# Fred Frailey: Amtrak and CHSRA team up for new high speed trains



## afigg (Jan 13, 2013)

Fred Frailey of Trans Magazine wrote a column on January 11 that states that Amtrak is teaming with the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) with the goal of a combined order of 62 HSR trainsets, 32 of those for the NEC. Obviously there would be much to work out as the NEC would limit train speeds to 160 mph while the CHSRA would be looking for 220 mph trainsets and possibly a long list of different technical requirements. The CHSRA is years away from ordering trainsets, so timing would be a major issue. Although it may be that Amtrak gets the first 32 trainsets with a drawn out delivery schedule, CHSRA gets the last 30 trainsets.

The schedule for the proposed Acela II order is aggressive given the number of hurdles to get over and the political situation. Quote from the column:



> As of now, the plan is to announce on Thursday, January 17, a request for information (RFI) to get input from builders of such trains, almost all of them headquartered in Europe and Asia. Amtrak President Joe Boardman said earlier this week that Amtrak expects to put the project up for bids by the end of this year.


2013 could be an interesting year, although if a RFP is released by the end of 2013, a contract selection and award would be well into 2014. And longer if Amtrak wants to a conduct equipment tryouts.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Jan 13, 2013)

afigg said:


> Fred Frailey of Trans Magazine wrote a column on January 11 that states that Amtrak is teaming with the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) with the goal of a combined order of 62 HSR trainsets, 32 of those for the NEC. Obviously there would be much to work out as the NEC would limit train speeds to 160 mph while the CHSRA would be looking for 220 mph trainsets and possibly a long list of different technical requirements. The CHSRA is years away from ordering trainsets, so timing would be a major issue. Although it may be that Amtrak gets the first 32 trainsets with a drawn out delivery schedule, CHSRA gets the last 30 trainsets.
> 
> The schedule for the proposed Acela II order is aggressive given the number of hurdles to get over and the political situation. Quote from the column:
> 
> ...


Did someone say equipment tryouts? 

Hey, we can hope!

So this is the trick Mr. Boardman had up his sleeve with the Acela order. Can't blame the guy for trying. Just hope he is not highballing to nowhere.


----------



## Steve4031 (Jan 13, 2013)

This seems to be similar to the approach used with the bi-levels for the midwest corridor trains and the California trains. Except this is on a more aggressive scale. Seems to me that even though a HSR has the ability to run at 220 mph it does not have to. I think a bigger issue will be the signaling system used on the NEC vs the signaling system that is used on the California HSR system.


----------



## Nathanael (Jan 13, 2013)

Steve4031 said:


> This seems to be similar to the approach used with the bi-levels for the midwest corridor trains and the California trains. Except this is on a more aggressive scale. Seems to me that even though a HSR has the ability to run at 220 mph it does not have to. I think a bigger issue will be the signaling system used on the NEC vs the signaling system that is used on the California HSR system.


This will be a pretty typical order in terms of signalling, because CAHSR is supposed to use ETCS/ERTMS, and it's common in Europe to order trains which can handle ETCS/ERTMS plus one other "legacy" signal system (which in this case would be pulse codes / ACSES); the trains are designed with room for two signal system boxes.


----------



## Steve4031 (Jan 13, 2013)

Ok. At least California is using "off the shelf technology" that is already in use on these types of trains. What about ACSES? Is this also used someplace in Europe, or will this be completely new?

Signaling and positive train control has created problems in MIchigan and Illinois already. I wish the parties involved would use proven technology wherever it comes from.

And thanks for the info.


----------



## jis (Jan 13, 2013)

I would be beyond astonished if any RFP goes out in 2013. I doubt that an RFP will go out before the issue of FRA rulemaking regarding mixed operation of Tier II and Tier III is way far along, and that won't be 2013 from what I hear. OTOH, it makes a lot of sense to get the RFI going so that potential vendors can be included in the discussion regarding rulemaking for things like mixed Tier II and Tier III operations.

Like Nathanael I see very little issue with installing ACSES in the NEC sets. The interesting thing will be whether the NEC sets will have any ETCS/ERTMS gear in them at all, since that would be a bunch of useless electronics which does not come for free or cheap.

Also even in ETCS/ERTMS there are profiles that use track circuit for train detection and integrity. I don't know what profile CAHSR plans to use. ETCS/ERTMS is really an architecture which has multiple profiles to choose from which then binds to specific technologies for each segment of the system. Once we know a little bit more about the details of the ETCS/ERTMS system CAHSR plans to use we will be able to have a more informed discussion.

Incidentally the ACSES overlay, architecturally is similar to an ETCS overlay on an existing coded track circuit controlled track segment. The details are of course different particularly because of the way the PRR CTC/CSS works as opposed to how more modern CTC systems work. But the way ETCS is architected, it is indeed designed to be deployable as an overlay on things like the PRR CSS, not that this will be done given that ACSES - specially with Phase II and III serves almost exactly the same functionality that an ETCS II would. As to why it is a little more difficult to layer ETCS on top of the PRR CTC/CSS than on a vanilla CTC, and indeed why ACSES was developed instead, that is a matter for a different thread

Also BTW, in train control, while the technical components may be off the shelf the integration to produce an operating system which follows the rules of the railroad on which it is installed is always a once off thing. No magic in this world, unfortunately.

The bottom line is I don't expect to see any of the problems that ITCS is facing in Illinois or in Michigan, to plague the use of off the shelf UIC equipment on the NEC with ACSES installed.

Abbreviations summary:

ACSES: Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System

BTW: By The Way

CAHSR: CaliforniA High Speed Rail

CSS: Cab Signaling System

CTC: Coded Track Circuit

ERTMS: European Rail Traffic Management System

ETCS: European Train Control System

FRA: Federal Railroad Administration

NEC: North East Corridor

OTOH: On The Other Hand

PRR: Pennsylvania Rail Road

RFP: Request for Procurement or Request for Proposal

UIC: International Union of Railways (_Union Internationale des Chemins de fer)_


----------



## Steve4031 (Jan 13, 2013)

Wouldn't it be cheaper to install ACSES in Illinois and Michigan? It's a a system that, if I understand correctly, meets the positive train control guidelines already.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 13, 2013)

Very interesting news and thanks for sharing.

I realize that we're still years away from seeing much action on this front, but can you imagine if "Amtrak Joe" were atop the Executive branch four years from now? I'm not sure if the man is half genius or half crazy (or both) but If such an outcome were possible it would seem to be good timing for heralding some sort of passenger rail renaissance.


----------



## jis (Jan 13, 2013)

Steve4031 said:


> Wouldn't it be cheaper to install ACSES in Illinois and Michigan? It's a a system that, if I understand correctly, meets the positive train control guidelines already.


Eventually a convergence of that sort might happen given the modifications that are being made to ACSES to allow standard US PTC equipped locomotives to operate seamlessly on ACSES equipped tracks. But since ACSES depends on CTC providing train position and integrity information, it would likely prove to be more expensive to install on tracks that are not already CTC equipped. That is the reason given by freight railroads to opt for GPS based train location and as it turns out rather incomplete train integrity regimes. The GPS bit is what apparently caused the development of ITCS. The other thing that ACSES really does not handle as well as ITCS does is grade crossings apparently.

Bottom line, given what the starting points were it made sense to develop something like ITCS for tracks that just want to go up to 110mph with relatively light control infrastructure.


----------



## MattW (Jan 14, 2013)

I'm curious now. Wouldn't the majority of the lines, where PTC would be mandated (passenger density, hazmat route, etc.) most likely already have CTC? Was CTC in place on the current ITCS routes before they were upgraded to ITCS (Illinois HSR, Michigan routes), or was ITCS in these places, a completely new system installed on/after something like ABS with track warrant, or dark territory?


----------



## Steve4031 (Jan 14, 2013)

Ok. I understand better now. The NEC has additional infrastructure to support the signaling system. The GPS bases system does not require the same infrastructure. However, the software kinks and computer kinks need to be ironed out. Thx.


----------



## jis (Jan 14, 2013)

MattW said:


> I'm curious now. Wouldn't the majority of the lines, where PTC would be mandated (passenger density, hazmat route, etc.) most likely already have CTC? Was CTC in place on the current ITCS routes before they were upgraded to ITCS (Illinois HSR, Michigan routes), or was ITCS in these places, a completely new system installed on/after something like ABS with track warrant, or dark territory?


Many of the routes do have the other CTC (Centralized Traffic Control) which does not necessarily require continuous track circuit, though again some do have it.

The other well kept secret seems to be that way more of the existing trackage than one is led to believe actually has the necessary Coded Track Circuits still mostly in place that could support a cab signaling system, and at many places they are used as such (e.g. RF&P between Washington DC and Richmond VA.

Many of them, have TC (Track Circuit) at least in the vicinity of the control points. Fewer have CTC (Coded Track Circuit). There is a lot of ABS systems that do not have continuous track circuit. That is where the GPS thing becomes important. And then one surmises that if you have to go through the pain of doing GPS, might as well just use it for everything. But it is not clear that GPS based systems work the best for truly high speed systems. etc. etc.


----------



## afigg (Jan 14, 2013)

jis said:


> I would be beyond astonished if any RFP goes out in 2013. I doubt that an RFP will go out before the issue of FRA rulemaking regarding mixed operation of Tier II and Tier III is way far along, and that won't be 2013 from what I hear. OTOH, it makes a lot of sense to get the RFI going so that potential vendors can be included in the discussion regarding rulemaking for things like mixed Tier II and Tier III operations.
> 
> Like Nathanael I see very little issue with installing ACSES in the NEC sets. The interesting thing will be whether the NEC sets will have any ETCS/ERTMS gear in them at all, since that would be a bunch of useless electronics which does not come for free or cheap.


Yes, I agree it has to be unlikely that a RFP goes out by the end of 2013. Amtrak has to define the specs, figure out the financing of the order, and the FRA has to modify the rules. Then there is the CHSRA. They have 1000s of pages of EIS, ROW analysis, studies, system specifications documents, but are they that close to being able to write detailed specifications for the CA HSR trainsets?

As for the signal systems, I don't see why that would be a problem. When Boeing sells airliners, they are not selling the same 737-x00 configuration to all the airlines. The airlines order the planes with different avionic configuration: different radios, data link gear, radar gear. For the big airliners, different engines too. If Amtrak and CHSRA - and maybe even Xpress West - place a joint order, the trainsets will be sold in at least 2 configurations.

For a possible joint order, there are far more fundamental questions. Amtrak needs 25 and 60 Hz capability, CHSRA will need only 60 Hz 25 kV capability. Ok, maybe different transformer designs between the 2 types? Amtrak needs high level cars for 48" high platforms. What are the platform heights for the CHSRA system? Will the CHSRA trainsets need more powerful A/C systems to deal with the desert climate? Need more power to deal with long steep grades on the planned CA HSR routes than are encountered on the NEC? Tilt or non-tilt designs? So many fundamental issues and specs to settle.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Jan 14, 2013)

I wonder who Mr. Boardman hopes will run the CAHSR system? This certainly would put Amtrak in a position to stay abreast with HSR technology, while having them work closely with CA in bringing the tehnology to the US.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 14, 2013)

Though it's mostly been said above:

1) It might be cheaper for Amtrak to piggyback on a joint order with CAHSR (and potentially DX/XW, as well as anyone else who comes along) for 220 MPH equipment than to spring for 160 MPH equipment on their own. Even if they're "paying" for extra capacity, there's a decent chance that is offset by savings in a bulk order. Relatively minor differences between the sets won't be the end of the world.

2) Likewise, if CAHSR puts down 220 MPH specs for the equipment, that will save Amtrak from having to reorder equipment if any parts of the longer-term NEC plans start happening over the next 25-30 years (even if it is in spurts, this could allow some "leapfrogging" of track speeds if/when new tracks go in somewhere; I can easily see, depending on operating restrictions and whatnot, extra trackage and/or new bridges with additional tracks along the racetrack in northern MD popping speeds straight from 135 MPH to 220 MPH under the right conditions).

Edit: Just a note, but I think Amtrak will probably cap their speeds out at 180-190 MPH in the end for the same reason that DX/XW is looking at doing the same: Energy consumption versus time savings issues. Doesn't mean that they might not run a few surcharged trains/high bucket-locked frequencies at peak speed at peak hours (i.e. 5:00 super-express at 220 MPH and a 5:05 express at 180 MPH), but I'm not sure if the ridership gains at 220 MPH will offset the fuel consumption issues that have come up over the years.


----------

