# Illinois to lead 110mph Diesel procurement



## jis

> The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has selected Illinois to lead a multi-state procurement of next-generation locomotives for high-speed rail service, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn announced yesterday.
> With consent from partnering states, the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) will lead the effort to procure at least 35 next-generation diesel locomotives for high-speed passenger trains on behalf of the states of Illinois, California, Michigan, Missouri and Washington, Quinn administration officials said in a prepared statement.
> 
> "This important multi-state procurement is key to success for high-speed rail throughout the nation, and I have directed my administration to move forward quickly," said Quinn.


You can see the whole article here


----------



## afigg

Does this news belong in the HSR forum? This news is about the procurement of 35 diesel locomotives that will be used on Amtrak corridor services in the Mid-west and CA which will be capable of 125 mph operation. Although there will be few, if any, tracks they can run above 110 mph. I guess on the CA HSR tracks in the valley before electrification and, if Amtrak procures some of their own units, on the NEC on occasion.

The next gen diesel order of 35 units should also be just the first batch as Amtrak is presumably planning to follow-up the initial order with a large order for the P-42 replacements, possibly with some configuration changes.


----------



## Blackwolf

I will be curiously watching, as will others undoubtedly, to see which locomotive builders step up to offer bids.

General Electric with a new model Genesis?

GM/EMD with an updated F-59PHI?

MPI with an upgraded MP40 capable of 125mph?

Alstrom with the PL42DC, again upgraded to 125mph?

Going to be interesting to see the result. 

And I agree with afigg. This should go back to the main forum as it is not truly a HSR topic; 110mph trackage is not HSR but just high_er_ speed conventional rail. And it opens the door for Amtrak to have a viable builder in place for the replacement of the current P40/2 fleet which has to begin sometime before the close of this decade.


----------



## leemell

Well, is it 110 mph or 125 mph?


----------



## rrdude

leemell said:


> Well, is it 110 mph or 125 mph?


IMHO, very negligble difference, when it comes to schedules in midwest


----------



## Blackwolf

leemell said:


> Well, is it 110 mph or 125 mph?


The routes in the midwest are 110mph _right now_, but having 125mph capable locomotives would be a very good idea considering that here in California the San Joaquin's would potentially be running the new CAHSR rails in a few years where that speed would be attainable.


----------



## JayPea

Split the difference: 117.5 MPH. :lol:


----------



## AlanB

What an interesting development, seeing as how Amtrak has had a team working on the specs for the next generation of loco's to replace the P42's for close to 2 years now. Seems it would make sense to put them in charge, since they've already done much of the homework.


----------



## battalion51

I really would hope that Illinois will follow the model of the ACS-64 and bring the right people around the table for these designs. Get Amtrak, the BLET, the Mechanical folks, environmental groups, and others in the room so that the design is something that everyone can live with. You want all these parties involved, because there are some serious design flaws (like sight lines, equipment access, poor layout, etc.) in existing fleets. If the manufacturers are smart they'll make it fit the same profile as the P-42 in the sense that it can theoretically fit through tunnels in New York and Baltimore. This design could very well end up being the key to an order for 200+ more when Amtrak goes to replace the P-42/P-32 AC-DM fleet.


----------



## PRR 60

battalion51 said:


> I really would hope that Illinois will follow the model of the ACS-64 and bring the right people around the table for these designs. Get Amtrak, the BLET, the Mechanical folks, environmental groups, and others in the room so that the design is something that everyone can live with. You want all these parties involved, because there are some serious design flaws (like sight lines, equipment access, poor layout, etc.) in existing fleets. If the manufacturers are smart they'll make it fit the same profile as the P-42 in the sense that it can theoretically fit through tunnels in New York and Baltimore. This design could very well end up being the key to an order for 200+ more when Amtrak goes to replace the P-42/P-32 AC-DM fleet.


The specification is complete and ready to go. Amtrak led development of the spec, but the purchase is being led by the states, with Illinois DOT as the lead agency. Like the bi-level car order, these locomotives will be owned by the states with use limited to the state-funded routes.


----------



## Nathanael

Hmm. I've been trying to figure out what effect this will have on locomotive allocation, and I can't.

I would assume that this would free up Amtrak-owned locomotives of some sort for Amtrak to use on other trains. But I can't figure out exactly what will be replaced... California currently uses 15 F59PHI owned by Amtrak and 15 F59PHI owned by California, while Cascades uses 6 owned by Amtrak-- this comes to 36. An order of "at least 35" locomotives won't even replace these, but the order is shared with Illinois, Missouri and Michigan. Chicago is running 14 recently refurbished P40s as well as lots of P42s. And then there's a reserve power fleet of 15 P32-8s in various places, and indications are that Amtrak wishes to retire them.

Amtrak is close to needing a new road diesel fleet, based on Amtrak's commercial-lifetime estimate of 20 years for diesel locomotives. But reading this specification, this design probably won't be useable as a replacement for the P42. The maximum requirement in the specification is for 2 locomotives to haul 8 bilevels, or for 1 locomotive to haul 4, and for less HEP than the P42s put out. So it won't be suitable for hauling the long-distance trains with long consists; I expect Amtrak will have to put out a different specification when it needs to replace the P42s for long hauls. Unless the chosen design puts out more power than required by spec, of course.

Some of the Amtrak documents I've read indicate that replacing the extremely motley switcher and MoW fleets is a higher priority for Amtrak than replacing its road diesels. This makes sense; 24 of the 36 switchers date from before Amtrak, and come from

We may still hope that Amtrak will "tag on" to the state 110mph diesel order and buy some for itself, but I wouldn't expect it to buy many, as their only uses would be to haul diesel runs with relatively short trains which are outside the purchasing states. This is a fairly short list of train services, and Amtrak will probably have some F59PHI available to shift to them. NC is using its own F59PHs, so Amtrak will still have to deal with maintaining that class anyway.


----------



## Blackwolf

Nathanael said:


> The maximum requirement in the specification is for 2 locomotives to haul 8 bilevels, or for 1 locomotive to haul 4, and for less HEP than the P42s put out. So it won't be suitable for hauling the long-distance trains with long consists; I expect Amtrak will have to put out a different specification when it needs to replace the P42s for long hauls. Unless the chosen design puts out more power than required.


This my uneducated and non-professional opinion, but _two full-sized locomotives for 8 140,000 lb. cars???_ That is such a ridiculously archaic overburden of misplaced and underrated power that it borders on offensive. You might as well have a gen-set locomotive for this purpose, because you certainly don't want the 3000+ horsepower any off-the-shelf modern locomotive no matter the manufacturer puts out to move such a pittance of a consist. Especially on just about any corridor route which is essentially flat as a flapjack across the board. If three SD70's can haul a mile-long loaded freight train, a tiny and comparatively weightless passenger train is ridiculously overpowered with just one locomotive when talking apples-to-apples.

I think any locomotive ordered for the states could do the job, and then some, of a main road diesel for Amtrak's national fleet.


----------



## jis

Well, two diesel powerheads for 8 car corridor passenger train operating at 125mph is pretty much the norm for such operations elsewhere, where such things actually already operate. So I don't understand this reaction and criticism. Of course everyone should have the right to feel offended no matter what too  Actually the trend is more towards distributed power DEMUs these days, but that is one generation too far for the US apparently. About 8k to 12k HP is par for the course for 8 cars.

What can be done on freight trains has about zero relevance to a high accelaration and high sustained speed passenger operation. Amtrak LD train accelaration is abysmal, and should hardly be used as a model for how to operate a corridor passenger service.

As PRR points out above, the locomotives are based on "PRIIA SPECIFICATION No. 305-005, AMTRAK SPECIFICATION No. 982". That is the spec that will be used for both this corridor order and for future Amtrak Road Diesel order. There may be minor variations in detail, but the core design will be as specified in this document.


----------



## battalion51

The switchers would definitely be the higher priority if the DASH 8's are going to go away. SFA and MIA both use DASH 8s for their switcher, and I'm sure there are other locations where the same is true. If you're going to take the DASH 8s away you have to have some sort of viable alternative available to them that has footboards, a P-42 as a switcher is a horrible idea. The DASH 8 isn't the greatest switcher ever, but it is definitely functional as one, and is good to have in case of a road power emergency.


----------



## George Harris

Blackwolf said:


> This my uneducated and non-professional opinion, but _two full-sized locomotives for 8 140,000 lb. cars???_ That is such a ridiculously archaic overburden of misplaced and underrated power that it borders on offensive. You might as well have a gen-set locomotive for this purpose, because you certainly don't want the 3000+ horsepower any off-the-shelf modern locomotive no matter the manufacturer puts out to move such a pittance of a consist. Especially on just about any corridor route which is essentially flat as a flapjack across the board. If three SD70's can haul a mile-long loaded freight train, a tiny and comparatively weightless passenger train is ridiculously overpowered with just one locomotive when talking apples-to-apples.


The issue is acceleration and maximum speed. The freight train will accelerate very slowly. There is a lot more to it than this, but suffice to say that the high speed train sets have a much higher power to weight ratio than this two units per eight cars gives you, not because they just want to but because it is necessary.

What is the horsepower of your car?


----------



## cirdan

battalion51 said:


> I really would hope that Illinois will follow the model of the ACS-64 and bring the right people around the table for these designs. Get Amtrak, the BLET, the Mechanical folks, environmental groups, and others in the room so that the design is something that everyone can live with. You want all these parties involved, because there are some serious design flaws (like sight lines, equipment access, poor layout, etc.) in existing fleets. If the manufacturers are smart they'll make it fit the same profile as the P-42 in the sense that it can theoretically fit through tunnels in New York and Baltimore. This design could very well end up being the key to an order for 200+ more when Amtrak goes to replace the P-42/P-32 AC-DM fleet.


though on the other hand, you know what happens when you do design by committee ....


----------



## Paulus

Blackwolf said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> 
> The maximum requirement in the specification is for 2 locomotives to haul 8 bilevels, or for 1 locomotive to haul 4, and for less HEP than the P42s put out. So it won't be suitable for hauling the long-distance trains with long consists; I expect Amtrak will have to put out a different specification when it needs to replace the P42s for long hauls. Unless the chosen design puts out more power than required.
> 
> 
> 
> This my uneducated and non-professional opinion, but _two full-sized locomotives for 8 140,000 lb. cars???_ That is such a ridiculously archaic overburden of misplaced and underrated power that it borders on offensive. You might as well have a gen-set locomotive for this purpose, because you certainly don't want the 3000+ horsepower any off-the-shelf modern locomotive no matter the manufacturer puts out to move such a pittance of a consist. Especially on just about any corridor route which is essentially flat as a flapjack across the board. If three SD70's can haul a mile-long loaded freight train, a tiny and comparatively weightless passenger train is ridiculously overpowered with just one locomotive when talking apples-to-apples.
Click to expand...

Using the EMD F125 as a representative example, it's only 11.19hp/ton or 8.33kW/ton (including locomotive weight) with both locomotives. Compare to a BR Class 220 Voyager with 14.66hp/ton or a six-car Stadler FLIRT 3 with 10.15kW/ton. Or, for that matter, an ACS-64 or AEM-7 hauling 12 Amfleets or Acela with 14.74kW/ton. It is rather better than say a Surfliner with 5.2 hp/ton, but it's not that high. Acceleration will probably be fairly poor even with two of them on eight coaches.


----------



## DET63

afigg said:


> Does this news belong in the HSR forum? This news is about the procurement of 35 diesel locomotives that will be used on Amtrak corridor services in the Mid-west and CA which will be capable of 125 mph operation. Although there will be few, if any, tracks they can run above 110 mph. I guess on the CA HSR tracks in the valley before electrification and, if Amtrak procures some of their own units, on the NEC on occasion.


It's as close to HSR as anyone here is likely to see in that neck of the woods in their lifetimes.


----------



## steveiez

The next generation does not have to be the fastest ever, just the most dependable, Its like the freight railroads keeping SD-40's and GP- 38's around....then run when asked!

On two occasions, I have been rescued by a set of 40's on the Pennsylvania and a SD-70 on the Texas Eagle


----------



## wendtsc

Who else thinks that of all the political options available, putting Illinois Democrats in charge of a 35 locomotive purchase using other states' money is the best one? Well, given the state of CalHSR, it was probably better than CA Democrats taking the lead. But while its possible IL Democrats could surprise us and actually be fiscally and ethically responsible and we actually have a openly-bid contract where the best product is delivered on time and under budget, I would say chances are well under 50/50 of there being no Chicago-style "funny business." Given the latest revelations from Springfield and Metra, I doubt it. In fact, I know I am not alone in seeing the obivous. Illinois is in charge because a Chicago politician is in the White House.

Sadly, I think we missed an opportunity when we allowed all the money, time and effort (half of it government money) to develop Bombardier's JetTrain go to waste. The prototype produced the acceleration, HP and more than enough speed to fulfill state corridor requirements. Because its turbine only weighed 800 pounds compared to 22,000 pounds for the comparably powered diesel prime mover and the use of Acela frame and body design, the locomotive weighed 60,000 pounds less than an F40PH, but still met FRA crash requirements. And because it was essentially a variation of genset design using a low power diesel for low speed and idle and only using the high power turbine at track speeds, it achieved better fuel economy, lower noise levels and 30% fewer emissions than current locomotive designs. Since it shared many components with the Acela, widespread use could have increased economies of scale maintenance costs for the Acela which is now essentially orphaned technology. Although not a lot is known about what long term maintenance might have been for the universal transmission, the turbine technology is well understood and often simpler to maintain than many conventional diesel-electric designs.

The prototype had already gone through extensive testing at Pueblo and thus Bombardier had (has?) a "production-ready" off-the-shelf model capable of speeds up to 125 on conventional track without electrification. Furthermore, Acela/LRC coach designs simplified to a more economical non-NEC design use could have served as a template for a large car fleet that could have supplied state corridors across the country. This combination of Acela/LRC tilt trains and a lightweight highspeed locomotive would have resulted in trainsets capable of regular speeds up to 125 on special corridors or 110 over most present corridors without major trackwork. Production could have been started 4 years ago if instead of dumping billions into a couple of 10 mile sections of 110mph track and more "shovel ready" CalHSR studies and litigation, they spent a couple hundred million on new "shovel ready" off the shelf equipment. We could all be riding in new Acela-style trains right now if the President and the 2009 Congress had given the money to Amtrak for new equipment instead of trying to buy state elections with projects that to date have generally failed miserably.


----------



## wendtsc

wendtsc said:


> Who else thinks that of all the political options available, putting Illinois Democrats in charge of a 35 locomotive purchase using other states' money is the best one? Well, given the state of CalHSR, it was probably better than CA Democrats taking the lead. But while its possible IL Democrats could surprise us and actually be fiscally and ethically responsible and we actually have a openly-bid contract where the best product is delivered on time and under budget, I would say chances are well under 50/50 of there being no Chicago-style "funny business." Given the latest revelations from Springfield and Metra, I doubt it. In fact, I know I am not alone in seeing the obivous. Illinois is in charge because a Chicago politician is in the White House...
> 
> ...Production could have been started 4 years ago if instead of dumping billions into a couple of 10 mile sections of 110mph track and more "shovel ready" CalHSR studies and litigation, they spent a couple hundred million on new "shovel ready" off the shelf equipment. We could all be riding in new Acela-style trains right now if the President and the 2009 Congress had given the money to Amtrak for new equipment instead of trying to buy state elections with projects that to date have generally failed miserably.


Apologies to the Moderator for the political overtones of this post. My intentions are not to stir up any political bickering. Well, maybe just a little jab to my family in Illinois. In defense of my comments, no matter which side of the fence one sits, I think we can all agree that just about every decision about Passenger rail in the US is made mostly on its ability to buy votes and line pockets. One side buy votes by blocking everything on rails, the other by promising new trains. However, we have all begun to see that often those who we think are for new rail projects are really only for them if allies get to make all the decisions and supporters get the contracts. And on the flip side, often those we think are the worst enemy of passenger rail can turn out to be an ally when a project or service is shown to operate efficiently, underbudget, makes financial sense and is PROVEN to be beneficial to businesses and communities alike. There are many conservatives who support HSR like the NEC, state corridors and even some LD routes just as there are those Democrats who oppose wasting money on trains like the Sunset Limited or giving government grants to private freight railroads for increased capacity that would allow passenger service on new routes.

The unfortunate truth is that as long as we continue to rely solely on government to provide all the answers for passenger travel in this country, rail travel and its supporters will always be use as political pawns, its existence will always be "at the king's pleasure", we will only get the equipment and routes that promise the most contributions to campaign warchests, and there will always be strings attached.


----------



## jis

Acela and light weight in the same sentence is a bit of an oxymoron.

I think the whole JetTrain project was a prime example of a government funded boondoggle, which shouldn't have been funded in the first place. It was just a way for FRA to show that they are doing something, in an area that they know little about, something that they have finally fessed upto, in considering the Tier III standards. There have been light weight diesel trains operating at 125mph elsewhere in the world since the 70s. The utter ignorance among the Americans about what goes on in the rest of the world actually enables this kind of nonsense to go on over and over again in the US. It is actually a good thing that the JetTrain project has been put to rest for good, with Bombardier a little enriched at the expense of the taxpayers in the process. Is it a surprise that Bombardier's premier passenger equipment manufacturers in Europe just looked on with amusement and then ignored the whole thing?

In the last decade and a half there have been and are light weight DMUs running around in several places in the world at 125mph. But of course that is Not Invented Here, so we have to go and **** away some more money in reinventing something.

As for Acelas, even Amtrak has come to the conclusion that this technology has no future since first of all by the time it was introduced it was already somewhat legacy. They have pretty much said openly that the next gen will be a very different thing based on different standards and a lighter weight.


----------



## MikefromCrete

wendtsc said:


> wendtsc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who else thinks that of all the political options available, putting Illinois Democrats in charge of a 35 locomotive purchase using other states' money is the best one? Well, given the state of CalHSR, it was probably better than CA Democrats taking the lead. But while its possible IL Democrats could surprise us and actually be fiscally and ethically responsible and we actually have a openly-bid contract where the best product is delivered on time and under budget, I would say chances are well under 50/50 of there being no Chicago-style "funny business." Given the latest revelations from Springfield and Metra, I doubt it. In fact, I know I am not alone in seeing the obivous. Illinois is in charge because a Chicago politician is in the White House...
> 
> ...Production could have been started 4 years ago if instead of dumping billions into a couple of 10 mile sections of 110mph track and more "shovel ready" CalHSR studies and litigation, they spent a couple hundred million on new "shovel ready" off the shelf equipment. We could all be riding in new Acela-style trains right now if the President and the 2009 Congress had given the money to Amtrak for new equipment instead of trying to buy state elections with projects that to date have generally failed miserably.
> 
> 
> 
> Apologies to the Moderator for the political overtones of this post. My intentions are not to stir up any political bickering. Well, maybe just a little jab to my family in Illinois. In defense of my comments, no matter which side of the fence one sits, I think we can all agree that just about every decision about Passenger rail in the US is made mostly on its ability to buy votes and line pockets. One side buy votes by blocking everything on rails, the other by promising new trains. However, we have all begun to see that often those who we think are for new rail projects are really only for them if allies get to make all the decisions and supporters get the contracts. And on the flip side, often those we think are the worst enemy of passenger rail can turn out to be an ally when a project or service is shown to operate efficiently, underbudget, makes financial sense and is PROVEN to be beneficial to businesses and communities alike. There are many conservatives who support HSR like the NEC, state corridors and even some LD routes just as there are those Democrats who oppose wasting money on trains like the Sunset Limited or giving government grants to private freight railroads for increased capacity that would allow passenger service on new routes.
> 
> The unfortunate truth is that as long as we continue to rely solely on government to provide all the answers for passenger travel in this country, rail travel and its supporters will always be use as political pawns, its existence will always be "at the king's pleasure", we will only get the equipment and routes that promise the most contributions to campaign warchests, and there will always be strings attached.
Click to expand...

If you want the government out of it, you can always raise a bunch of cash yourself and launch your own railroad projects.


----------



## battalion51

Politics can get involved in just about any deal, regardless of party affiliation. Classic example in Florida: the purchase for SunRail's locomotive fleet is a group of rebuilt locomotives that are loosely based on the MP-40 design. For the passenger cars they went with the tried and true Bombardier Bi-Level coach fleet. Meanwhile at Tri-Rail the purchase decision for locomotives was a brand new Brookville design and they purchased Hyundai Rotem Bi-Levels. So even though you have two projects in the same state, under the same Republican leadership, they didn't use the purchasing power of FDOT as a whole and go with one group for locomotives and one group for cars, they went in opposite directions. Purchasing power goes a long way, one large order will yield the taxpayers a much smaller price tag than two small orders.


----------



## Nathanael

MikefromCrete said:


> If you want the government out of it, you can always raise a bunch of cash yourself and launch your own railroad projects.


Personally, I know *exactly* what I'm going to do if I get a billion dollars.  (Which is unlikely, but a remote possibility.) My home town needs its train service back, which requires rebuilding tracks and re-acquiring ROW...


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

I hope the contract is granted to EMD for a nice new F59PHI capable of running 125 mph. I'm thinking at least 4,500 hoursepower per unit, up to 5,000, tractive effort of around 75,000 pounds starting, 43,000 continuous.

I like the Genesis, but I would like to see a good old EMD in nationwide LD service again.


----------



## wendtsc

jis said:


> Acela and light weight in the same sentence is a bit of an oxymoron.
> I think the whole JetTrain project was a prime example of a government funded boondoggle, which shouldn't have been funded in the first place. It was just a way for FRA to show that they are doing something, in an area that they know little about, something that they have finally fessed upto, in considering the Tier III standards. There have been light weight diesel trains operating at 125mph elsewhere in the world since the 70s. The utter ignorance among the Americans about what goes on in the rest of the world actually enables this kind of nonsense to go on over and over again in the US. It is actually a good thing that the JetTrain project has been put to rest for good, with Bombardier a little enriched at the expense of the taxpayers in the process. Is it a surprise that Bombardier's premier passenger equipment manufacturers in Europe just looked on with amusement and then ignored the whole thing?
> 
> In the last decade and a half there have been and are light weight DMUs running around in several places in the world at 125mph. But of course that is Not Invented Here, so we have to go and **** away some more money in reinventing something.
> 
> As for Acelas, even Amtrak has come to the conclusion that this technology has no future since first of all by the time it was introduced it was already somewhat legacy. They have pretty much said openly that the next gen will be a very different thing based on different standards and a lighter weight.


Actually, Bombardier paid for half of the development cost so they lost just as much money as taxpayers did.

BTW, I lived in Europe for 5 years before moving to Korea where i have lived since 2008! I do not own a car and I ride Korail (KTX) to work every day so assuming I am some dumb American who has no idea what is going on with train travel in the rest of the world is a huge mistake on your part. I have also worked with turbine technology and can tell you that the JetTrain concept was quite sound. So much so that it is still being considered here in Asia AS A REPLACEMENT FOR DMUs!!! I can tell you from my daily experinece that while its true there are DMUs running at 125, most wouldn't come close to meeting US Tier III standards. Furthermore, to dismiss FRA requirements for safety as outdated because they require heavy trains than the Europeans or Asian countries demonstrates a lack of knowledge of current US railroad operations and the history of rail safety in the rest of the world.

To put it as simply as possible, FRA requirements require heavier passenger trains because they share tracks with heavier freight trains. If you have a contest on a one lane road between a 1972 Mack Truck and a 2013 VW Bug, the Mack truck will win every time.

And as far as the rest of the world is concerned...

First, in almost every case ALL their trains are lighter and smaller, so unless you are advocating moving vast amounts of freight off American railroads and onto higways to make American freight train an equal risk to everyone elses freight trains, you cannot compare the US with the rest of the world, period.

Second, the rest of the world has chosen to push people more toward trains and away from private transportation (cars). In order to do this they have sacrificed freight capacity and citizens who use public transit have had to sacrifice convenience of setting their own schedule. I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I LIVE THIS! In the US, we have chosen to maximize our railroads for freight, freeing up space on highways for virtually everyone to be able to chose to use private transit (cars) whenever they want regardless of schedules. The American model is based on freedom for the individual and letting freight worry about waiting for a train!

And thirdly, European and Asian Standards have actually started to move in the direction of the standards followed by the FRA. China, Korea and Japan have all conceded that to maintain current safety with new lighter trains, they have tosacrifice speed. That is why the focus in Asia has been on increasing power rather than cutting weight. In fact, each version of the KTX has been getting progressively heavier in order to allow for greater structural strength to allow faster speeds! This clearly shows recognition that the FRA's reliance on brute physics over flowery engineering is the right path.


----------



## Bus Nut

battalion51 said:


> Politics can get involved in just about any deal, regardless of party affiliation. Classic example in Florida: the purchase for SunRail's locomotive fleet is a group of rebuilt locomotives that are loosely based on the MP-40 design. For the passenger cars they went with the tried and true Bombardier Bi-Level coach fleet. Meanwhile at Tri-Rail the purchase decision for locomotives was a brand new Brookville design and they purchased Hyundai Rotem Bi-Levels. So even though you have two projects in the same state, under the same Republican leadership, they didn't use the purchasing power of FDOT as a whole and go with one group for locomotives and one group for cars, they went in opposite directions. Purchasing power goes a long way, one large order will yield the taxpayers a much smaller price tag than two small orders.


Florida's state government is pretty stripped down. Both projects rely on regional power bases and unless All Aboard Florida comes to pass, the projects are not geographically connected in any meaningful way. (I mean, you could take the turnpike...)

Besides, both projects are rather small. Believe or not, FDOT does use mass purchasing quite a bit. This will only be the 2nd commuter rail in the state. TriRail has nine lives, as it has been threatened with obliteration multiple times now. SunRail will take traffic off I-4, hence DOT pushing back work on this highway until the day SunRail opens, while TriRail is parallel the awful I-95.

Florida is very, very behind when it comes to intercity transit, no doubt about it. I had to school a coach operator the other day who thought that his trade association had "killed" intercity rail and this was for the best--I told him that not only were there more coach jobs up north, the companies actually made money, because more transpo options meant more people leaving cars at home or not buying that 2nd or 3rd one. Instead of running to compete with rail they would run times the railroad didn't and feed stations from outlying areas. He eventually agreed with me, remarking how many times his company got calls from travelers from Up North asking about intercity and intermodal transit only to find out that it's practically non-existent.


----------



## Bus Nut

wendtsc said:


> Second, the rest of the world has chosen to push people more toward trains and away from private transportation (cars). In order to do this they have sacrificed freight capacity and citizens who use public transit have had to sacrifice convenience of setting their own schedule. I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I LIVE THIS! In the US, we have chosen to maximize our railroads for freight, freeing up space on highways for virtually everyone to be able to chose to use private transit (cars) whenever they want regardless of schedules. The American model is based on freedom for the individual and letting freight worry about waiting for a train!


I feel really free having to drive all those hours unpaid, or having my choice of spotty & sketchy bus connections with no guarantee of a seat or a mandatory irradiation and turbulence nausea ride just b/c a friend got married or I want to see my cousins.

The US has the land to expand HSR and conventional rail. It just lacks the will. Better to spend $1000/passenger on air taxi rides through EAS. USA! USA!

I wonder what severely disabled people do--end up housebound? No ground transportation for you!

Actually, huge # of US elderly are already housebound, so one shouldn't joke about it.


----------

