said:


> One interesting question though . . . since the LD trains are all turned at their termination points (?) could Amtrak order all forward-facing fixed seats?





joelkfla said:


> Or maybe they wouldn't need to turn them anymore.


Indeed, we don't know whether Amtrak would like to take this opportunity to make those trains double ended with a power head at each end so as to save on turning the trains, though they will of necessity get turned at Penn Station since there is no easy way to enter the Sunnyside Yards from Penn Station without getting turned.

Actually for that very reason, the LD trains may be turned at the other end of their journey irrespective of whether they are double ended or not, to keep the car positions the same relative to the front.

We will get a hint about it from how they set things up and operate the Regional sets terminating in NY, specially for trains like the Palmetto and the Pennsylvanian.

Then again, there is a convoluted way to get trains to Sunnyside from NYP but one would not want to do so during rush hours.


----------



## Mailliw

joelkfla said:


> Or maybe they wouldn't need to turn them anymore.


If Amtrak goes that route they really need to have reversible seating in long distance coaches.


----------



## jiml

It wouldn't be a surprise to see Amtrak mirror the VIA order with 50/50 non-reversible seating.


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> It wouldn't be a surprise to see Amtrak mirror the VIA order with 50/50 non-reversible seating.


I can see that happening in the Regional Amfleet I replacement.

However, I think that the LD Amfleet II replacement is an entirely different thing as far as internal layout goes. VIA has not ordered any real LD Coaches in a long time. Was Renn their last serious LD Coach order? Or did they order more rolling stock for LD trains since then?


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> I can see that happening in the Regional Amfleet I replacement.
> 
> However, I think that the LD Amfleet II replacement is an entirely different thing as far as internal layout goes. VIA has not ordered any real LD Coaches in a long time. Was Renn their last serious LD Coach order? Or did they order more rolling stock for LD trains since then?


Good point, nothing recent. In addition to the Renn coaches, which I believe were received as configured for Nightstar (as opposed those that were modified*), they refurbished some previously Amtrak coaches for the HEP-2 fleet. I think the latter has fixed seating, similar to that installed in the latest LRC reno, whereas the HEP-1's are changeable. The HEP-2's are being used on the Ocean, although the way the train is now turned in Halifax this isn't a disadvantage, while reducing labor.

* diners, baggage cars


----------



## jis

This from RPA in their Feb 11 Hotline:



> “We’re planning an official grand opening in mid-February,” said Jennifer Bastian, Section Chief of Passenger Rail Rolling Stock at IDOT. “The first ‘married pair’ of a coach-cafe and business-class car is leaving Siemens in Sacramento this week, and we have to determine when it will fit into the next consist that we release.”


----------



## Mailliw

I for one can't wait for the married pairs to be released so we can see what they actually consist of.


----------



## Cal

jis said:


> This from RPA in their Feb 11 Hotline:


well it is mid February..


----------



## jamess

AmtrakBlue said:


> I rode Spirit for the first time a few weeks ago. The seats were comfortable for my 2+ hour flights. I don’t think they would have become uncomfortable for a longer flight.



I admit I didnt fly Spirit, but I did fly Allegiant a couple of years ago on a 2.5 hour flight, and it was horrendous. Based on that trip alone, I will never fly them again for anything longer than 90 minutes. 

I dont understand why Amtrak would want to put themselves in a similar competitive situation


----------



## neroden

jamess said:


> I admit I didnt fly Spirit, but I did fly Allegiant a couple of years ago on a 2.5 hour flight, and it was horrendous. Based on that trip alone, I will never fly them again for anything longer than 90 minutes.
> 
> I dont understand why Amtrak would want to put themselves in a similar competitive situation


Ask the Midwestern states, in this case


----------



## IndyLions

neroden said:


> Ask the Midwestern states, in this case


I think this discussion has gotten off the rails a little bit. There’s nothing in any of the photos I have seen to indicate that the seats on the Midwestern cars are anything like Spirit, Allegiant, or Frontier. That would be a huge exaggeration. They are not 3 x 3, they are not designed for the ultimate in weight savings to save Jet fuel, and they don’t have tiny fold-down trays.


----------



## rs9

IndyLions said:


> I think this discussion has gotten off the rails a little bit. There’s nothing in any of the photos I have seen to indicate that the seats on the Midwestern cars are anything like Spirit, Allegiant, or Frontier. That would be a huge exaggeration. They are not 3 x 3, they are not designed for the ultimate in weight savings to save Jet fuel, and they don’t have tiny fold-down trays.



The actual question here is whether anyone still manufactures seats like on the aging Amtrak fleets. My guess is the world has moved on.

I've been fortunate to travel by train in a number of countries, most recently in Spain right before the pandemic. The high-speed RENFE trains had seats very similar to the Venture cars, except they were all synthetic leather.

The US is not the leader in train transport, so we're not going to set the market.


----------



## jamess

IndyLions said:


> I think this discussion has gotten off the rails a little bit. There’s nothing in any of the photos I have seen to indicate that the seats on the Midwestern cars are anything like Spirit, Allegiant, or Frontier. That would be a huge exaggeration. They are not 3 x 3, they are not designed for the ultimate in weight savings to save Jet fuel, and they don’t have tiny fold-down trays.



My concern is recline and cushion, which is where my comparison lies. While I havent been on this train yet, the pictures have me worried.


----------



## TheMalahat

Nicely done YouTube video; I enjoy the content from this crew!


----------



## MARC Rider

TheMalahat said:


> Nicely done YouTube video; I enjoy the content from this crew!



Based on the video, I'd say that the seat pitch/legroom of the Venture coaches is comparable to that of the Amfleet 1 corridor coaches. I'll have to actually ride them to be able to talk about the recline and comfort of the seat cushion. The seats seem a wee bit narrower. I like the location of the power outlets and the center armrest. The overhead racks seem a little skinny, but they seem to be able to hold reasonably sized suitcases. Being higher up than the Amfleets, the racks might make it a bit harder to hoist up bags and it's more of a reach to the overhead reading lights. These coaches should be compared with the Amfleet 1 and Horizon coaches. I think they'll be fine for corridor service.


----------



## DSS&A

More cars are are arriving in Chicago Union Station. Track #1 is filling up with the new cars. Coach #4001 has been parked on the track for about two weeks, possibly for employee orientation. It was joined last night with another coach and four business class cars. (I counted them out of my train window as we departed.)


----------



## cocojacoby

I didn't realize the odd door placement. So the doors alternate from side to side (i.e., example - one door at the front right and the other door at the rear left). Because of this unusual setup, unlike on Amfleet II, you don't gain the extra interior space by eliminating one vestibule. You still have the two vestibules even though you don't need them. Kind of a waste of space.


----------



## Amtrak25

The "GO carts" that the ONR bought for Northlander service were rebuilt with a similar catty-corner door positions. Amfleet-2 also seem to waste the space at the non-vestibule end. There are no bathroom or luggage bins there.


----------



## DSS&A

cocojacoby said:


> I didn't realize the odd door placement. So the doors alternate from side to side (i.e., example - one door at the front right and the other door at the rear left). Because of this unusual setup, unlike on Amfleet II, you don't gain the extra interior space by eliminating one vestibule. You still have the two vestibules even though you don't need them. Kind of a waste of space.


Hi,
You have a good point. One observation is that the two vestibules might be a part of the passenger safety design features to better protect the seating area in case of a crash. Does anyone know an answer as to why there are two vestibules?


----------



## jrud

There are some interesting updates in this presentation from the 2022 NGEC meeting.



http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/8.a.%20NGEC%202022%20Annual%20Meeting_CALIDOT%20220222_1.pptx


----------



## jis

DSS&A said:


> Hi,
> You have a good point. One observation is that the two vestibules might be a part of the passenger safety design features to better protect the seating area in case of a crash. Does anyone know an answer as to why there are two vestibules?


Most likely your guess is right. There needs to be several feet of crumple zone for CEM at each end and that must be outside of the passenger compartment bubble. It is a requirement that the passenger compartment itself not crumple and retain its shape intact in a collision.


----------



## cocojacoby

jis said:


> Most likely your guess is right. There needs to be several feet of crumple zone for CEM at each end and that must be outside of the passenger compartment bubble. It is a requirement that the passenger compartment itself not crumple and retain its shape intact in a collision.



Maybe, but then why not put the two doors in the same vestibule area and put something else in the other vestibule area like a second restroom would seem very desirable. Maybe extra luggage racks opposite this additional restroom?


----------



## Amtrak25

Interior photo of new LIRR M-9 MU car, on the blind end of a married pair. Seats and windows go right up to that end. There is no crumple zone. Why is that ?


----------



## Dutchrailnut

cars are permanently coupled , not like Venture cars.


----------



## jis

cocojacoby said:


> Maybe, but then why not put the two doors in the same vestibule area and put something else in the other vestibule area like another restroom would seem very desirable. Maybe extra luggage racks opposite this additional restroom?


In the PRIIA Single Level Car spec it says that which of the four door positions are used for a door is left to the customer to decide. But the door positions are part of the structural element of the car. Although not stated as such explicitly, reading through many pages of the specification gives one the impression that the area is reserved for CEM crumple zone. Since irrespective of which customer it is, that area is left vacant of any passenger occupancy suggests that the conjecture might be correct.


Amtrak25 said:


> Interior photo of new LIRR M-9 MU car, on the blind end of a married pair. Seats and windows go right up to that end. There is no crumple zone. Why is that ?


Because they are not structured with Collision Energy Management. Generally American cars were designed without CEM crumple zones until the PRIIA specs introduced them and the Tier III Specifications from FRA required them. These cars are safer without paying a heavy weight penalty.

One sure sign of a car designed with CEM is the presence of significant unoccupied space at each end of the car for an area that is designed to crumple. You would not normally place people in an area that is designed to crumple.


----------



## neroden

The unoccupied area would be quite suitable for baggage storage, however.


----------



## DSS&A

Today's morning northbound Hiawatha to Milwaukee had five coaches in the consist. The coaches included one Siemens, one amfleet and three Horizon coaches.


----------



## Cal

DSS&A said:


> Today's morning northbound Hiawatha to Milwaukee had five coaches in the consist. The coaches included one Siemens, one amfleet and three Horizon coaches.


Anyone know if the siemens car was open to pax or if it was just there for testing?


----------



## Trogdor

Cal said:


> Anyone know if the siemens car was open to pax or if it was just there for testing?



Just testing for now.


----------



## jebr

No Venture cars on 303 today.

Source: myself, a disappointed railfan. At least I'm in an Amfleet II.


----------



## Amtrak25

I read somewhere else they all got pulled form service due to multiple defects.


----------



## jis

Amtrak25 said:


> I read somewhere else they all got pulled form service due to multiple defects.


Do you have a specific reference that we can look at?


----------



## Amtrak25

Nope. Someone wrote it, who is usually very reliable, on another chatboard.


----------



## Cal

jebr said:


> No Venture cars on 303 today.
> 
> Source: myself, a disappointed railfan. At least I'm in an Amfleet II.


 

Are they expected to be on more trains by July? Or at least restored to 303/306…


----------



## John Bredin

Amtrak25 said:


> I read somewhere else they all got pulled form service due to multiple defects.


Saw one on the Hiawatha today, so "all" can't be true. I don't know if that one's carrying passengers, so there *could* be passenger-relevant defects (e.g. toilets) but it can't be defects that stop them from running at all (e.g. bad trucks).


----------



## west point

So maybe a certain % of the cars might be road worthy but not passenger worthy??
We have no idea what parts supplies are back ordered? There are certainly a lot more passenger related parts than roadworthy parts. Most of those parts are used one way or another on freight cars. Passenger locos may be different.


----------



## PerRock

Amtrak25 said:


> I read somewhere else they all got pulled form service due to multiple defects.



My fairly reliable source said that the crews hate the new cars & so have been refusing to use them (that's why it seems like every posting about trying to ride them has the person getting put in an older car). I wouldn't be surprised if the crews that hate them are making up reports or nit-picking things in order to get the cars off their trains.

peter


----------



## Steve4031

PerRock said:


> My fairly reliable source said that the crews hate the new cars & so have been refusing to use them (that's why it seems like every posting about trying to ride them has the person getting put in an older car). I wouldn't be surprised if the crews that hate them are making up reports or nit-picking things in order to get the cars off their trains.
> 
> peter



Exactly. The only thing that could be an issue is those automatic doors on the bathrooms. The grumpy conductor has n my train warned passengers that these doors would stop working if a customer pulled on it rather than used the buttons.


----------



## MARC Rider

Steve4031 said:


> Exactly. The only thing that could be an issue is those automatic doors on the bathrooms. The grumpy conductor has n my train warned passengers that these doors would stop working if a customer pulled on it rather than used the buttons.


That seems to be a design flaw. Mechanical devices designed to be used by the general public should be as "idiot-proof" as possible. Wonder if they had the same problem with these in their European applications.


----------



## Amtrak25

It's not brand new technology. The ones on VIA's Metro-Cammell REN cars works fine every time I have used them.


----------



## joelkfla

MARC Rider said:


> That seems to be a design flaw. Mechanical devices designed to be used by the general public should be as "idiot-proof" as possible. Wonder if they had the same problem with these in their European applications.


Or Brightline. Haven't heard of that problem on Brightline, but there are a fairly limited number of trip reports online.


----------



## jis

MARC Rider said:


> That seems to be a design flaw. Mechanical devices designed to be used by the general public should be as "idiot-proof" as possible. Wonder if they had the same problem with these in their European applications.


Maybe, maybe not. I have seen perfectly good design implemented poorly to cut corners, decisions made in the production line by geniuses who had little understanding of why the design was the way it was more times than I can count on the fingers of my two hands. There were even cases where the customer's genius project managers insisted on doing something over the objections of the manufacturers, because they were the customers and they knew better.


----------



## MikefromCrete

PerRock said:


> My fairly reliable source said that the crews hate the new cars & so have been refusing to use them (that's why it seems like every posting about trying to ride them has the person getting put in an older car). I wouldn't be surprised if the crews that hate them are making up reports or nit-picking things in order to get the cars off their trains.
> 
> peter


Apparently crews hate working with anything new. Anytime a new locomotive comes on line there are multiple reports about how terrible they are, worse than anything every seen before, etc. Eventually everybody calms down and the new equipment works just fine.
Reports of "everything is wrong with these cars and they all have been pulled from service" sounds like railfan rumours.


----------



## PerRock

The fact that we're seeing a new car out on the Hiawatha for crew training would indicate that the Hiawatha should have the Venture cars on it soon.

peter


----------



## Cal

PerRock said:


> My fairly reliable source said that the crews hate the new cars & so have been refusing to use them (that's why it seems like every posting about trying to ride them has the person getting put in an older car). I wouldn't be surprised if the crews that hate them are making up reports or nit-picking things in order to get the cars off their trains.
> 
> peter


I really, really hope this is not true.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

crews can not refuse cars , unless a safety issue is preventing them. and such are pretty limited other than FRA rules. some cars are operating in a few European countries so it seems unless this country has more idiots we have passed idiot threshold. Redirect Notice


----------



## Brian_tampa

As some have noted above, perhaps the comparison between the Midwest experience and Brightline might come down to the different levels of support each organization has purchased from Siemens. If I recall, the Midwest Consortium does not have Siemens employees located at the shops that maintain the Venture cars and Chargers. Brightline does, but they also are paying north of $30M for their agreement over a 30 year time frame, if I recall correctly.

I believe VIA Rail has a similar support agreement as Brightline for their new 32 trainsets. I read somewhere that either Amtrak or the Midwest Consortium was looking to go with the more inclusive support services agreement as an after the fact change.


----------



## PerRock

Dutchrailnut said:


> crews can not refuse cars , unless a safety issue is preventing them. and such are pretty limited other than FRA rules. some cars are operating in a few European countries so it seems unless this country has more idiots we have passed idiot threshold. Redirect Notice



They may not be able to "refuse" cars. But they can just not use the cars that are on the train & I'm sure if enough crews using them complain about the same couple "issues" Amtrak mechanical will pull the cars to look at the "issues".

peter


----------



## Dutchrailnut

Again my 30 years in passenger service may differ in opinion with yours , crews Can NOT just refuse cars . If they refuse cars outside FRA regulations it either be Union issue or they will loose .


----------



## TheMalahat

Exactly. This sounds like some railfan created drama from message boards rather than something nearly as dramatic as being presented. 

Given Amtrak seems to have given up out-of-service testing (except Acela) the reality is new things will come in & out of service at the beginning of their careers as they go through the teething process. Contrast this to Via and Brightline which both had/have extensive non-revenue testing.


----------



## jis

TheMalahat said:


> Exactly. This sounds like some railfan created drama from message boards rather than something nearly as dramatic as being presented.


Specially considering the fact that the message board on which it was posted is rather well known for creating drama.  They thrive on it and even charge a fee for providing the entertainment


----------



## cocojacoby

Steve4031 said:


> Exactly. The only thing that could be an issue is those automatic doors on the bathrooms. The grumpy conductor has n my train warned passengers that these doors would stop working if a customer pulled on it rather than used the buttons.


Perhaps more reason to question the single restroom decision.


----------



## Amtrak25

One restroom per car ? That's commuter train mentality. Metra or intercity bus veterans must have been on that Midwest design committee.

Since when does Chicago pull cars for written up defects ? It must be really bad if that was the reason, or something else is up.


----------



## wildchicken13

jis said:


> Maybe, maybe not. I have seen perfectly good design implemented poorly to cut corners, decisions made in the production line by geniuses who had little understanding of why the design was the way it was more times than I can count on the fingers of my two hands. There were even cases where the customer's genius project managers insisted on doing something over the objections of the manufacturers, because they were the customers and they knew better.











Hyatt Regency walkway collapse - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## frequentflyer

MikefromCrete said:


> Apparently crews hate working with anything new. Anytime a new locomotive comes on line there are multiple reports about how terrible they are, worse than anything every seen before, etc. Eventually everybody calms down and the new equipment works just fine.
> Reports of "everything is wrong with these cars and they all have been pulled from service" sounds like railfan rumours.



True, I remember the complaints about the GE Genesis locomotives..................and 30 years later.


----------



## Steve4031

These restrooms are almost identical to what’s on the Acela. How many bathrooms per car on the Acela.


----------



## jis

Steve4031 said:


> These restrooms are almost identical to what’s on the Acela. How many bathrooms per car on the Acela.


They also happen to be ADA specified. I am not sure how much seating space would be lost if a smaller non-ADA toilet was added. Perhaps two rows, so 9 Coach seats or 6 BC seats roughly. At the end of the day it is a tradeoff.


----------



## Trogdor

PerRock said:


> They may not be able to "refuse" cars. But they can just not use the cars that are on the train



When they were on the 303/306 turn, they were the only coaches in the consist. Unless you’re putting everybody in the cafe/business class car, there’s no way for them to not use the Venture cars.


----------



## Willbridge

New equipment can sometimes be immediately considered better than the old stuff. I've had a couple of experiences where transit shops learned to keep older buses in reserve so that when an operator on an older bus called in for a changeover, the replacement would be another older bus. That reduced the changeovers to a more normal level.


----------



## amtrakpass

I don't have the link at the moment, but there has been recent mention of poor quality parts problems in official reports from the committee which is managing this car order, so it is not just speculation unfortunately. I'm sure there is some nuance to it and some of the doom and gloom is unwarranted but one of the basic problems in modern procurement seems to me to be that true public transparency and any accountability on timelines is sorely lacking. In previous generations you might have had a new equipment order have similar issues, but the cars would still be in service at least and then a fix would be in the works or a new order of a better model might be ordered to replace the poor stuff all within a few years. Now it seems like it takes at least a decade to get stuff ordered, tested and in service before it is all said and done which is just too long a timeframe


----------



## John819

MARC Rider said:


> That seems to be a design flaw. Mechanical devices designed to be used by the general public should be as "idiot-proof" as possible. Wonder if they had the same problem with these in their European applications.


You can't make anything idiot proof because they keep making better idiots. And in the US when some idiot gets hurt, he gets a lawyer and collects $$$.


----------



## cocojacoby

Steve4031 said:


> These restrooms are almost identical to what’s on the Acela. How many bathrooms per car on the Acela.



Two on the present Acela (one ADA). Reduced to one on the newer version along with an increase in seating capacity.

So about half the bathrooms with an increase of 304 to 386 total capacity.


----------



## cocojacoby

jis said:


> They also happen to be ADA specified. I am not sure how much seating space would be lost if a smaller non-ADA toilet was added. Perhaps two rows, so 9 Coach seats or 6 BC seats roughly. At the end of the day it is a tradeoff.



Probably no loss of seating if they placed the non-ADA module in the wasted vestibule space.


----------



## joelkfla

cocojacoby said:


> Probably no loss of seating if they placed the non-ADA module in the wasted vestibule space.


So, in a derailment, anyone in the restroom is deemed expendable?


----------



## cocojacoby

joelkfla said:


> So, in a derailment, anyone in the restroom is deemed expendable?


So I guess you risk your life if you take a shower in a Viewliner too?


----------



## Steve4031

On my trip on 303-306 on March 5, there were two venture cars, one horizon car, one amfleet car, and the food service/business class car. The crew did not refuse to use the venture cars. They sat short-haul passengers in those cars. Since the venture cars were at the front of the consist this was the normal practice even though the crew obviously viewed the cars with disdain.


----------



## Steve4031

joelkfla said:


> So, in a derailment, anyone in the restroom is deemed expendable?



Hardly. Every time you drive you are more at risk of being expendable based on the behaviors of other drivers than you would be spending 5 minutes in the bathroom on a train.


----------



## jis

cocojacoby said:


> So I guess you risk your life if you take a shower in a Viewliner too?


Apples and Oranges. Viewliners do not have CEM, and therefore no designated crumple zone. Still the ends of the cars tend to be more dangerous in a high energy collision than the middle as long as the train stays together. If it splits and jackknifes all bets are off.

When you have a designated crumple zone you do not place passenger facilities there. Baggage racks are fine.



Steve4031 said:


> Hardly. Every time you drive you are more at risk of being expendable based on the behaviors of other drivers than you would be spending 5 minutes in the bathroom on a train.


So accident happens and the car crumples where it is supposed to by design while someone was in that toilet. Now let us go to the inevitable legal action that would follow. The argument presented by the plaintiff's attorney "So you knew that by design that part was going to crumple and you placed my client there by placing a toilet there. How is that not your fault that my client died?"


----------



## cocojacoby

So do you know if these cars have to go through the 800,000 lb. compression test or are they exempt from that because they have these crumble zones?


----------



## jis

cocojacoby said:


> So do you know if these cars have to go through the 800,000 lb. compression test or are they exempt from that because they have these crumble zones?


They do of course have to go through the test. These cars passed the test as mentioned in the AASHTO Meeting Reports.

It is required that the passenger safety cage not be deformed when a buff force of 800,000 lb (1,000,000 lb in case of Cab Cars) is applied in a static test.


----------



## NSC1109

Amtrak25 said:


> One restroom per car ? That's commuter train mentality. Metra or intercity bus veterans must have been on that Midwest design committee.
> 
> Since when does Chicago pull cars for written up defects ? It must be really bad if that was the reason, or something else is up.



My understanding is that Chicago has always pulled cars for writeups…it just depends on what it is. But a BO is a BO car.


----------



## cocojacoby

jis said:


> They do of course have to go through the test. These cars passed the test as mentioned in the ASHTO Meeting Reports.
> 
> It is required that the passenger safety cage not be deformed when a buff force of 800,000 lb is applied in a static test.



Okay but I guess I am a bit confused about the recent change that supposedly would allow the use of Talgo VI and the new Avelia.

From Railway Age (NTSB Amtrak 501 Report: “Errors and Unsupported Statements” - Railway Age):

_“It took more than 100 years, but finally, last November, FRA issued a Final Rule for Tier III (220 mph) equipment providing alternate methods for demonstrating safety equivalent to the traditional 800,000 pound buff load.

“The irony is that a new provision in the Tier I rules (49 CFR 238.201, Scope/Alternative Compliance), allows new Tier I trainsets to alternatively comply with the new Tier III rules. Thus, while the existing Talgo Series VI sets must continue to operate under the FRA ‘grandfathering’ waiver, an identical, newly manufactured one would not need that waiver (or any waiver at all) if it could be shown to be in compliance with the new high-speed rules._

So since the Talgo VI did not comply because it did not meet the 800,000 lb load requirement, a new version would comply now. I thought the new crush zones may have something to do with it (allowing reduced compression standards) but apparently not.


----------



## jis

cocojacoby said:


> Okay but I guess I am a bit confused about the recent change that supposedly would allow the use of Talgo VI and the new Avelia.
> 
> From Railway Age (NTSB Amtrak 501 Report: “Errors and Unsupported Statements” - Railway Age):
> 
> _“It took more than 100 years, but finally, last November, FRA issued a Final Rule for Tier III (220 mph) equipment providing alternate methods for demonstrating safety equivalent to the traditional 800,000 pound buff load.
> 
> “The irony is that a new provision in the Tier I rules (49 CFR 238.201, Scope/Alternative Compliance), allows new Tier I trainsets to alternatively comply with the new Tier III rules. Thus, while the existing Talgo Series VI sets must continue to operate under the FRA ‘grandfathering’ waiver, an identical, newly manufactured one would not need that waiver (or any waiver at all) if it could be shown to be in compliance with the new high-speed rules._
> 
> So since the Talgo VI did not comply because it did not meet the 800,000 lb load requirement, a new version would comply now. I thought the new crush zones may have something to do with it (allowing reduced compression standards) but apparently not.


Your surmise is correct to an extent. Let me try to explain....

The thing to understand and that many miss is that the non-deformation upon the application of 800 Klb longitudinal static force applied to the entire car body in the past.

What has changed is that the car is seen as a structure consisting of two distinct components in the new standard. It consist of an outer car body, which now is allowed to deform into the crumple zone, and an inner safety cage which is not allowed to deform. Passenger occupancy must be limited to the inner safety cage.

The Talgos have the passenger safety cage that does not deform, as was amply demonstrated, but the car body does deform, hence it was not compliant with the old standard but a new train built similarly would comply with the Tier III standard.

The same 800,000 lb test has to be applied to the new cars to verify that the safety cage does not deform. In a well built car (like the Ventures) a static force of 800,000lb won't cause the outer car body to crumple either, and hence by default it will pass. The crumple zones come into play when there is a high energy collision when there is more energy that needs absorbing than in a static test. In that situation, these cars will deform in a predictable way while preserving the passenger safety cage, and not fold up like the Amfleet II Lounge did in the Silver Star. The energy will be absorbed instead into the crumple zone keeping the rest of the car safe.

I don't know if all that makes sense. If not let me know, and I will try again.


----------



## John Santos

jis said:


> They also happen to be ADA specified. I am not sure how much seating space would be lost if a smaller non-ADA toilet was added. Perhaps two rows, so 9 Coach seats or 6 BC seats roughly. At the end of the day it is a tradeoff.


I think it would be closer to 4 seats, not 9. Amtrak coach is 2+2. Replacing two rows of seats on ONE side would remove 4 seats. I think 3 rows of seats would be enough for a second *accessible* restroom.


----------



## jis

John Santos said:


> I think it would be closer to 4 seats, not 9. Amtrak coach is 2+2. Replacing two rows of seats on ONE side would remove 4 seats. I think 3 rows of seats would be enough for a second *accessible* restroom.


You are more likely to be correct than me. I was shootin' from the hip on this one


----------



## cocojacoby

jis said:


> Your surmise is correct to an extent. Let me try to explain....
> 
> The thing to understand and that many miss is that the non-deformation upon the application of 800 Klb longitudinal static force applied to the entire car body in the past.
> 
> What has changed is that the car is seen as a structure consisting of two distinct components in the new standard. It consist of an outer car body, which now is allowed to deform into the crumple zone, and an inner safety cage which is not allowed to deform. Passenger occupancy must be limited to the inner safety cage.
> 
> The Talgos have the passenger safety cage that does not deform, as was amply demonstrated, but the car body does deform, hence it was not compliant with the old standard but a new train built similarly would comply with the Tier III standard.
> 
> The same 800,000 lb test has to be applied to the new cars to verify that the safety cage does not deform. In a well built car (like the Ventures) a static force of 800,000lb won't cause the outer car body to crumple either, and hence by default it will pass. The crumple zones come into play when there is a high energy collision when there is more energy that needs absorbing than in a static test. In that situation, these cars will deform in a predictable way while preserving the passenger safety cage, and not fold up like the Amfleet II Lounge did in the Silver Star. The energy will be absorbed instead into the crumple zone keeping the rest of the car safe.
> 
> I don't know if all that makes sense. If not let me know, and I will try again.



Thanks that was very helpful but please allow me to question the basic premise. So the entire car is just as strong and safe as any other car out there (800,000 lb). Now the crumble zones are additional to this and will only come into play if there is a catastrophic higher force impact. Having the entire body safe up to 800,000 lbs provides the same protection as any other car where seats and rooms are placed right next to the bulkhead.

So from what you are saying the interior space needs is be reduced for crumble zones that are only activated for a catastrophic event that would be extremely rare and probably not likely to happen. The risk involved is extremely small and the addition of a second bathroom would be a nice convenience for all passengers even though there is that crazy one-in-a-million chance that the restroom would be occupied and compromised in a massive crash. You can't protect people from everything. Should we stop passage through the vestibules? That has probably resulted in many more deaths in actual collisions.

It just seems like this is overkill for a car that is probably never going to exceed 125 mph. It makes more sense for very highspeed rail equipment which this is not. But I get it and appreciate your explanation.


----------



## neroden

amtrakpass said:


> I don't have the link at the moment, but there has been recent mention of poor quality parts problems in official reports from the committee which is managing this car order, so it is not just speculation unfortunately.


I took that to be a veiled reference to the lead-contaminated plumbing, mostly. Which we all know about but they're being really vague about it in order to not scare people who haven't heard about it yet, I guess.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

cocojacoby said:


> Thanks that was very helpful but please allow me to question the basic premise. So the entire car is just as strong and safe as any other car out there (800,000 lb). Now the crumble zones are additional to this and will only come into play if there is a catastrophic higher force impact. Having the entire body safe up to 800,000 lbs provides the same protection as any other car where seats and rooms are placed right next to the bulkhead.
> 
> So from what you are saying the interior space needs is be reduced for crumble zones that are only activated for a catastrophic event that would be extremely rare and probably not likely to happen. The risk involved is extremely small and the addition of a second bathroom would be a nice convenience for all passengers even though there is that crazy one-in-a-million chance that the restroom would be compromised in a massive crash. You can't protect people from everything. Should we stop passage through the vestibules? That has probably resulted in many more deaths in actual collisions.
> 
> It just seems like this is overkill for a car that is probably never going to exceed 125 mph. It makes more sense for very highspeed rail equipment which this is not. But I get it and appreciate your explanation.


I **think** it's a bit more nuanced than that - it also allows the cars to be substantially lighter if I'm understanding correctly, but saving money, materials an6 fuel. That's how modern cars are built as well - with crumple zones - I remember a story a college classmate had about the crumple zone in his VW Rabbit which allowed him to walk away unscathed (iirc) - as a total aside I've seen some crazy videos where a Range Rover hitting a little Nissan basically flips over!


----------



## neroden

Metra Electric Rider said:


> I **think** it's a bit more nuanced than that - it also allows the cars to be substantially lighter if I'm understanding correctly, but saving money, materials an6 fuel.


That's correct. The crumple zone means the "survival box" or "safety cage" (I forget the official name of it) within the train car can pass the crush tests (etc) with far lighter materials, much less weight, than the old "the entire train car has to survive" system.


----------



## amtrakpass

Reliable sources report on other forums that all venture cars have been removed from revenue service due to magnets in the at- seat tables being too strong and damaging passengers personal electronic devices. 
Hopefully the issue won't take too long to resolve


----------



## Cal

amtrakpass said:


> Reliable sources report on other forums that all venture cars have been removed from revenue service due to magnets in the at- seat tables being too strong and damaging passengers personal electronic devices.
> Hopefully the issue won't take too long to resolve


Why didn't Brightline get these same issues?!?!? My god Amtrak/IDOT can't get enough.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

think story is hogwash , todays electronics have little trouble with magnets , at one time maybe when tapes were used. even todays Hard drives have magnets so powerful they exceed those of speakers and fire door magnets .
I have two I just removed from a Seagate that are so powerful it takes tools to pull them apart.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Dutchrailnut said:


> think story is hogwash , todays electronics have little trouble with magnets , at one time maybe when tapes were used. even todays Hard drives have magnets so powerful they exceed those of speakers and fire door magnets .
> I have two I just removed from a Seagate that are so powerful it takes tools to pull them apart.


Well, those magnets could affect me, if I were to lay my head down on them (if they are strong). I have magnets under my scalp on both sides of my head.  Only one side is MRI safe.


----------



## tgstubbs1

Dutchrailnut said:


> think story is hogwash , todays electronics have little trouble with magnets , at one time maybe when tapes were used. even todays Hard drives have magnets so powerful they exceed those of speakers and fire door magnets .
> I have two I just removed from a Seagate that are so powerful it takes tools to pull them apart.


Maybe the phone sticks too good? 
Just add a layer of tape.


----------



## amtrakpass

The fact is the cars that had been in service are now out of service. As to the reason, the source of the info has had previous accurate info regarding Siemens equipment such as the charger locomotives for many years so I am inclined to believe the report. If it is not the case and there is another reason the cars are out of service perhaps the reports the midwest/california consortium puts out will show more details in the coming months.
In any event, thankfully it does not sound like structural or equipment issue that would affect things over the long term life of the car so hopefully they won't argue about who is responsible too long, get them fixed and back on the road soon.


----------



## jiml

Dutchrailnut said:


> think story is hogwash , todays electronics have little trouble with magnets


I agree. My previous Blackberry and current Samsung have magnetized cases and don't seem to have any problems.


----------



## amtrakpass

Trains Magazine article with details on the Siemens Venture issues and other reasons for the Amtrak equipment shortage.
Should be free to view if you haven't already read many other articles from them this month.









Siemens equipment delays aggravate Amtrak capacity issues: Special report - Trains


First of two parts CHICAGO — Delayed deliveries of new Siemens-built Venture rolling stock for Midwest and California routes have added to a cascading lack of equipment at a time of surging travel demand — a problem felt beyond the areas where the new equipment will operate, and extending into...




www.trains.com


----------



## Steve4031

I read the article and a suggested temporary solution is to attach brackets to the tables to ensure the magnets do not affect electronic devices. Of course, since they do not have enough people to service the cars that are running, this simple process will be delayed and the cars will remain out of service. We are gradually moving into the status as a second-world country IMHO.


----------



## daybeers

Dutchrailnut said:


> think story is hogwash , todays electronics have little trouble with magnets , at one time maybe when tapes were used. even todays Hard drives have magnets so powerful they exceed those of speakers and fire door magnets .
> I have two I just removed from a Seagate that are so powerful it takes tools to pull them apart.


I agree that it's hogwash. The article above talks about devices "turning off" but not getting damaged. My guess is the magnets only affected tablets and other devices that might rely on magnetic cases to turn off the screen and keep the case closed.


----------



## jis

Considering that at least the new ones use magnets to keep the wireless charger attached to the device..... it seems to me that there is a part missing in the story. Clearly there is something that needs fixing, but I am having difficulty believing what has been said about what needs fixing. Possibly lost in translation on the way.


----------



## jiml

daybeers said:


> My guess is the magnets only affected tablets and other devices that might rely on magnetic cases to turn off the screen and keep the case closed.


That's a good bet.


----------



## DSS&A

PerRock said:


> The fact that we're seeing a new car out on the Hiawatha for crew training would indicate that the Hiawatha should have the Venture cars on it soon.
> 
> peter


FYI, During the last two weeks of March, I didn't see any Siemens cars on the morning northbound Hiawatha train.


----------



## StanJazz

The Nippon-Sharyo building is still there. While coming home from California after seeing the Cubs beat the Padres, I saw the old building. It was the 1st time in decades that I came home from California via something that was not Amtrak. It is the white building just to the lower left of the I-59 and I-88 interchange.


----------



## NSC1109

Cars were used on 350 yesterday morning for revenue service. Should have returned to Chicago on 355.


----------



## Cal

NSC1109 said:


> Cars were used on 350 yesterday morning for revenue service. Should have returned to Chicago on 355.


What route is 350? Lincoln service?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Cal said:


> What route is 350? Lincoln service?


350 is the morning Wolverine from Chicago to Michigan.


----------



## PerRock

I hope to travel on them this weekend. Booked on the 350/355 trains to go to Chicago. I'll try to remember to post a post-trip report on the new cars.

peter


----------



## jis

MODERATOR'S NOTE: A number of posts about the new Chicago to Kansas City service via St. Louis have been moved to their own thread at:






New Chicago - Kansas City service via St. Louis


There is a schedule change that happened. No more 303/304 lincoln service. Mo river runner now begins & end in Chicago as 318/319. Today it used venture coach equipment and 2 baggage cars. I didnt see what type of cafe car. 301/306 was 6 cars. Using 5 amfleet ii and an amfleet 1 biz/cafe...




www.amtraktrains.com





Please post any further messages on that subject to this new thread and reserve this thread for discussing the new Midwest and California Siemens rolling stock.

Thank you for your understanding, cooperation and participation.


----------



## IndyLions

More great news! First my (adopted state) Cardinal gets a VL2 sleeper, and then my (native state) Wolverine gets a new Siemens train set! 

No business class though yet, right?


----------



## PerRock

IndyLions said:


> More great news! First my (adopted state) Cardinal gets a VL2 sleeper, and then my (native state) Wolverine gets a new Siemens train set!
> 
> No business class though yet, right?



The Wolverine is running a coach car for Business class. The current consist is: Charger, Venture, AmCafe, Venture x4, Charger.

Here is a picture I took of it on it's inaugural run.







Peter


----------



## jamess

jiml said:


> I agree. My previous Blackberry and current Samsung have magnetized cases and don't seem to have any problems.



Laptop hard drivers are the same old tech theyve always been that can be destroyed by magnets easily. Cell phones have never used those.


----------



## Steve4031

Which Wolverine Service has the Siemen's cars? I would enjoy a round trip to Detroit on those.


----------



## jis

Steve4031 said:


> Which Wolverine Service has the Siemen's cars? I would enjoy a round trip to Detroit on those.


Apparently 350 and 355.


----------



## Steve4031

jis said:


> Apparently 350 and 355.


Perfect for a daytime round trip. Thank you Jishnu.


----------



## Anthony V

From what I've read in recent posts on this thread, it sounds like at least one trainset (with the exception of the Business Class/Café cars, which aren't available yet) on the Lincoln Service and Wolverine routes, are now using Venture rolling stock. I have a few questions about the Venture cars' current and future deployment. Do all the trainsets on the Lincoln Service and Wolverine routes now use Venture rolling stock? What is the current status of the Business Class/Café Venture cars? When is delivery and deployment of those types of venture cars expected to happen?


----------



## PerRock

Currently only the 350/355 Wolverine uses the Venture cars. In the future the rest will.

peter


----------



## west point

Takes time to get enough to CHI then east coast for final fittings. Understand 8 either on way or are being set up?


----------



## PerRock

west point said:


> Takes time to get enough to CHI then east coast for final fittings. Understand 8 either on way or are being set up?


They don't need to go to the east coast, fit-up is happening in Chicago. I believe all the coaches have been delivered at this point, it's just a matter of fixing the lead piping, ceiling panels & magnetic tables.

At some point in the future the two sets that are currently out in service, will need to be removed from service. As they didn't actually repair the tables, they just stuck a sign on them saying not to pull out the extensions.

peter


----------



## NES28

I saw 4 Venture Business Class cars parked at the Chicago Union Station mail platform a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## jis

Finally it looks like the first Venture set is about to go into service in California on the San Joaquin Service...









All Aboard! New train cars for the San Joaquins route to roll down Central California tracks


Train riders in Central California are about to get a substantial upgrade: new railcars, built in California.




abc30.com


----------



## Amtrak25

Will the Capital Corridor trains need to have their own discreet fleet ?


----------



## GDRRiley

jis said:


> Finally it looks like the first Venture set is about to go into service in California on the San Joaquin Service...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All Aboard! New train cars for the San Joaquins route to roll down Central California tracks
> 
> 
> Train riders in Central California are about to get a substantial upgrade: new railcars, built in California.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abc30.com


nice means the comets will be removed from that line.
still wish they'd use comets or horizens to start a coast daylight


Amtrak25 said:


> Will the Capital Corridor trains need to have their own discreet fleet ?


the vision plan calls for the capital corridor to have ~25 sets. If they change their stance on wires we could see pure EMUs, something like caltrains KISS but with a different interior or we may see a dual mode hydrogen with overhead electrification if they can only get wires up in some sections.
it seems unlikely but the state could just order a bunch new bi level coaches then just change the loco on the front based on route


----------



## west point

jis said:


> Finally it looks like the first Venture set is about to go into service in California on the San Joaquin Service...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All Aboard! New train cars for the San Joaquins route to roll down Central California tracks
> 
> 
> Train riders in Central California are about to get a substantial upgrade: new railcars, built in California.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abc30.com


With the route closed to Ssn Diego cars will ot get complete workout


----------



## GDRRiley

west point said:


> With the route closed to Ssn Diego cars will ot get complete workout


they aren't going to be used on the surfliner
they are all going to the San Joaquin which looks like it may be a short lived thing as the states ordered some hydrogen FLIRTs


----------



## jrud

There is a discussion of the California FLIRTs here:






Stadler Flirt Hydrogen MUs for Amtrak California


It's looking like Stadler may be providing Flirt Hydrogen Multiple (HMU?) Unit trainsets for Amtrak California powered by Hydrogen Fuel a Memorandum of Understanding Signed to purchase up to 25 units to operate statewide based on their FLIRT trainsets. a press release (picked up by trains...




www.amtraktrains.com





And here:



https://www.stadlerrail.com/media/pdf/2022_0920_media%20release%20mouflirth2_en.pdf



Please note that FLIRTs are single level. Stadler uses the name KISS for two level trains and I haven’t found anything but catenary EMU KISS trains.


----------



## GDRRiley

frequentflyer said:


> So this must go along with the rumor of the San Joaquin moving to the CHSR line when completed. No grade crossings.


its not being moved to CAHSR. the service will end at Merced.
CASHR could test with a venture set and AEM-7 from caltrain if they wanted to do 125mph testing before a high speed set came


----------



## jrud

Also, another California FLIRT discussion here:






Amtrak California equipment


If Amtrak gets Stadler FLIRTS for the San Joaquin, where will the Venture coaches go?




www.amtraktrains.com


----------



## jamess

Does anyone know if the Venture set runs consistently on one of the frequencies? Will be in Fresno and would like to grab some photos of it. 

Also, do they still have a 5 minute smoke break in Fresno where one might be able to jump in and off quickly?


----------

