# RFP released for 35 Next Gen Locomotives



## afigg

The FRA has announced that the RFPs for the 35 Next Gen diesel locomotives for the CA, IL, MI, MO state corridors has been issued. Press release: Federal Railroad Administration Announces Multistate Request for Proposals for Next-Generation Passenger Rail Locomotives. It has taken a while to get the specs completed and the RFP out. These are being paid for, at least in part, by the $8 billion is HSR stimulus funding which has to be spent by September 30, 2017 so there is a deadline to get the locomotives built and delivered. Not a wide variety of vendors to choose from for US built diesel locos, so the FRA must have some confidence that the deadline can be met.

Text of the press release:



> WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) today announced that U.S. manufacturers are being invited to submit bids to produce high-performance, next-generation diesel-electric locomotives.“When we make smart investments in rail, we are investing in America,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “Our Buy America provisions ensure that the major components of these locomotives will be built with American hands and with American produced steel, iron and manufactured goods.”
> 
> The Request for Proposals (RFP) to manufacture approximately 35 new diesel-electric locomotives in America comes from a groundbreaking multi-state effort to jointly purchase standardized rail equipment to be used on state corridor routes in Illinois, Michigan, Missouri and Iowa in the Midwest and Washington, California, and Oregon on the West Coast. The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) is leading the multi-state locomotive procurement, with first deliveries expected in 2016. The FRA has allocated $808 million to manufacture the next generation of passenger rail equipment including the 35 new locomotives and 130 bi-level rail cars.
> 
> The engines will be built to standardized technical specifications developed by the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) Section 305 Next Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee and will comply with the latest Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emission standards.
> 
> The new uniform standards will drive down costs and allow more manufacturers and suppliers to compete, fostering a healthy competition while re-establishing the U.S. domestic supply chain for passenger rail equipment.
> 
> The intent to purchase 35 new locomotives comes as intercity passenger rail ridership continues to post and exceed ridership records. Last year, Amtrak carried more than 31.2 million passengers, marking the highest annual ridership total since they started operations in 1971, and the ninth ridership record during the last ten years. The state corridor routes where these new locomotives will be deployed are among those services with the highest ridership growth.
> 
> “We’re taking historic steps to build the rail system our economy needs and – more importantly – that Americans deserve, all while creating American jobs,” said Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph C. Szabo. “The need for new rail equipment has never been greater and the more than 750 railroad suppliers located in the United States are up to the job.”
> 
> Selection of the manufacturer will occur in early 2014. Delivery of the locomotives is planned for 2016. A copy of the RFP can be found here.


----------



## Guest

Is there is anywhere one can still buy American produced steel?

The biggies like Bethlehem Steel are long gone. Even the one smaller local steel mill near me, closed just after the President stopped by to showcase it.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha

Guest said:


> Is there is anywhere one can still buy American produced steel?
> The biggies like Bethlehem Steel are long gone. Even the one smaller local steel mill near me, closed just after the President stopped by to showcase it.


What about the USS Gary Works? It is a very dominating and fascinating sight from the trains that pass it. However I do not know if steel is actually still manufactured there.


----------



## jis

Guest said:


> Is there is anywhere one can still buy American produced steel?
> The biggies like Bethlehem Steel are long gone. Even the one smaller local steel mill near me, closed just after the President stopped by to showcase it.


Contrary to popular belief we do produce quite a bit of raw steel in the US. Weekly production of almost 2 million tons...
See http://www.steel.org/About%20AISI/Statistics.aspx


----------



## xyzzy

According to Wikipedia, 5.7% of the world's production of steel in 2012 was in the U.S.

Incidentally, the region of the U.S. that produces the most steel is the South. "Production for the week ending August 3, 2013 in thousands of net tons: North East: 208; Great Lakes: 670; Midwest: 229; Southern: 694 and Western: 87." Not all steel plants in the U.S. are old; ThyssenKrupp built a new plant near Mobile, Ala. at a cost of over $4 billion that opened in 2010.


----------



## Guest

xyzzy said:


> According to Wikipedia, 5.7% of the world's production of steel in 2012 was in the U.S.


5.7% seems to be shamefully little.


----------



## BCL

Guest said:


> Is there is anywhere one can still buy American produced steel?
> The biggies like Bethlehem Steel are long gone. Even the one smaller local steel mill near me, closed just after the President stopped by to showcase it.


US Steel is still in business. Kind of a shadow of its former self, but still in business and producing in the US.

As a kid I remember a prominent steel plant on the ride home in Emeryville, California. Judson Steel used to have this huge building that typically had its door open. I could see sparks flying as molten steel was poured and the steel was rolled. The area is mostly shopping now - I think where the Ikea is now.



> http://www.ci.emeryville.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=663
> The North Bayfront area and Powell Street Plaza had been redeveloped in the 1980s, but most of the Bayfront area south of Powell Street remained in heavy industrial uses. The old Judson Iron Works plant (now owned by Birmingham Steel and called Barbary Coast Steel), which had been located across the tracks from the end of Park Avenue for over 100 years, closed in 1991 when operations were moved to Seattle.



Now I have talked to some railroad enthusiasts about steel. I was mentioning to someone at this miniature steam railway about the formerly operating steam locomotive (the old Granite Rock Co. No. 10) at the California Railroad Museum not being certified in its 10-year requirement. I was told that the firebox was trashed and they didn't have the funds to rebuild it at the time. The miniature steam railway guy was telling me that the quality of some of the "imported steel" just wasn't good and it didn't necessarily last. I'm not thinking that he was talking about the high quality Japanese or German steel, but likely the cheap imports from China or India.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Lots of Mexican and Korean Steel coming in also, but China is the wave of the Future! Even though Steel Jobs paid well not many Americans would want to work in a Steel Mill now a days! Terrible placesto work or live close to! (Gary, Indiana, Pittsburgh and Birmingham in the Old Days when Coal was King would be good examples of why!)


----------



## printman2000

Back to the RFP, I did see something in there talking about an *option *for a "Long Distance Configuration".


----------



## jis

I believe many of the facilities of erstwhile Bethlehem Steel are now operated by Arcelor Mittal Group, which is the largest Steel conglomerate in the world.


----------



## afigg

printman2000 said:


> Back to the RFP, I did see something in there talking about an *option *for a "Long Distance Configuration".


Amtrak had a lot of input to the Next Gen specifications and the RFPs. The winner of this particular contract is likely to win follow-on contracts for P42 replacements. Well, whenever Amtrak can get the money for rolling stock purchases from Congress.


----------



## BCL

afigg said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the RFP, I did see something in there talking about an *option *for a "Long Distance Configuration".
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak had a lot of input to the Next Gen specifications and the RFPs. The winner of this particular contract is likely to win follow-on contracts for P42 replacements. Well, whenever Amtrak can get the money for rolling stock purchases from Congress.
Click to expand...

Is there really that much of a difference other than maybe fuel tanks? I understand that a P42 barely has a bigger tank than maybe the F59PHIs used for regional or commuter routes.


----------



## SubwayNut

I believe the F59PHIs can't fit into the tunnels in New York City. Do the specifications require these locomotives to be small enough? I'm thinking about Amtrak piggy-backing a LD order and know they want locomotives that can fit up the NEC


----------



## BCL

SubwayNut said:


> I believe the F59PHIs can't fit into the tunnels in New York City. Do the specifications require these locomotives to be small enough? I'm thinking about Amtrak piggy-backing a LD order and know they want locomotives that can fit up the NEC


The Genesis is supposedly really short. I know when I see one (or two) pulling Superliners or California Cars, there's something just a little bit odd about it because it's just so much shorter. It's seems a bit unaerodynamic to have that vertical wall there sticking out, although I suppose that's nothing compared to one of these things reversed in push configuration.

Of course they tried doing something about it with the Amtrak Cascades F59PHIs to pull single-level cars. It always looked weird to me though with the baggage car with some sort of fairing.


----------



## afigg

Should have skimmed the RFP documents before posting about a possible "LD" version. The RFP document package is on the Illinois DOT website under Multi-State Locomotive Procurement. On the second page of the intro to the RFP, there is a table that states the RFP is for 32 base # of locomotives with options for 50 to 75 similar configuration locomotives and *125 to 150 Long-Distance Configuration locomotives. *

Under the table, it states: "The number of “Option Locomotives” shown in the table above are estimates of potential demand only and do not represent guaranteed future orders of option locomotives. Illinois, Washington, and California, as well as other public agencies and other entities, may place option orders for locomotives beyond the Base Order in the configurations listed above."

That is significant because it means that Amtrak will not have to go through a new RFP and bid process to buy P-42 replacements. Once the contract is in place, if I'm interpreting the summary correctly, and Congress in several years gives Amtrak funds to buy some rolling stock, Amtrak will be able to simply exercise part of the option and, say, buy 50 new locomotives in one batch with probably just a little haggling over the details and prices with the vendor. It also appears that if a state such as NC wanted to buy a few new passenger locomotives, they could do so via this contract.

As for the LD configuration, in Attachment EE, Appendix E states the difference is larger fuel capacity and 1000 kW HEP:



> Long Distance Optional Locomotives:• Technical Specification Sections 1.3, 1.4.5.1 and 17.2 increased to 2,200 Gallon minimum usable fuel capacity;
> • Technical Specification Sections 1.4.5.1 and 10.2 increased to 1000Kw minimum Head End Power output and transmission capacity (Systems for intelligent power load management within the train consist and temporary load-shed concepts during acceleration may be proposed by the Locomotive Builder as an approach to manage horsepower between tractive and HEP requirements and will be considered by the evaluators);
> • Common three color carbody paint scheme (with Black or silver under frame and trucks) and with graphics/logo variations by agency; and
> • Assume Point of Delivery at Amtrak yard Chicago, IL.


----------



## afigg

SubwayNut said:


> I believe the F59PHIs can't fit into the tunnels in New York City. Do the specifications require these locomotives to be small enough? I'm thinking about Amtrak piggy-backing a LD order and know they want locomotives that can fit up the NEC


The PRIIA specification for the Next Generation Diesel passenger locomotive states that it shall be "Compliant with Amtrak Clearance Diagram D-05-1355 (latest version)". Which appears to be the clearance diagram for national compatibility including the NEC and Hudson & East River tunnels.


----------



## battalion51

If you think about the drag "issue" though, it can't be that bad. Every western long distance train is going to experience that since you have the transition from the baggage car to the trans-dorm (except few one or two trains that don't run with a full baggage car). The low profile locomotive though is the way to go versus the F59PHI profile. I don't know that you could get a F59 in to places like New Haven, Philly, or Boston. That's definitely a major issue to consider. The other issue to consider is training for Engineers and Mechanical forces. Having one set of parts, knowledge, and expertise is definitely preferential. Its bad enough having two separate long distance car fleets, much less having two separate diesel fleets.


----------



## BCL

battalion51 said:


> If you think about the drag "issue" though, it can't be that bad. Every western long distance train is going to experience that since you have the transition from the baggage car to the trans-dorm (except few one or two trains that don't run with a full baggage car). The low profile locomotive though is the way to go versus the F59PHI profile. I don't know that you could get a F59 in to places like New Haven, Philly, or Boston. That's definitely a major issue to consider. The other issue to consider is training for Engineers and Mechanical forces. Having one set of parts, knowledge, and expertise is definitely preferential. Its bad enough having two separate long distance car fleets, much less having two separate diesel fleets.


I don't know if it's that big a deal. I've seen the Amtrak Oakland maintenance yard, and they already service at least three types of locomotives. They of course have the Genesis models (including some P40s), the F59PHIs for Amtrak California, and occasionally some Dash-8s.

On the East Coast they have maintenance yards that service both diesels and electrics. Amtrak has switchers that aren't the same as their passenger fleet. I think these are professional mechanics who learn how to fix almost anything.


----------



## sportbiker

afigg said:


> Long Distance Optional Locomotives:
> 
> • Technical Specification Sections 1.3, 1.4.5.1 and 17.2 increased to 2,200 Gallon minimum usable fuel capacity;
> 
> • Technical Specification Sections 1.4.5.1 and 10.2 increased to 1000Kw minimum Head End Power output and transmission capacity (Systems for intelligent power load management within the train consist and temporary load-shed concepts during acceleration may be proposed by the Locomotive Builder as an approach to manage horsepower between tractive and HEP requirements and will be considered by the evaluators);
> 
> • Common three color carbody paint scheme (with Black or silver under frame and trucks) and with graphics/logo variations by agency; and
> 
> • Assume Point of Delivery at Amtrak yard Chicago, IL.
Click to expand...

I would have expected the gearing to be different between corridor and long distance, namely, quick acceleration vs. efficient cruisng speed.


----------



## George Harris

sportbiker said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Long Distance Optional Locomotives:
> 
> • Technical Specification Sections 1.3, 1.4.5.1 and 17.2 increased to 2,200 Gallon minimum usable fuel capacity;
> 
> • Technical Specification Sections 1.4.5.1 and 10.2 increased to 1000Kw minimum Head End Power output and transmission capacity (Systems for intelligent power load management within the train consist and temporary load-shed concepts during acceleration may be proposed by the Locomotive Builder as an approach to manage horsepower between tractive and HEP requirements and will be considered by the evaluators);
> 
> • Common three color carbody paint scheme (with Black or silver under frame and trucks) and with graphics/logo variations by agency; and
> 
> • Assume Point of Delivery at Amtrak yard Chicago, IL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would have expected the gearing to be different between corridor and long distance, namely, quick acceleration vs. efficient cruisng speed.
Click to expand...

Gearing is deteremined primarily by desired maximum speed.


----------



## Nathanael

Guest said:


> Is there is anywhere one can still buy American produced steel?


I believe the electric arc furnace "minimills", which mainly use *scrap* steel as feedstock count as "American produced steel" if they're located in the US. (Please nobody tell me that the Buy America rules look back to where the steel was *originally* produced.) Nucor, which owns a large number of them, is one of the world's biggest steel producers. There are actually a lot of minimills in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucor


----------



## Nathanael

Guest said:


> xyzzy said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Wikipedia, 5.7% of the world's production of steel in 2012 was in the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 5.7% seems to be shamefully little.
Click to expand...

It's more than the US percentage of the world's population, so it seems about right.


----------



## Nathanael

afigg said:


> SubwayNut said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the F59PHIs can't fit into the tunnels in New York City. Do the specifications require these locomotives to be small enough? I'm thinking about Amtrak piggy-backing a LD order and know they want locomotives that can fit up the NEC
> 
> 
> 
> The PRIIA specification for the Next Generation Diesel passenger locomotive states that it shall be "Compliant with Amtrak Clearance Diagram D-05-1355 (latest version)". Which appears to be the clearance diagram for national compatibility including the NEC and Hudson & East River tunnels.
Click to expand...

I belive A-05-1355 is the unrestricted clearance diagram which includes the North River Tunnels (Hudson), East River Tunnels, B&P Tunnel in Baltimore, Union Tunnel in Baltimore, and Park Avenue Tunnel in New York City.

I think the D- prefix means that it's the larger Superliner clearance. Someone who actually has access to the drawings can correct me if I'm wrong. This is an educated guess.

(I'm not sure what the B- and C- clearance diagrams are good for.)


----------



## afigg

Nathanael said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PRIIA specification for the Next Generation Diesel passenger locomotive states that it shall be "Compliant with Amtrak Clearance Diagram D-05-1355 (latest version)". Which appears to be the clearance diagram for national compatibility including the NEC and Hudson & East River tunnels.
> 
> 
> 
> I belive A-05-1355 is the unrestricted clearance diagram which includes the North River Tunnels (Hudson), East River Tunnels, B&P Tunnel in Baltimore, Union Tunnel in Baltimore, and Park Avenue Tunnel in New York City.
> I think the D- prefix means that it's the larger Superliner clearance. Someone who actually has access to the drawings can correct me if I'm wrong. This is an educated guess.
> 
> (I'm not sure what the B- and C- clearance diagrams are good for.)
Click to expand...

Googling Amtrak Clearance Diagram D-05-1355 turns up a copy of the diagram with a static height of 14'8". This is the clearance for the NEC and Hudson river tunnels. Think about it, the goal of the Next-Gen diesel locomotive specification and order is to create a standard intercity passenger diesel locomotive for nationwide use for the states, Amtrak, and other possible operators (All Aboard Florida would be a likely candidate). A standard passenger locomotive that does not work in some of the busiest corridors in the east is a problem. The passenger cars have single and bi-level types because there are benefits to using bi-levels in the Midwest and West.


----------



## Anderson

afigg said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> The PRIIA specification for the Next Generation Diesel passenger locomotive states that it shall be "Compliant with Amtrak Clearance Diagram D-05-1355 (latest version)". Which appears to be the clearance diagram for national compatibility including the NEC and Hudson & East River tunnels.
> 
> 
> 
> I belive A-05-1355 is the unrestricted clearance diagram which includes the North River Tunnels (Hudson), East River Tunnels, B&P Tunnel in Baltimore, Union Tunnel in Baltimore, and Park Avenue Tunnel in New York City.
> I think the D- prefix means that it's the larger Superliner clearance. Someone who actually has access to the drawings can correct me if I'm wrong. This is an educated guess.
> 
> (I'm not sure what the B- and C- clearance diagrams are good for.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Googling Amtrak Clearance Diagram D-05-1355 turns up a copy of the diagram with a static height of 14'8". This is the clearance for the NEC and Hudson river tunnels. Think about it, the goal of the Next-Gen diesel locomotive specification and order is to create a standard intercity passenger diesel locomotive for nationwide use for the states, Amtrak, and other possible operators (All Aboard Florida would be a likely candidate). A standard passenger locomotive that does not work in some of the busiest corridors in the east is a problem. The passenger cars have single and bi-level types because there are benefits to using bi-levels in the Midwest and West.
Click to expand...

Well, at the very least some of those tunnels are a non-issue since you can't run much in the way of diesel into NYP unless something else is hauling it. That basically scratches operation PHL-NHV, and more often than not does so WAS-BOS as a whole. Now, if they're dual-mode engines that's another story...

My best guess is that they'll go with the EMD-F125. Metrolink already ordered a rack of them, so the line is set to start up. Adding 35 engines to that order (presumably with a few options) wouldn't likely shock EMD's system, and it would save on the cost of starting up a line fresh.


----------



## Nathanael

afigg said:


> Googling Amtrak Clearance Diagram D-05-1355 turns up a copy of the diagram with a static height of 14'8". This is the clearance for the NEC and Hudson river tunnels. Think about it, the goal of the Next-Gen diesel locomotive specification and order is to create a standard intercity passenger diesel locomotive for nationwide use for the states, Amtrak, and other possible operators (All Aboard Florida would be a likely candidate). A standard passenger locomotive that does not work in some of the busiest corridors in the east is a problem. The passenger cars have single and bi-level types because there are benefits to using bi-levels in the Midwest and West.


OK, spill, where did you find a copy of the diagram; because I didn't actually find one when I Googled.


----------



## Anderson

Nathanael said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Googling Amtrak Clearance Diagram D-05-1355 turns up a copy of the diagram with a static height of 14'8". This is the clearance for the NEC and Hudson river tunnels. Think about it, the goal of the Next-Gen diesel locomotive specification and order is to create a standard intercity passenger diesel locomotive for nationwide use for the states, Amtrak, and other possible operators (All Aboard Florida would be a likely candidate). A standard passenger locomotive that does not work in some of the busiest corridors in the east is a problem. The passenger cars have single and bi-level types because there are benefits to using bi-levels in the Midwest and West.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, spill, where did you find a copy of the diagram; because I didn't actually find one when I Googled.
Click to expand...

Magic.


----------



## afigg

Nathanael said:


> OK, spill, where did you find a copy of the diagram; because I didn't actually find one when I Googled.


Enter "Amtrak Clearance Diagram D-05-1355" into Google, click on the suggested "amtrak clearance diagram d 05 1355" (dashes tend to be problematic for search queries because they are used as search codes) and the first response is http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/Amtrak Clearance Diagram 05-1355 Rev E.PDF
Edit: fixed link


----------



## jis

Nathanael said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SubwayNut said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the F59PHIs can't fit into the tunnels in New York City. Do the specifications require these locomotives to be small enough? I'm thinking about Amtrak piggy-backing a LD order and know they want locomotives that can fit up the NEC
> 
> 
> 
> The PRIIA specification for the Next Generation Diesel passenger locomotive states that it shall be "Compliant with Amtrak Clearance Diagram D-05-1355 (latest version)". Which appears to be the clearance diagram for national compatibility including the NEC and Hudson & East River tunnels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I belive A-05-1355 is the unrestricted clearance diagram which includes the North River Tunnels (Hudson), East River Tunnels, B&P Tunnel in Baltimore, Union Tunnel in Baltimore, and Park Avenue Tunnel in New York City.
> I think the D- prefix means that it's the larger Superliner clearance. Someone who actually has access to the drawings can correct me if I'm wrong. This is an educated guess.
> 
> (I'm not sure what the B- and C- clearance diagrams are good for.)
Click to expand...

You may be confusing AAR Plates, with Amtrak diagram designations.
At present it is not clear if there is an AAR Plate A in effect any more. But in the past what was called A was smaller than the American Passenger single level standard, which is what the Amtrak diagram referred to specifies. It is not related to any AAR Plate designation. AAR Plates are for freight. AAR has a separate set of diagrams for passenger, and those are the ones that Amtrak has responsibility for these days I believe.

American passenger bilevel standard as in Superliners is also not aligned with any AAR Plate. It falls somewhere between Plate E and Plate F. Incidentally there is no static diagram for Plate D either. It is a specification for calculating dynamic envelopes for off standard loads.

I have found the following single diagram which has both AAR and UIC gauges shown on it, extremely useful:

http://gritton.org/greg/rail/docs/clearance/AAR_plates_with_UIC.gif

AAR Unrestricted Interchange is Plate B which at 15'1" is too tall for the NEC tunnels.

Incidentally, LIRR's East River Tunnel that is part of ESA has an even more constrained loading gauge than the Penn Station tunnels. For example LIRR or NJT bilevels would not fit through those. As a matter of fact even an MNRR M7A would not fit through those. Only LIRR M7s and and the older LIRR EMUs would fit through those, not the new MNRR ones.


----------



## battalion51

Anderson said:


> Well, at the very least some of those tunnels are a non-issue since you can't run much in the way of diesel into NYP unless something else is hauling it. That basically scratches operation PHL-NHV, and more often than not does so WAS-BOS as a whole. Now, if they're dual-mode engines that's another story...
> My best guess is that they'll go with the EMD-F125. Metrolink already ordered a rack of them, so the line is set to start up. Adding 35 engines to that order (presumably with a few options) wouldn't likely shock EMD's system, and it would save on the cost of starting up a line fresh.


I think the case for them to meet the height clearance is out there. I know I've seen a few photos of a P-42 running through NYP on a positioning move. Admittedly though the larger issue is clearance issues through BAL than NYP. You've got a little more wiggle room in BAL than NYP, but why regress versus what you've got now. The other consideration to is that down the road they may seek to make a dual mode version of this to replace the P-32 AC-DM since they'll be near the end of their life cycle by the end of the decade.


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> Well, at the very least some of those tunnels are a non-issue since you can't run much in the way of diesel into NYP unless something else is hauling it. That basically scratches operation PHL-NHV, and more often than not does so WAS-BOS as a whole. Now, if they're dual-mode engines that's another story...
> 
> My best guess is that they'll go with the EMD-F125. Metrolink already ordered a rack of them, so the line is set to start up. Adding 35 engines to that order (presumably with a few options) wouldn't likely shock EMD's system, and it would save on the cost of starting up a line fresh.


But according to this spec sheet: http://www.emdiesels.com/emdweb/products/pdf/2-sidersENG_LTR_proof_rev5RevE.pdf

EMD F125 is 14'7" tall. Do you actually want to make them go through the trouble of making it taller so that they specifically cannot operate through NEC tunnels? If so, why?


----------



## Anderson

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at the very least some of those tunnels are a non-issue since you can't run much in the way of diesel into NYP unless something else is hauling it. That basically scratches operation PHL-NHV, and more often than not does so WAS-BOS as a whole. Now, if they're dual-mode engines that's another story...
> 
> My best guess is that they'll go with the EMD-F125. Metrolink already ordered a rack of them, so the line is set to start up. Adding 35 engines to that order (presumably with a few options) wouldn't likely shock EMD's system, and it would save on the cost of starting up a line fresh.
> 
> 
> 
> But according to this spec sheet: http://www.emdiesels.com/emdweb/products/pdf/2-sidersENG_LTR_proof_rev5RevE.pdf
> 
> EMD F125 is 14'7" tall. Do you actually want to make them go through the trouble of making it taller so that they specifically cannot operate through NEC tunnels? If so, why?
Click to expand...

I think you misread my comments. I was more looking at the relative merits (or lack thereof) of picking another not-in-production model of diesel locomotive based primarily on clearing the North River Tunnels. If the F125 fits (which, given that I believe NJT bilevels are 14'6", it seems likely to), then great; I wasn't sure if it would, though. However, running single-mode diesels into NYP is, as I understand it, a bit problematic.


----------



## jis

Ah! Got it!

The RFP effectively says that it must be based on the PRIIA specification, via reference to the loading gauge drawing. So it does not look like the RFP could be satisfied without fitting.


----------



## Nathanael

afigg said:


> Enter "Amtrak Clearance Diagram D-05-1355" into Google, click on the suggested "amtrak clearance diagram d 05 1355" (dashes tend to be problematic for search queries because they are used as search codes) and the first response is http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/Amtrak Clearance Diagram 05-1355 Rev E.PDF
> Edit: fixed link


Thank you very much  Much appreciated. I think the dashes were tripping up my search.


----------



## afigg

To restart this thread, it appears that there is a competitor in the Next Gen Diesel order from Siemens & Cummins who are teaming up. Railway Age article: Siemens, Cummins team for Tier 4 passenger locomotives. They are proposing to build a 125 mph diesel-electric locomotive using a Cummins engine at the Siemens Sacramento plant. Some excerpts:




> Siemens Rail Systems and Cummins jointly announced a partnership on Dec. 3, 2013 that they said "will bring one of the most modern and efficient passenger rail, diesel-electric locomotives in the world to the U.S. marketplace."
> The companies said Cummins QSK95 diesel engines will be used in Siemens' diesel-electric locomotives in the U.S., "resulting in one of the most energy-efficient, lightweight, smart, diesel-electric locomotives available today in North America."
> 
> ...
> 
> The lighter weight of the new diesel-electric locomotives ensures the ability to safely operate the locomotives at speeds of up to 125 mph more efficiently, requiring less maintenance, the companies said.
> 
> The locomotives will be built and assembled at Siemens' solar-powered transportation manufacturing facility in Sacramento, Calif. Cummins diesel QSK95 engines will be made in Seymour, Ind. The 95-liter prime mover is the most powerful high-speed 16-cylinder diesel to be installed in a locomotive generating more than 4,000 hp (2,983 kW), the companies said.


Besides the Next Gen Diesel procurement by the states and Amtrak, I expect they are talking to All Aboard Florida as well as AAF will need 125 mph passenger diesels for the Miami to Orlando service.


----------



## Ryan

Veeeeery interesting! Depending on how the ACS-64's fare, this could be a real good competitor. Good to see industry taking an interest in building these.


----------



## guest

Cummins makes some excellent marine diesel engines... good to see them working on rail applications now...


----------



## Blackwolf

Really looking forward to how this all plays out. Siemens seems to be really getting their ducks lined up for passenger rail in the US. First was the bid and award for the ACS-64, next was that Siemens would be bidding for the Next-Gen Acela/CHSRA trainsets, and now this announcement of putting in for the Next-Gen diesel-electric locomotives.

The rail buff in me is _very amused _with the possible renaissance of locomotive and car building on the industrial scale in Sacramento.


----------



## DesertRat

The mention of Siemens tripped me up...I'm more accustomed to seeing that name in connection with hearing aids considered to be creme de creme. LOL. If that's any indication of their quality in the rail world this is indeed good news.


----------



## Nathanael

afigg said:


> To restart this thread, it appears that there is a competitor in the Next Gen Diesel order from Siemens & Cummins who are teaming up. Railway Age article: Siemens, Cummins team for Tier 4 passenger locomotives. They are proposing to build a 125 mph diesel-electric locomotive using a Cummins engine at the Siemens Sacramento plant.


This could lead to an extraordinarily uniform fleet of Siemens locomotives for Amtrak. If there's a dual-mode overhead-and-diesel model (for Albany-NY) this might even open up possibilities for incremental extension of electrification.


----------



## afigg

Blackwolf said:


> Really looking forward to how this all plays out. Siemens seems to be really getting their ducks lined up for passenger rail in the US. First was the bid and award for the ACS-64, next was that Siemens would be bidding for the Next-Gen Acela/CHSRA trainsets, and now this announcement of putting in for the Next-Gen diesel-electric locomotives.
> 
> The rail buff in me is _very amused _with the possible renaissance of locomotive and car building on the industrial scale in Sacramento.


My thinking is that landing the Next Gen diesel contract is a long shot for the Siemens and Cummins teaming. Since this would be an all new locomotive design and Siemens has not been a significant player in the US diesel markets, they don't have a demonstrated history of performance and reliability to bring to the bid. EMD and GE are established US diesel locomotive manufacturers who have built passenger locomotives before. Siemens and Cummins probably know landing the contract is a long shot, but they may figure it is worth taking the shot with the intent to get a foot in the door for winning future commuter and freight diesel contracts.

Siemens odds are likely much better with the Acela II HSR RFP because the Velaro appear to be a good match to the Amtrak and CHSRA requirements.


----------



## abcnews

BTW - An Amtrak Management person once mentioned to my son, that he wishes someday, that they could return to the retro look of the classic passenger engines…. That EMD F7, E7 and F9 look. Not saying it will happen, Again - not saying, that this will happen, but it's nice to know that they think like that.

Ford Motor Co. once went back to the basic/classic look of the Mustang (I think it was "Mustang ll"), and the same with a few other classic cars Ford and GM have produced over the years.

The "retro" look is coming back in many consumer products, appliances, clothes, cameras, furniture… Why not diesel locomotives. After all, what is more "retro" than riding a train.


----------



## bgiaquin

Good luck with that. I agree the retro look is great, but in todays "modern" world, locomotive builders not only want to build the most modern, high-tech locomotives, they also want their engines to look modern as well, least from what I have seen from recent passenger locomotives. Look at Brookville's BL36PH, MPI's MPXpress series, EMD's F125, Siemen's ACS-64. All are "modern" or at least somewhat modern looking engines.


----------



## abcnews

Perhaps I should have said "Retro" styling… A modern engine, but with a updated Retro look. Not a replica of an old engine, but more of a throwback design.

Was it Ford that went with a classic retro style on the Thunderbird, yet it was quite stylish and modern looking. Just a reminder of the classic 1960s models...

I was thinking a modern railroad engine, with a classic streamlined front hood and windshield.


----------



## PerRock

DesertRat said:


> The mention of Siemens tripped me up...I'm more accustomed to seeing that name in connection with hearing aids considered to be creme de creme. LOL. If that's any indication of their quality in the rail world this is indeed good news.


Siemens is quite a household name when it comes to trains over in Europe, I've ridden on (or been pulled by) a number of different trains they've made, and they all are really quite nice.
While Siemens hasn't really had any track record here in the states for long haul locomotives, they do have quite a good one over in other parts of the world, so I wouldn't count them out of the running for that.

peter


----------



## NE933

abcnews said:


> BTW - An Amtrak Management person once mentioned to my son, that he wishes someday, that they could return to the retro look of the classic passenger engines…. That EMD F7, E7 and F9 look. Not saying it will happen, Again - not saying, that this will happen, but it's nice to know that they think like that.
> 
> Ford Motor Co. once went back to the basic/classic look of the Mustang (I think it was "Mustang ll"), and the same with a few other classic cars Ford and GM have produced over the years.
> 
> The "retro" look is coming back in many consumer products, appliances, clothes, cameras, furniture… Why not diesel locomotives. After all, what is more "retro" than riding a train.


Careful. There are lots of retro things about passenger trains, but we don't want that to be a predominant reason, or else the bad guys have their ammunition. And if I'm going to engage with an adversary, they will have to get their own ammo.

Passenger rail is rooted in the past, and very much as a role in the future, even long distance / overnight runs. To ride from New York to California for three days vs flying for six hours, what's so modern about that, detractors say? Well, it's modern to the eye of the beholder. Maybe I wanna take my sweet g**amn time. It's true that for a disantance like this, air is likely better for most people, but not necessarily all.

It's easy to refer to riding the rails as "taking the choo-choo", but we need to be careful with our words, especially written, because this galvanizes the erroneous notion that taking non-corridor, or non-high speed trains, is the useless and expensive tax paid luxury modern, hip, sexy America doesn't need and can't afford.

Amtrak has to be careful with this tendency as well, and should work to update some of its modern sides by advertising in dance clubs, malls, and such. If I were its CEO, I would dare to equate taking an Amtrak train with owning a luxury car that's driven to a party of who's who. It's just as sexy, and useful, and it does the job better.


----------



## afigg

And the Next Gen diesel contract goes to... Siemens-Cummins. It is not the official contract award, but the committee and the IDOT Chief Procurement Officer have recommended the Siemens bid. See the IDOT CPO letter.

The 4 page evaluation report with the scores for the bids.


----------



## afigg

From the evaluation report, there were only 3 final bidders: EMD, Siemens, and MotivePower. Siemens base contract bid was $225.5 million for 32 (?) locomotives. The RFP is for 32 to 35 total, so not sure if the additional 3 units are covered by the $24.8 million option.

Now to figure out how much was set aside in the HSIPR grant. If the bid came in low, that means there could be some stimulus funds that could be re-allocated.


----------



## rickycourtney

Wow! Siemens put in a very low bid compared to MPI and EMD. I think they are willing to work at a lower margin to get a foothold here in America. This is great news for California (where the Siemens factory is located.)

I also find it interesting that GE (the builder of the P42/Genesis locomotives) didn't even put in a bid.

Amtrak could be entirely "powered by Siemens" if the company wins the contract for the new Acela trainsets and Amtrak can scrounge up the money to replace their fleet of diesels for long-distance trains.


----------



## Karl1459

abcnews said:


> BTW - An Amtrak Management person once mentioned to my son, that he wishes someday, that they could return to the retro look of the classic passenger engines…. That EMD F7, E7 and F9 look. Not saying it will happen, Again - not saying, that this will happen, but it's nice to know that they think like that.
> 
> Ford Motor Co. once went back to the basic/classic look of the Mustang (I think it was "Mustang ll"), and the same with a few other classic cars Ford and GM have produced over the years.
> 
> The "retro" look is coming back in many consumer products, appliances, clothes, cameras, furniture… Why not diesel locomotives. After all, what is more "retro" than riding a train.


A "retro" styled nose in a composite (aka fiberglass) should not cost a whole lot different than the slab nose on the P42, which I understand is also a composite. So is TalgoMater. The E's, PA's and DL-109's style may have a restriction on low forward visibility which may be a concern. Lets hope Siemans can do a better style than "basic brick".


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Form follows function for a reason, while a retro look would be nice things like impact ratings and power-to-weight ratios come first.

I'm sort of content that GE didn't put in a bid, I'm not fond of the P42s.


----------



## afigg

Thinking about the politics of the Siemens bid getting selected. Its a German company, but the engines will be built in Indiana and the locomotives assembled in Sacramento CA. If Amtrak decides the Siemens diesel is suitable after the first batch enter service to replace the P-42s and wants funds from Congress to buy 150 to 200 locomotives in series of orders, it improves the odds if Amtrak can get robust support from the (large) CA Congressional delegation and IN delegation. Although IN and CA may have a few House members who won't help at all because choo-choo trains are socialist.

Actually, assuming Siemens gets the contract, there is a good geographical spread of the plants: CA and IN for the diesels, upper NY state for the Viewliners, and IL for the corridor bi-levels.


----------



## Fan Railer

afigg said:


> Thinking about the politics of the Siemens bid getting selected. Its a German company, but the engines will be built in Indiana and the locomotives assembled in Sacramento CA. If Amtrak decides the Siemens diesel is suitable after the first batch enter service to replace the P-42s and wants funds from Congress to buy 150 to 200 locomotives in series of orders, it improves the odds if Amtrak can get robust support from the (large) CA Congressional delegation and IN delegation. Although IN and CA may have a few House members who won't help at all because choo-choo trains are socialist.
> 
> Actually, assuming Siemens gets the contract, there is a good geographical spread of the plants: CA and IN for the diesels, upper NY state for the Viewliners, and IL for the corridor bi-levels.


There is a good chance that Siemens WILL get the contract:

http://www2.illinois.gov/cpo/dot/Documents/Letter%20of%20Recommendation%20-%20Locomotive%20Procurement.pdf


----------



## Nathanael

afigg said:


> And the Next Gen diesel contract goes to... Siemens-Cummins. It is not the official contract award, but the committee and the IDOT Chief Procurement Officer have recommended the Siemens bid. See the IDOT CPO letter.
> 
> The 4 page evaluation report with the scores for the bids.


Worth noting from that report:

"The procurement includes options for 225 additional locomotives, including a long-distance variant of the base locomotive."

Amtrak is almost certain to use these as its main diesel fleet. (As long as they work, and as long as Amtrak can find the money to replace locomotives.) Though I'd expect the miscellaneous P32-8s, P40 rebuilds and F59PHIs to be retired first.

I look forward to the dual-mode version for the Empire Corridor.... actually, Amtrak might be wise to buy quite a few dual-modes and save on engine switching at DC.


----------



## afigg

Fan Railer said:


> There is a good chance that Siemens WILL get the contract:
> 
> http://www2.illinois.gov/cpo/dot/Documents/Letter%20of%20Recommendation%20-%20Locomotive%20Procurement.pdf


Yes, I know. I'm the one who posted the news and link above. I would expect that Siemens will get the contract, but there is always the possibility that the other offerors will file a protest or problems come up in the bid audit and negotiations. But Siemens won on points in all categories, so a protest is not likely to get traction if the offer is aboveboard.
If the contract is awarded, then the Siemens facility in Sacramento will have 28 months after Notice to Proceed (NTP) to have a pilot locomotive complete testing at the manufacturing facility and then it is turned over for independent testing. It appears that the plant will be building diesels as the production of the ACS-64s winds down. The 35 locomotives are to be delivered by no later than 42 months after NTP or June 30, 2017 for IDOT and CalTrans. The schedule is in the appendix documents.

With the 2017 deadline, I expect the state agencies and board will move quickly on the negotiations, contract award, and issuing the NTP.


----------



## jis

This is a bit of somewhat educated speculation.....

Since the Siemens bid is so low, and given the exceedingly short time to delivery, I bet it is based on off the shelf availability of everything, though manufactured in the US. That would indicate that it is based on the Vectron DE Diesel. Unlike the European version which uses an MTU prime mover, the US version will use a Cummins QSK95 4200HP prime mover. The drive electronics from DC link to wheels is shared with the Vectron electrics, which is what a ACS-64 essentially is. Indeed that may be the very reason how Siemens is able to come in with such a low price, since the Vectron base is as close as you get to mass produced locomotive in this day and age. The other one is Bombardier Traxx which is the base for the ALP-46As and the ALP45-DP.

Here is what a Vectron DE Diesel looks like, so get used to it  It is likely that everything will start looking like the ACS-64.


----------



## MattW

is it too early to know yet if the HEP will run off a separate engine, or will it be pulled off the prime mover somehow?


----------



## printman2000

jis said:


> This is a bit of somewhat educated speculation.....
> 
> Since the Siemens bid is so low, and given the exceedingly short time to delivery, I bet it is based on off the shelf availability of everything, though manufactured in the US. That would indicate that it is based on the Vectron DE Diesel, using MTU prime mover. The drive electronics from DC link to wheels is shared with the Vectron electrics, which is what a ACS-64 essentially is. Indeed that may be the very reason how Siemens is able to come in with such a low price, since the Vectron base is as close as you get to mass produced locomotive in this day and age. The other one is Bombarider Traxx which is the base for the ALP-46As and the ALP45-DP.
> 
> Here is what a Vectron DE Diesel looks like, so get used to it  It is likely that everything will start looking like the ACS-64.


So is that a diesel with cabs on both ends? When you think about it, that would be a good idea. No more turning locos. However, I don't like the look.


----------



## jis

If what Bombardier did in TRAXX based ALP-45DP is any indication of trends then HEP will just be another inverter pack hanging off of the same DC bus. And indeed it will probably be swappable in use with one of the drive alternators pack in case of failure, That would also make the electricals completely common with the ACS-64.

I would be somewhat surprised if they would put in an additional engine just for HEP, specially if the prime mover is not short of power. Considering that the prime mover is 4200HP basically equivalent to a P42, I think it is highly unlikely that there will be a separate engine for HEP.

As for whether it will have cabs at each end that may or may not be the case. But, if they are able to pull off a diesel with cab at both ends that would indicate that there is at least somewhere to go to find the room for the gear needed to create an OHE dual mode if such is requested in the future.


----------



## MattW

That would make sense to share the electrical infrastructure of the ACS-64, but I'm a little concerned about over-the-road failures particularly if this becomes the basis for Amtrak's long distance diesel fleet. At least with a separate HEP engine, isn't there a chance that while the rest of the train might be dead as a doornail, the HEP could still work and thus avoid the "train from hell" stories that occasionally occur during the heatwaves and cold spells?


----------



## jis

Today's Amtrak LD engines do not have a separate HEP engine. It is unlikely that will change. Heck even the F40s did not have a separate HEP engine in their Amtrak incarnation.


----------



## Blackwolf

I suspect that a US-version of the Vectron DE will be rather heavily modified from its European parents. Systems-wise it may well be off-the-shelf components, and I suspect that cross-sharing of those components with other locomotives (like the ACS-64's) is part of the selling point, but I think that when it comes to looks and weight there will be some significant changes.

The 94-ton Vectron noticably lighter than the 98-ton ACS-64. In the case of the ACS-64, significant structural changes to the design had to be made for compliance with crashworthiness requirements, such as adding crumple zones, structural strengthening of the cab and anti-climbing features. This resulted in a heavier locomotive than European Eurosprinter and Vectron models.

Of course, both locomotives are massively lighter than any US OTR diesel out there right now. A quick look at the GE P-42's puts them at around 134 tons. I think the Cummins engine being used here is a great deal heavier than the European MTU EU III-B engine, so that should increase the locomotive weight. Add in the FRA crash standards that an OTR diesel passenger locomotive interfacing with freight traffic will need to meet, and I have to wonder if we'll be seeing Mater showing up again with a "nose" of sorts. I can't imagine locomotive crews being very comfortable with the idea that they would be nearly four feet lower to the ground, with an essentially flat-faced glass front end, as they plow into the semi-truck trailer still straddling the tracks at a grade crossing.


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> Here is what a Vectron DE Diesel looks like, so get used to it  It is likely that everything will start looking like the ACS-64.


Assuming the contract is awarded to Siemens and the platform is indeed a Vectron DE with a Cummins engine, Amtrak could reach in 8-10 years, a high degree of parts and design commonality not only in the electric locomotive fleet, but also shared with the primary diesel fleet. When Amtrak ordered 70 ACS-64s to replace the AEM-7DCs, AEM-7ACs, and HHP-8s, that was a fairly bold step to consolidate the electric locomotives, given that at 1 time the plan was to order 20 electrics to only replace the AEM-7DCs. Now P-42s, P-40s, and quite possibly the P-32s, could all get replaced with a common modular design shared with the ACS-64 platform. Did Boardman and other Amtrak managers take a trip to Europe or read the Vectron brochures a few years back, crank the maintenance and cost numbers, and decided they really liked the modular concept?

I'm sure some railfans will complain about how boring a uniform common locomotive fleet looks. And will argue incesstantly about the paint scheme.  But if the end result is a more efficient, reliable, and yes, bland fleet with lower operating and maintenance costs that improves cost recovery, and thus enhances the prospects of expansion of passenger rail service, I hope most railfans would agree more passenger trains to more places is a worthy goal, more so than "we need cool looking locomotives".


----------



## jis

I am sure the nose design will change and at the end it might come out looking something like P42s. But I doubt there will be any bigger nose than that. There is a lot of crash energy management that you can stuff into such a nose, specially if the cab cage is set a little further back.

Of course the US version will look somewhat different externally. For one thing it will use the carbody of the ACS-64 with some additional modifications.

I don't know the basis of a belief that the Cummins engine will be heavier by a lot compared to a corresponding MTU engine. Both are light high speed engines, as opposed to the heavier medium speed engines traditionally used in the US.

Considering that in going from EU model to US model the ACS-64 gained some 4 to 5 tons. I expect that to be the FRA crash-worthiness cost in weight (basically using an ACS-64 carbody which is FRA crash-worthy with some added bells and whistles with perhaps a higher set back cab to do better in battle against tractor trailers on railroad crossings). I would not expect the engine weight to add more than another 10 or so tons at most. So I would not expect to be any heavier than the P42 and possibly somewhat lighter, perhaps significantly so.

But as usual, one never knows for sure until the proverbial fat lady sings. But as a general approach this seems to be a win win for Amtrak if they go with Siemens.

BTW, I just got positive verification about much of my speculation in the earlier post from someone who has some inside knowledge about what Siemens is actually going to do about delivering on this, should they get the contract.


----------



## Mysotype

GE did bid with MPI as with the MBTA deal. Siemens will lose their ass on this initial order. But it's a good gamble for the Amtrak long distance options.


----------



## Fan Railer

jis said:


> Today's Amtrak LD engines do not have a separate HEP engine. It is unlikely that will change. Heck even the F40s did not have a separate HEP engine in their Amtrak incarnation.


Still too early to tell. We'll have to wait for things to be finalized. Until then, anything could change.


----------



## battalion51

It seems like the RFP documents did not spec for a separate HEP package, but rather for an auxiliary alternator similar to the configuration of the P-42, P-32-8, P-32 AC-DM, and original F40PH/F40PHR. In the era of fuel conservation though I don't see why this continues to be the primary configuration choice for intercity. In areas where idle time, low notch time, or heavy dynamic braking is used running HEP off the prime mover is burning fuel unnecessarily.


----------



## frequentflyer

What the locomotives may look like.....

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/siemens-selected-for-200-kmh-us-passenger-locomotive-order.html


----------



## bgiaquin

frequentflyer said:


> What the locomotives may look like.....
> 
> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/siemens-selected-for-200-kmh-us-passenger-locomotive-order.html


Nice expect they should redesign the front windshield for better visibility.


----------



## bgiaquin

battalion51 said:


> It seems like the RFP documents did not spec for a separate HEP package, but rather for an auxiliary alternator similar to the configuration of the P-42, P-32-8, P-32 AC-DM, and original F40PH/F40PHR. In the era of fuel conservation though I don't see why this continues to be the primary configuration choice for intercity. In areas where idle time, low notch time, or heavy dynamic braking is used running HEP off the prime mover is burning fuel unnecessarily.


As always, you hit the nail on the head.


----------



## jis

battalion51 said:


> It seems like the RFP documents did not spec for a separate HEP package, but rather for an auxiliary alternator similar to the configuration of the P-42, P-32-8, P-32 AC-DM, and original F40PH/F40PHR. In the era of fuel conservation though I don't see why this continues to be the primary configuration choice for intercity. In areas where idle time, low notch time, or heavy dynamic braking is used running HEP off the prime mover is burning fuel unnecessarily.


A modern modular architecture locomotive would be expected to feed regenerated power into HEP before burning it off in dynamic grids. So I don't quite see things working the way you see it. The HEP does not directly run off the prime mover in these architectures. HEP is fed from an additional inverter sitting on the DC bus, which is fed the power from the primer mover as well as from dynamic braking. While braking additional power is burned off in the dynamic grid, that is after HEP load has been accounted for. Prime mover is throttled based on the total power demand on the common bus, so it would not be running at higher speed than is necessary to supply the basic load placed upon the bus.

Architecturally, this is very different from the classic arrangement of adding an auxiliary alternator to the prime mover for HEP. My suspicion is that Siemens will use this setup, since both Vectron by Siemens (Vectron DE) and Traxx by Bombardier (ALP45-DP) uses this arrangement when used in a diesel situation.


----------



## cirdan

jis said:


> A modern modular architecture locomotive would be expected to feed regenerated power into HEP before burning it off in dynamic grids. So I don't quite see things working the way you see it. The HEP does not directly run off the prime mover in these architectures. HEP is fed from an additional inverter sitting on the DC bus, which is fed the power from the primer mover as well as from dynamic braking. While braking additional power is burned off in the dynamic grid, that is after HEP load has been accounted for. Prime mover is throttled based on the total power demand on the common bus, so it would not be running at higher speed than is necessary to supply the basic load placed upon the bus.


My understanding of modern diesels is they don't generally throttle rpms when running without or with partial load, but instead the amount of fuel injected per cycle is throttled meaning they are burning less fuel while maintaining the same rpm. This means the DC link voltage is also regulated and a high fuel efficiency is provided independently of the load.


----------



## benroethig

If it is the Vectron or a close realative there of, is it tall enough for the bi-level coaches?


----------



## jis

cirdan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> A modern modular architecture locomotive would be expected to feed regenerated power into HEP before burning it off in dynamic grids. So I don't quite see things working the way you see it. The HEP does not directly run off the prime mover in these architectures. HEP is fed from an additional inverter sitting on the DC bus, which is fed the power from the primer mover as well as from dynamic braking. While braking additional power is burned off in the dynamic grid, that is after HEP load has been accounted for. Prime mover is throttled based on the total power demand on the common bus, so it would not be running at higher speed than is necessary to supply the basic load placed upon the bus.
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding of modern diesels is they don't generally throttle rpms when running without or with partial load, but instead the amount of fuel injected per cycle is throttled meaning they are burning less fuel while maintaining the same rpm. This means the DC link voltage is also regulated and a high fuel efficiency is provided independently of the load.
Click to expand...

That is exactly right. I did not go into the details of how the regulated DC voltage on the bus is used to regulate the diesel prime mover. But what you say is indeed the mechanism used.
As I said, anyone trying to evaluate these engines based on classic diesel-electric architecture would be missing some of the most important innovations towards fuel efficiency and emissions control.



benroethig said:


> If it is the Vectron or a close realative there of, is it tall enough for the bi-level coaches?


I believe the PRIIA and hence the RFP requirement is that the locomotive must have a monococque body fitting within the 14'6" height envelope as specified by what is called Amtrak diagram A as far as I recall. I am sure someone who has more recently read the spec will correct me if I am wrong. So no, they will not be as tall as the bilevels. They will most likely be just as tall as the ACS-64s, or the current P42s.


----------



## afigg

frequentflyer said:


> What the locomotives may look like.....
> 
> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/siemens-selected-for-200-kmh-us-passenger-locomotive-order.html


Good week for Siemens' locomotive business. The Railway Gazette news page also has a report on the Finland VR Group placing an order for 80 Siemens Vectron electric locomotives for passenger and freight operations. The Finland Vectrons will "be equipped with two diesel engines for 'last mile' operation on unelectrified industrial lines, at docks and in yards", although this sounds as it would be for lower speed operation only. Also, "The Finnish locomotives will be customised with modified air intakes for use in snow and ice at temperatures down to -40°C, rather than the -25°C Siemens normally designs for.." -40 degrees C? Brrr.


----------



## jis

afigg said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the locomotives may look like.....
> 
> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/siemens-selected-for-200-kmh-us-passenger-locomotive-order.html
> 
> 
> 
> Good week for Siemens' locomotive business. The Railway Gazette news page also has a report on the Finland VR Group placing an order for 80 Siemens Vectron electric locomotives for passenger and freight operations. The Finland Vectrons will "be equipped with two diesel engines for 'last mile' operation on unelectrified industrial lines, at docks and in yards", although this sounds as it would lower speed operation only. Also, "The Finnish locomotives will be customised with modified air intakes for use in snow and ice at temperatures down to -40°C, rather than the -25°C Siemens normally designs for.." -40 degrees C? Brrr.
Click to expand...

And not to mention they will also be of Finnish/Russian Broad Gauge, not Standard Gauge.


----------



## Fan Railer

Remember that the HEP setup for a single prime mover configuration no longer uses an HEP alternator, but an Inverter setup, so RPM does vary between a certain range.


----------



## Fan Railer

Embedding image.


----------



## Karl1459

The Siemans bid does seem a little low-ball, however if they were able to design the ACS-64 running gear and carbody for the Cummins deisel they may have been able to be very competitive by having most of the engineering and production line costs already paid for.

As to railfans arguing about styling, remember some are still arguing whether steam locomotive should be 4-4-0's or 4-8-4's! and who wants diesels? Personally, while a retro look would be nice the ACS-64/Vectron style is a great improvement over the P40/42.


----------



## Fan Railer

Karl1459 said:


> The Siemans bid does seem a little low-ball, however if they were able to design the ACS-64 running gear and carbody for the Cummins deisel they may have been able to be very competitive by having most of the engineering and production line costs already paid for.
> 
> As to railfans arguing about styling, remember some are still arguing whether steam locomotive should be 4-4-0's or 4-8-4's! and who wants diesels? Personally, while a retro look would be nice the ACS-64/Vectron style is a great improvement over the P40/42.


I personally would have liked to see a little more power, considering the setup is going to be HEP being drawn from one prime mover, but if they decided that 4200 horses is still sufficient, then so be it. Remember that Cummins has plans for a QSK120 (V20) expansion off of the QSK95 (V16) which is to be capable of ~5400 hp.


----------



## jis

Fan Railer, you are exactly right. My guess is that for corridor service they really plan to use two units per train for the high speed ones, one at each end, so the base 4200 HP (same as P42) is more than adequate. And for the regular speed ones they just replace a P42 one for one. I suspect that for the LD engine the QSK120 would be a candidate prime mover that will be considered. The modular architecture of the design make is relatively easy to slip in a more powerful prime mover, subject to of course finding or making the physical space for it in the carbody. But even if they don't, since most LD trains run with two units anyway, it will not be a huge problem. Again replacing P42s one for one.


----------



## Paulus

Between the cars and these new locomotives, HSPIR contracts are $230 million under budget.


----------



## jis

Which, except for the 2017 deadline, does open up some interesting possibilities, doesn't it?


----------



## Guest

What do you think are the odds of Amtrak keeping the double ended cab? Would make train turns easier.


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> Which, except for the 2017 deadline, does open up some interesting possibilities, doesn't it?


The deadline is still 3 years 9 months away which is a fair amount of time. About the length of time for a 4 year college degree. The FRA may be holding some of the funds back to cover cost overruns or increases due to underestimates on other projects. But some projects, at least those wrapping up construction, may come in under budget, in which case there should be leftover funds that also could be reallocated.

If the FRA is going to re-distribute stimulus funds at this point, they would want to award it to projects where there is confidence that the funds can be spent by Sept, 2017. Which I think means projects where all the agreements are signed, does not need a lengthy EIS process, and/or the tracks are owned by Amtrak or the state. So the NEC, Keystone East, and NHV-SPG corridor could be candidates for spare stimulus funds for projects that are ready or near ready to go. Could there be some behind the scenes discussions on partially funding the Portal bridge replacement or the pre-construction work?


----------



## Paulus

afigg said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which, except for the 2017 deadline, does open up some interesting possibilities, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> The deadline is still 3 years 9 months away which is a fair amount of time. About the length of time for a 4 year college degree. The FRA may be holding some of the funds back to cover cost overruns or increases due to underestimates on other projects. But some projects, at least those wrapping up construction, may come in under budget, in which case there should be leftover funds that also could be reallocated.
> If the FRA is going to re-distribute stimulus funds at this point, they would want to award it to projects where there is confidence that the funds can be spent by Sept, 2017. Which I think means projects where all the agreements are signed, does not need a lengthy EIS process, and/or the tracks are owned by Amtrak or the state. So the NEC, Keystone East, and NHV-SPG corridor could be candidates for spare stimulus funds for projects that are ready or near ready to go. Could there be some behind the scenes discussions on partially funding the Portal bridge replacement or the pre-construction work?
Click to expand...

They could also use it to purchase more equipment as well, completely replacing all California equipment for instance.


----------



## Fan Railer

Guest said:


> What do you think are the odds of Amtrak keeping the double ended cab? Would make train turns easier.


I can't remember if ANY US diesel has ever had a double cab setup. Either way, it won't affect train turning for corridor services since they will be operated with cab cars and push-pull. As for the LD services, their turn around times range from several hours, to maybe half a day, so a double ended locomotive wouldn't really be beneficial in that case either.

Remember, a double ended locomotive is more expensive than a single ended one. So why pay for something you don't need? In addition, the extra space that a second cab would have taken up could be used for something else (expanded prime mover, if they so choose), or could just remain extra space, in which you would have weight savings, a huge plus in this kind of locomotive.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Paulus said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which, except for the 2017 deadline, does open up some interesting possibilities, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> The deadline is still 3 years 9 months away which is a fair amount of time. About the length of time for a 4 year college degree. The FRA may be holding some of the funds back to cover cost overruns or increases due to underestimates on other projects. But some projects, at least those wrapping up construction, may come in under budget, in which case there should be leftover funds that also could be reallocated.
> If the FRA is going to re-distribute stimulus funds at this point, they would want to award it to projects where there is confidence that the funds can be spent by Sept, 2017.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They could also use it to purchase more equipment as well . . .
Click to expand...

Yes, more equipment! Like exercising the option for 

more Viewliner II diners, sleepers, bag/dorms, and

baggage cars. Maybe even Viewliner II coaches ...


----------



## cirdan

Karl1459 said:


> The Siemans bid does seem a little low-ball, however if they were able to design the ACS-64 running gear and carbody for the Cummins deisel they may have been able to be very competitive by having most of the engineering and production line costs already paid for.
> 
> .


And it's a strategic move to break into a market in which they're currently an outsider. Siemens has a track record for following long term strategies. So they're probably quite happy to merely cover their costs without seeking profit in the short term, if it opens new markets in the long term.


----------



## SubwayNut

Fan Railer said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think are the odds of Amtrak keeping the double ended cab? Would make train turns easier.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't remember if ANY US diesel has ever had a double cab setup. Either way, it won't affect train turning for corridor services since they will be operated with cab cars and push-pull. As for the LD services, their turn around times range from several hours, to maybe half a day, so a double ended locomotive wouldn't really be beneficial in that case either.
> 
> Remember, a double ended locomotive is more expensive than a single ended one. So why pay for something you don't need? In addition, the extra space that a second cab would have taken up could be used for something else (expanded prime mover, if they so choose), or could just remain extra space, in which you would have weight savings, a huge plus in this kind of locomotive.
Click to expand...


The one main turn I can think of where having a double ended diesel locomotive what be handy and save a lot of time is for the locomotive for the Portland Section of the Empire Builder. I know in flusher times (in terms of locomotive availability) 28/27 between SPK and PDX ran with two locomotives back to back so the locomotive(s) that makes the middle of the night switch in Spokane from pulling 28 from Portland and then returning the same night pulling 27 down the George to Portland. Today the stub train section runs with just one locomotive normally but if 7/27 is on time (such a rarity these days I know) and 28 is a little late, 27 can be stuck waiting in the station while Amtrak runs the single locomotive somewhere (I don't know the exact location) to wherever the nearest wye is far away from the station to wye the P42.


----------



## afigg

EMD is protesting the contract award to Siemens. Lengthy Railway Age article with specifics on EMD's argument that the Siemens' proposed loco won't meet the 125 mph speed requirement: EMD protests locomotive contract award. Don't know enough to determine how much merit EMD's protest has, but a lengthy dispute could delay the contract award to where the September, 2017 funding deadline becomes a serious issue.

Excerpt of the first 2 paragraphs:



> Electro-Motive Diesel has filed a formal protest with the Illinois Department of Transportation over the Multi-State Locomotive Procurement contract for up to 35 125-mph diesel-electric locomotives, for which Siemens Industry received a Notice of Intent to Award on Dec. 18, 2013. IDOT, in conjunction with the California Department of Transportation and the Washington Department of Transportation, issued the procurement and formed the joint purchasing entities (JPEs).
> 
> The 19-page protest letter, addressed to IDOT’s Chief Procurement Officer and State Purchasing Officer, Bill Grunloh and Gretchen Tucka, respectively, and signed by EMD Vice President Passenger Locomotive Sales Gary Eelman, says that the proposed award to Siemens “does not meet the Illinois Procurement Code requirement that ‘[a]wards shall be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined in writing to be the most advantageous to the State, taking into consideration price and the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals.’ In short, Siemens is not a ‘responsible offeror’ and its offer is not ‘responsive’ with respect to the Procurement. EMD is confident that after IDOT reviews the facts presented in this protest, an award to Siemens will be deemed to be contrary to Illinois law, in addition to being inconsistent with the interests of the taxpaying public and the JPEs. . . Pursuant to Illinois General Assembly [law], any award for this Procurement must be stayed until this protest is resolved.”


----------



## Blackwolf

Oh boy, let the games begin!

Though, reading through the rest of the article, I have to wonder if Siemens really did play dirty and knowingly lie about their product's abilities as has been claimed by EMD.


----------



## Karl1459

I say, let each of them build a prototype on their own dime and let the best diesel win!


----------



## Karl1459

Fan Railer said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think are the odds of Amtrak keeping the double ended cab? Would make train turns easier.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't remember if ANY US diesel has ever had a double cab setup. Either way, it won't affect train turning for corridor services since they will be operated with cab cars and push-pull. As for the LD services, their turn around times range from several hours, to maybe half a day, so a double ended locomotive wouldn't really be beneficial in that case either.
> 
> Remember, a double ended locomotive is more expensive than a single ended one. So why pay for something you don't need? In addition, the extra space that a second cab would have taken up could be used for something else (expanded prime mover, if they so choose), or could just remain extra space, in which you would have weight savings, a huge plus in this kind of locomotive.
Click to expand...

New Jersey Central had some double cab Baldwin "babyface" units.


----------



## Fan Railer

afigg said:


> EMD is protesting the contract award to Siemens. Lengthy Railway Age article with specifics on EMD's argument that the Siemens' proposed loco won't meet the 125 mph speed requirement: EMD protests locomotive contract award. Don't know enough to determine how much merit EMD's protest has, but a lengthy dispute could delay the contract award to where the September, 2017 funding deadline becomes a serious issue.
> 
> Excerpt of the first 2 paragraphs:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Electro-Motive Diesel has filed a formal protest with the Illinois Department of Transportation over the Multi-State Locomotive Procurement contract for up to 35 125-mph diesel-electric locomotives, for which Siemens Industry received a Notice of Intent to Award on Dec. 18, 2013. IDOT, in conjunction with the California Department of Transportation and the Washington Department of Transportation, issued the procurement and formed the joint purchasing entities (JPEs).
> 
> The 19-page protest letter, addressed to IDOT’s Chief Procurement Officer and State Purchasing Officer, Bill Grunloh and Gretchen Tucka, respectively, and signed by EMD Vice President Passenger Locomotive Sales Gary Eelman, says that the proposed award to Siemens “does not meet the Illinois Procurement Code requirement that ‘[a]wards shall be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined in writing to be the most advantageous to the State, taking into consideration price and the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals.’ In short, Siemens is not a ‘responsible offeror’ and its offer is not ‘responsive’ with respect to the Procurement. EMD is confident that after IDOT reviews the facts presented in this protest, an award to Siemens will be deemed to be contrary to Illinois law, in addition to being inconsistent with the interests of the taxpaying public and the JPEs. . . Pursuant to Illinois General Assembly [law], any award for this Procurement must be stayed until this protest is resolved.”
Click to expand...

Once again, the "lack of HP" of the Siemens locomotive necessary to sustain 125 mph operations (according to EMD) can be easily solved by specifying a 5400 hp QSK120.


----------



## Fan Railer

Blackwolf said:


> Oh boy, let the games begin!
> 
> Though, reading through the rest of the article, I have to wonder if Siemens really did play dirty and knowingly lie about their product's abilities as has been claimed by EMD.


This can be easily figured out with the knowledge of some simple formulas and references to existing graphs. The general formula for tractive effort, given constant power, is kilo Newtons (kN) = Power (in kW) * 3.6 (constant) / Velocity (km/h). (http://ocw.swjtu.edu.cn/download/resource/143/dean_1367037686790.pdf) Looking at this graph in the ACS-64 specification sheet (http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/SiteCollectionDocuments/en/rail-solutions/locomotives/customspecific-solutions/DB-Amtrak-EN.pdf) shows a train resistance of ~88 kN @ 125 mph (201 km/h) for an 18 car Amfleet train on level track. For the sake of our calculations here, I will assume a consist of 8 Amfleet cars, which should about cut the resistance to a more conservative 50 kN @ 201 km/h on level track (I don't have all the variables for the Davis Equation, so I'm throwing out a conservative estimate; the actual resistance may or may not be a little bit lower; perhaps someone may have a better estimate). Now, for HEP load, I will assume a nominal draw of 65 kW per Amfleet, which works out to 520 kW of HEP.

Given those parameters, let's look now at the two diesel engines being used:

The EMD CAT C175-20 engine puts out 4700 hp (3507 kW). We will assume a transmission efficiency (alternator to traction motors) of 90%. Factoring in HEP and locomotive parasitic load of ~650 kW, we end up with a traction power of ~2860 kW. Plug that into the formula for TE: 2860*3.6 / 201 = 51.224 kN of tractive effort. This means that, with a consist of 8 Amfleets, the EMD F125 would just barely generate enough tractive effort at 125 mph to overcome the resistance effort that I estimated earlier.

The Cummins QSK95 engine puts out 4400 hp (3284 kW). Assuming the same transmission efficiency and factoring in the same HEP and locomotive parasitic loads, we end up with traction power of ~2635 kW. Plug that into the formula for TE: 2635*3.6 / 201 = 47.2 kN of tractive effort. As logic would dictate, this is not enough to meet the estimated resistive force of 50 kN at 125 mph.

Interestingly enough, if you use the formula given and plug in a TE of 50 kN and solve for speed given the parameters of the Cummins engine, (50 = 2635*3.6 / V) V = 189.72 km/h, or ~118 mph, which is 3 mph lower than the estimated balancing speed of the Siemens locomotive provided by EMD. Mind you, now, resistance is lower at 118 mph than it is at 125 mph, so that difference would theoretically balance out to 121 mph (the balancing speed of the Siemens loco given by EMD), which makes my estimate of 50 kN resistive force in the ballpark of realism.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Fan Railer said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> EMD is protesting the contract award to Siemens.
> 
> Lengthy Railway Age article . . . Don't know enough
> 
> to determine how much merit EMD's protest has,
> 
> but a lengthy dispute could delay the contract award
> 
> to where the September, 2017 funding deadline
> 
> becomes a serious issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Electro-Motive Diesel has filed a formal protest . . .
> 
> over the Multi-State Locomotive Procurement contract
> 
> for up to 35 125-mph diesel-electric locomotives. . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, the "lack of HP" of the Siemens locomotive
> 
> necessary to sustain 125 mph operations (according to EMD)
> 
> can be easily solved by specifying a 5400 hp QSK120.
Click to expand...

First concern is that this could develop into a Stimulus

program for underemployed lawyers in Chicago. EMD

has lawyers, Siemens has lawyers, State of Illinois

has lawyers. Specialists in this type of litigation will

be retained.

Say the Illinois DOT refuses the complaint. Next step 

file lawsuit (s). Meanwhile there will be an injunction or

stay order. IDOT can't sign any contract with Siemens.

Tick tock tick tock.

Judge will not be hungry to choose between EMD and

Siemens, and maybe best case is he orders a do-over.

Tick tock tick tock.

Both EMD and Siemens not-lawyers will be working on

improvements to the locomotive that they bid before.

Maybe Siemens puts in bigger, heavier, more powerful

engine. Maybe EMD finds a way to sweat out another

couple of tons of locomotive weight. Tick tock tick tock.

But EMD is gonna demand the the proper procurement

procedures be followed this time. How many months

will that take? Tick tock tick tock.

Got to get the job done by Sept 2017 or the damn thing

turns into a big ugly pumpkin when the money disappears.

Tick tock tick tock.

And, this corridor model diesel was supposed to be

the base of the long distance diesel, maybe only adding

larger fuel tanks. Well, it isn't the same clock ticking

for when long distance diesels get ordered; there's

no plan yet for how to pay for them. 

But, don't we want to get that train out of the station 

*before *a new President/VP/Secretary of Transportation/

Amtrak President take office on or about January 20, 

2017? Anybody think passenger rail will be better off 

without "Amtrak Joe" and the present team? Even with 

Hillary? For Amtrak's multi-part fleet replacement plan, 

too much delay could mean death.


----------



## Paulus

Fan Railer said:


> Blackwolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy, let the games begin!
> 
> Though, reading through the rest of the article, I have to wonder if Siemens really did play dirty and knowingly lie about their product's abilities as has been claimed by EMD.
> 
> 
> 
> This can be easily figured out with the knowledge of some simple formulas and references to existing graphs. The general formula for tractive effort, given constant power, is kilo Newtons (kN) = Power (in kW) * 3.6 (constant) / Velocity (km/h). (http://ocw.swjtu.edu.cn/download/resource/143/dean_1367037686790.pdf)Looking at this graph in the ACS-64 specification sheet (http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/SiteCollectionDocuments/en/rail-solutions/locomotives/customspecific-solutions/DB-Amtrak-EN.pdf) shows a train resistance of ~88 kN @ 125 mph (201 km/h) for an 18 car Amfleet train on level track. For the sake of our calculations here, I will assume a consist of 8 Amfleet cars, which should about cut the resistance to a more conservative 50 kN @ 201 km/h on level track (I don't have all the variables for the Davis Equation, so I'm throwing out a conservative estimate; the actual resistance may or may not be a little bit lower; perhaps someone may have a better estimate). Now, for HEP load, I will assume a nominal draw of 65 kW per Amfleet, which works out to 520 kW of HEP.
> 
> Given those parameters, let's look now at the two diesel engines being used:
> 
> The EMD CAT C175-20 engine puts out 4700 hp (3507 kW). We will assume a transmission efficiency (alternator to traction motors) of 90%. Factoring in HEP and locomotive parasitic load of ~650 kW, we end up with a traction power of ~2860 kW. Plug that into the formula for TE: 2860*3.6 / 201 = 51.224 kN of tractive effort. This means that, with a consist of 8 Amfleets, the EMD F125 would just barely generate enough tractive effort at 125 mph to overcome the resistance effort that I estimated earlier.
> 
> The Cummins QSK95 engine puts out 4400 hp (3284 kW). Assuming the same transmission efficiency and factoring in the same HEP and locomotive parasitic loads, we end up with traction power of ~2635 kW. Plug that into the formula for TE: 2635*3.6 / 201 = 47.2 kN of tractive effort. As logic would dictate, this is not enough to meet the estimated resistive force of 50 kN at 125 mph.
> 
> Interestingly enough, if you use the formula given and plug in a TE of 50 kN and solve for speed given the parameters of the Cummins engine, (50 = 2635*3.6 / V) V = 189.72 km/h, or ~118 mph, which is 3 mph lower than the estimated balancing speed of the Siemens locomotive provided by EMD. Mind you, now, resistance is lower at 118 mph than it is at 125 mph, so that difference would theoretically balance out to 121 mph (the balancing speed of the Siemens loco given by EMD), which makes my estimate of 50 kN resistive force in the ballpark of realism.
Click to expand...

Here's the technical specs for the RFP.



> The Contractor shall provide a complete and comprehensive description of the proposed locomotive to be built, including its past performance and experience. At the minimum the Contractor shall also provide plots, charts or tables for the following as part of the bid proposal:
> 
> • Locomotive Rail Horsepower 0 - Max Speed
> 
> • Dynamic Braking Effort 0 - Max Speed
> 
> • Traction Motor Characteristics
> 
> • Acceleration with the trailing cars weighing no more than an average of 170,000 lbs (average cab car and coach car):
> 
> • 1 locomotive + 680,000 lbs of trailing load (3 cars + 1 cab)
> 
> • 1 locomotive + 850,000 lbs of trailing load (4 cars + 1 cab)
> 
> • 2 locomotives + 1,360,000 lbs of trailing load (8 cars)
> 
> For simulations, train resistance calculations will be based on the Davis equation utilizing the following requirements:
> 
> • Coefficient ‘A’ = 1.3
> 
> • Coefficient ‘B’ = 29
> 
> • Coefficient ‘C’ = 0.03
> 
> • Coefficient ‘D’ = 0.0024
> 
> • Coefficient for trailing locomotive = 0.0012
> 
> • Base-line surface area for lead locomotive = 141 sf (average)
> 
> • Assumed air resistance coefficient for bi-level car = 0.00044 (average)
> 
> • Assumed surface area for bi-level car = 145 sf (average)
> 
> • 600 kW HEP load for the trainset
> 
> • Pneumatic service and emergency braking characteristics from 30, 45, 80, 100, 110 mph and 125 mph
> 
> • Blended service and emergency braking characteristics from 30, 45, 80, 100, 110 and 125 mph when applicable
> 
> • Route performance calculations based on Customer-specified routes


----------



## afigg

The list of specs that the bidders had to supply are pretty detailed. I can't see Siemens cheating or fudging on the bid since there were engineers quite capable of analyzing the data on the technical review team. The EMD protest appears to be about the rated horsepower numbers for the Siemens locomotive, when what really matters is the force put to the wheels over the speed curve. The Siemens loco design may be a little more efficient in getting the power to the wheels than the EMD design. Since the EMD protest is a public document, I expect we will see a letter from Siemens with counter technical arguments.

Hope this is settled without going to court.


----------



## Paulus

Is there a link to the full letter and not just the summarized version of it?


----------



## Fan Railer

Paulus said:


> Is there a link to the full letter and not just the summarized version of it?


Not at the moment, I think.


----------



## Nathanael

afigg said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which, except for the 2017 deadline, does open up some interesting possibilities, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> The deadline is still 3 years 9 months away which is a fair amount of time. About the length of time for a 4 year college degree. The FRA may be holding some of the funds back to cover cost overruns or increases due to underestimates on other projects. But some projects, at least those wrapping up construction, may come in under budget, in which case there should be leftover funds that also could be reallocated.
> If the FRA is going to re-distribute stimulus funds at this point, they would want to award it to projects where there is confidence that the funds can be spent by Sept, 2017. Which I think means projects where all the agreements are signed, does not need a lengthy EIS process, and/or the tracks are owned by Amtrak or the state.
Click to expand...

I think if there's a re-allocation at this late date, it would almost certainly be to orders of extra vehicles from the currently or soon-to-be running production lines. *Anything* involving trackwork is going to be slower than adding on to a car order.
(Well, actually, there would likely be re-allocations to projects which are going over budget, first. Poor Springfield MA Union Station.)


----------



## Nathanael

> Acceleration with the trailing cars weighing no more than an average of 170,000 lbs (average cab car and coach car):
> 
> 1 locomotive + 680,000 lbs of trailing load (3 cars + 1 cab)
> 
> 1 locomotive + 850,000 lbs of trailing load (4 cars + 1 cab)
> 
> 2 locomotives + 1,360,000 lbs of trailing load (8 cars)





> 600 kW HEP load for the trainset


Yeah, I don't think there'll be a problem and EMD is blowing smoke. Fan Railer, would you care to rerun your back-of-envelope estimates using a maximum of 5 cars rather than 8? This probably reduces the necessary newtons of force just enough to satisfy the contract requirements.


----------



## Fan Railer

Nathanael said:


> Acceleration with the trailing cars weighing no more than an average of 170,000 lbs (average cab car and coach car):
> 
> 1 locomotive + 680,000 lbs of trailing load (3 cars + 1 cab)
> 
> 1 locomotive + 850,000 lbs of trailing load (4 cars + 1 cab)
> 
> 2 locomotives + 1,360,000 lbs of trailing load (8 cars)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 600 kW HEP load for the trainset
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I don't think there'll be a problem and EMD is blowing smoke. Fan Railer, would you care to rerun your back-of-envelope estimates using a maximum of 5 cars rather than 8? This probably reduces the necessary newtons of force just enough to satisfy the contract requirements.
Click to expand...

I would re-run the estimate, but do take note that the cars used in my estimates are single level Amfleets (which come in around 130,000 lbs loaded) while the cars specified in the RFP are bi-levels. Weight wise, the consists are not that off. In addition, keep in mind that a bi-level train has a higher air drag coefficient than a single level train, so while the 5 car bi-level train may be lighter, the lower weight factor is balanced out by the higher air drag, so I still think that an estimate of 40 kN - 50 kN of drag force at 125 mph is a good estimate. If I find the motivation this evening, I may take the coefficients supplied for the Davis Equation and plug it in to find the actual drag force, but my guess is that it will still be around the ball park of my estimate. Keep in mind that in order to reach the maximum balancing speed in a timely manner, a locomotive needs to generate a significant amount more tractive effort at that speed than the calculated drag force. So even with my original estimate of 50 kN of drag force at 125 mph, the EMD locomotive, with only 51 kN of tractive force at 125 mph, would take an excruciatingly long time to reach 125, and that is on level track. There is no way that, with an estimate of 50 kN of drag force, and given the HEP load that I calculated with, that even the EMD locomotive would be able to sustain 125 mph for any given amount of time.


----------



## Fan Railer

Fan Railer said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a link to the full letter and not just the summarized version of it?
> 
> 
> 
> Not at the moment, I think.
Click to expand...

Hey, look what just popped online: http://www.scribd.com/doc/205490917/HSR-IDOT-Multi-State-Procurement-Protest-Feb-2014-Original


----------



## Paulus

Fan Railer said:


> Fan Railer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a link to the full letter and not just the summarized version of it?
> 
> 
> 
> Not at the moment, I think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, look what just popped online: http://www.scribd.com/doc/205490917/HSR-IDOT-Multi-State-Procurement-Protest-Feb-2014-Original
Click to expand...

Even granting EMD their own proposal's acceleration, that rate of acceleration is absolutely ridiculous. Almost half an hour to reach 125mph with a 600kW HEP load?


----------



## afigg

Paulus said:


> Even granting EMD their own proposal's acceleration, that rate of acceleration is absolutely ridiculous. Almost half an hour to reach 125mph with a 600kW HEP load?


The acceleration performance charts in the EMD protest letter show the specs for 125 mph speed are really not that important. I'm only paying attention to the curves for the EMD F125, not what EMD claims for the Siemens locomotive because EMD is trying to make Siemens look bad. Because these are diesel locomotives operating at the edge of their engine power output curve to reach 125 mph, it will be a long slow acceleration to creep from 120 mph to 125 mph. Where will these locomotive ever operate where they have that much time to inch up from 120 mph to 125 mph before they have to change speeds for a curve or make a station stop? That is, setting aside the question of where they could someday even operate above 110 mph in revenue service.
What matters are the time(s) in the 2 charts to 110 and 120 mph. Going from 120 to 125 mph will make no practical difference in trip times. For two EMD F125s with a 1,360,00 lb train (8 bi-level cars) and 360kW HEP, it looks to be around 320 seconds to reach 110 mph and 520 seconds to reach 120 mph from a standing start. 5.33 minutes to 110 mph and 8.66 minutes to 120 mph. Need a long open stretch of track with no station stops to get to 120 mph with a long consist.


----------



## andersone

As a participant in government procurement, and having been involved in a few bid protests, I enjoy a good protest. EMD seemed to cross their i's and dot their t's well - I don't know enough about the physics to comment on the substance, but my experience has been departments do what they want and find a loophole to do it. However reading this document has made my Sunday evening.


----------



## Anderson

I'm enjoying it as well. It looks like EMD might have Siemens on this one, if just because it looks like IL set the bid criteria with a hard pass/fail on the top speeds. I can't wait to see this one play out.


----------



## bgiaquin

EMD has a good point with whole horsepower and sustained speed issue. Plus, EMD is a proven manufacturer of reliable diesel locomotives. Siemens is great with electric but I am quite sure about diesel.


----------



## Fan Railer

bgiaquin said:


> EMD has a good point with whole horsepower and sustained speed issue. Plus, EMD is a proven manufacturer of reliable diesel locomotives. Siemens is great with electric but I am quite sure about diesel.


*not

Anyways, it's good to remember that both companies' locomotive proposals are for unproven designs. The QSK95 is a new platform that has not yet been through hard service yet, even though Cummins tends to make reliable products. The same can be said of the C175, even though that has seen more service, its 20 cylinder version has not been used on a locomotive application yet either. On the electrical side of things, Siemens has made plenty of Eurorunners over the pond, and EMD has certainly proven its worth in the freight and passenger markets here in the US.

The only proposal that would have been using more "proven" technology was the MPI-GE combo. The GEVO engine has been through its trials here and abroad, and GE's electrical side of things has been running fine in both freight (ES44AC) and passenger (P32AC-DM), but ironically, MPI-GE have been quite quiet through this so far.


----------



## Nathanael

The 125 mph requirement is really just a box-tick -- since there's not going to be any 125 mph track for them to run on. Another way to put it is that it's overspecification -- if the locomotive can technically sustain 125, it's expected to *really* be able to sustain 110, which is what it's actually going to be used for.

40 kN drag force is probably low enough for Siemens to meet the box-ticking requirement, where 50 kN might not be (according to Fan Railer's calculations).


----------



## jis

Saying that P32AC-DMs have been running fine on the electric side, may be stretching the truth a tad bit. I'd give it a good strong C, considering how often I see those things rumble in with their prime mover on.  GE has not actually built a pure electric unit that has proved to be reliable in quite a while, in spite of their corporate name and logo.


----------



## Nathanael

Oh, FWIW 600 kW HEP is a massive overspecification too. Electrical loads are something I know a little about. The air conditioning for 5 of the new bilevel cars could plausibly be run off ~48 kW; the heating shouldn't be more than twice that. The diner probably has some serious HEP load, but the rest of the HEP load just won't be that large. I suppose there's the customers' HEP load, but still.

The key is that lighting, if it's LEDs, which it will be on the new corridor cars, will be insignificant. The drop in electrical load from switching to LEDs everywhere is *massive*.

I suppose the HEP is specified high to account for pulling the old, electrically inefficient cars. But if those hang around for long they'll be retrofitted, as the energy savings is too large not to do it.


----------



## jis

Nathanael said:


> The 125 mph requirement is really just a box-tick -- since there's not going to be any 125 mph track for them to run on. Another way to put it is that it's overspecification -- if the locomotive can technically sustain 125, it's expected to *really* be able to sustain 110, which is what it's actually going to be used for.
> 
> 40 kN drag force is probably low enough for Siemens to meet the box-ticking requirement, where 50 kN might not be (according to Fan Railer's calculations).


I thought they were planning to use two units with 6 to 8 car trains for the 110mph operations. So I am a little surprised to see the flap about all this. Seems like a loser playing every possible card to see what sticks, if any.


----------



## bgiaquin

Fan Railer said:


> bgiaquin said:
> 
> 
> 
> EMD has a good point with whole horsepower and sustained speed issue. Plus, EMD is a proven manufacturer of reliable diesel locomotives. Siemens is great with electric but I am quite sure about diesel.
> 
> 
> 
> *not
> 
> Anyways, it's good to remember that both companies' locomotive proposals are for unproven designs. The QSK95 is a new platform that has not yet been through hard service yet, even though Cummins tends to make reliable products. The same can be said of the C175, even though that has seen more service, its 20 cylinder version has not been used on a locomotive application yet either. On the electrical side of things, Siemens has made plenty of Eurorunners over the pond, and EMD has certainly proven its worth in the freight and passenger markets here in the US.
> 
> The only proposal that would have been using more "proven" technology was the MPI-GE combo. The GEVO engine has been through its trials here and abroad, and GE's electrical side of things has been running fine in both freight (ES44AC) and passenger (P32AC-DM), but ironically, MPI-GE have been quite quiet through this so far.
Click to expand...

Look at it this way: Siemens has been producing mostly electric engines for however long, but EMD has been producing mostly diesels for over 75 years. Who has more potential for this DIESEL locomotive order? I think EMD. Look, I like Siemens, I think the are a great company, but it just seems to me that they do a better job with electrics.


----------



## Fan Railer

Nathanael said:


> Oh, FWIW 600 kW HEP is a massive overspecification too. Electrical loads are something I know a little about. The air conditioning for 5 of the new bilevel cars could plausibly be run off ~48 kW; the heating shouldn't be more than twice that. The diner probably has some serious HEP load, but the rest of the HEP load just won't be that large. I suppose there's the customers' HEP load, but still.
> 
> The key is that lighting, if it's LEDs, which it will be on the new corridor cars, will be insignificant. The drop in electrical load from switching to LEDs everywhere is *massive*.
> 
> I suppose the HEP is specified high to account for pulling the old, electrically inefficient cars. But if those hang around for long they'll be retrofitted, as the energy savings is too large not to do it.





jis said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 125 mph requirement is really just a box-tick -- since there's not going to be any 125 mph track for them to run on. Another way to put it is that it's overspecification -- if the locomotive can technically sustain 125, it's expected to *really* be able to sustain 110, which is what it's actually going to be used for.
> 
> 40 kN drag force is probably low enough for Siemens to meet the box-ticking requirement, where 50 kN might not be (according to Fan Railer's calculations).
> 
> 
> 
> I thought they were planning to use two units with 6 to 8 car trains for the 110mph operations. So I am a little surprised to see the flap about all this. Seems like a loser playing every possible card to see what sticks, if any.
Click to expand...

Well, if you guys look through the document a little more closely, EMD did all their calculations within the letter taking into account 2 locomotives plus 8 bilevel cars, as specified by the RFP. The drag force they calculated for such a train set was 97.19 kN, so based on my earlier calculations, two F125s together put out 102 kN @ 125 mph, while two siemens locomotives put out 94.4 kN @ 125 mph. This is all on page 18 of 19 in the letter. But I agree with afigg; 125 MPH sustained is far fetched, considering the type of service these locomotives are going to be running. 110 mph is more of a realistic bench mark, but even so, the EMD locomotive wins in that area of acceleration. The question now is how important is that 125 number in the procurement, because if it is going to be strictly adhered to, then either Siemens is going to have to revise their proposal, or this round of submissions is just going to have to be tossed and the process will need to be conducted all over again.


----------



## Nathanael

Bleah. It is unfortunately likely that the round will be tossed and started over, possibly with revised specifications. Siemens can just specify a larger diesel engine, of course.

The EMD locomotive gives me a bad vibe; it has that "freight unit trying to pretend to be a passenger unit" feel to it, to me. This may be totally unfair on my part. I can't say why exactly, but I'd rather have Siemens traction motors.


----------



## Fan Railer

Nathanael said:


> Bleah. It is unfortunately likely that the round will be tossed and started over, possibly with revised specifications. Siemens can just specify a larger diesel engine, of course.
> 
> The EMD locomotive gives me a bad vibe; it has that "freight unit trying to pretend to be a passenger unit" feel to it, to me. This may be totally unfair on my part. I can't say why exactly, but I'd rather have Siemens traction motors.


We'll see if Siemens retains price advantage if they specify a larger diesel.

And haha, GE does the same thing lol. The motors used in the HSP46 and P32AC-DM belong to the same family as the motors used in the Evolution series and Powerhaul series.


----------



## afigg

Nathanael said:


> Bleah. It is unfortunately likely that the round will be tossed and started over, possibly with revised specifications. Siemens can just specify a larger diesel engine, of course.
> 
> The EMD locomotive gives me a bad vibe; it has that "freight unit trying to pretend to be a passenger unit" feel to it, to me. This may be totally unfair on my part. I can't say why exactly, but I'd rather have Siemens traction motors.


The problem is that the clock is ticking on the ARRA funds which is paying for most (all?) of the purchase. The funds have to be expended by September 30, 2017 or they go away. Which I take to mean that the locomotives have to be delivered, go through the acceptance tests, and signed for prior to September 30, 2017. The contract RFP requires that the last unit of the base order be delivered, accepted, and invoiced by no later than June 2017. A delay in production or even small re-designs coming out of initial unit and certification tests could delay the delivery of the last units past September, 2017.
Under normal circumstances, Congress could pass a bill granting a 1 year extension to the deadline on the $8 billion in stimulus funds. But the House Republicans would never go for it.

As for Siemens vs EMD, this is a battle between 2 very large industrial companies, with EMD as a subsidiary of Caterpillar. Wonder if we will see a protest from Motive Power, the small player among the 3?


----------



## jis

Looks like the relief being sought by EMD is cancellation of this procurement process and starting a new one. This in effect would mean that the entire project is canceled and no one gets the contract, since the money will run out before the items can be delivered, unless of course Congress acts to change the deadlines, instead of rescinding the budget amount in the interest of reducing deficit/debt.


----------



## Nathanael

If the process is cancelled but the state of Illinois is angry, you'd be amazed how fast they can run a procurement process. It would be quite easy for them to rewrite the specs specifically to favor Siemens and exclude everyone else, give everyone a month to submit specs, and accept the Siemens bid that month.

This isn't one of those good-government states running the bidding, remember. This is Illinois. That usually means things are slowed down, but if the pressure is going the other way, it can mean things happen at lightning speed.


----------



## jis

Yes. That is a distinct possibility since I don't see how Illinois DoT could possibly come out of this not ticked off, such as they are.


----------



## Ryan

jis said:


> Looks like the relief being sought by EMD is cancellation of this procurement process and starting a new one. This in effect would mean that the entire project is canceled and no one gets the contract, since the money will run out before the items can be delivered, unless of course Congress acts to change the deadlines, instead of rescinding the budget amount in the interest of reducing deficit/debt.


That sounds depressingly accurate.


----------



## afigg

Nathanael said:


> If the process is cancelled but the state of Illinois is angry, you'd be amazed how fast they can run a procurement process. It would be quite easy for them to rewrite the specs specifically to favor Siemens and exclude everyone else, give everyone a month to submit specs, and accept the Siemens bid that month.
> 
> This isn't one of those good-government states running the bidding, remember. This is Illinois. That usually means things are slowed down, but if the pressure is going the other way, it can mean things happen at lightning speed.


The RFP is a multi-state procurement with federal funding with involvement from Amtrak and the FRA. Illinois is acting as the lead agency, but they are not the only ones in charge. Look at the EMD protest letter. It was sent to IL DOT, but also sent to the managers at CalTrans, WSDOT, MODOT, MI, Iowa DOT and the Chief Mechanical Officer at Amtrak. IL will not be able to play fast and loose on this if they wanted to. I expect the handling of the contract award protest will be very procedural and bureaucratic with maximum levels of CYA applied by the state DOT project/program managers.
The protest letter is dated February 3, so we may hear about a counter letter from Siemens soon.


----------



## Anderson

Assuming that Siemens has a competent rebuttal to EMD, is there any way that Illinois can turn around and basically say "We find your protest wanting"? Likewise, if EMD's protest were blown off, where could/would the process go from there?


----------



## jis

There is always an appropriate court where EMD could take it next, unfortunately.


----------



## Fan Railer

From what I can see, this does seem like a more viable protest than the hissy fit Alstom threw over Eurostar awarding Siemens the contract for 10 new high speed trains for the Eurotunnel system. That case got thrown out of court multiple times:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_374#Court_Case

It's easy to contest and debate safety regulations; it's hard to argue with physics.


----------



## Fan Railer

Well, would you look at this:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/caterpillar-loses-locomotive-contract-2014-02-27-184491630

I would really like to see Illinois's response letter, to be honest.


----------



## afigg

Fan Railer said:


> Well, would you look at this:
> 
> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/caterpillar-loses-locomotive-contract-2014-02-27-184491630
> 
> I would really like to see Illinois's response letter, to be honest.


To clarify for those who have not followed the link to the article, the protest from Caterpillar/EMD was rejected and the contract was awarded to Siemens.

"The Illinois Department of Transportation, which handled the bidding process on behalf of California, Washington, Michigan and Missouri, rejected Caterpillar's protest last week, saying Siemens' proposal met the contract's technical and performance requirements. Caterpillar said Wednesday it is considering its options for further appeals."

The article is dated February 27, after the close of business, so I'm a little surprised this was not covered elsewhere in the press today. But it will probably be in the Monday railroad trade press news.

The WSJ article discusses how Caterpillar brought EMD in 2010 and made investments with the goal of establishing a major presence in US passenger locomotive market. They apparently did not count on Siemens making its own big push into the US passenger rail market and undercutting EMD on price by a $1 million a unit. This is a big contract with options for 225 additional locomotives, so Caterpillar may decide to fight, even if it places the contract award at risk of being awarded to anybody.

As for the response from IL and the other state agencies to the protest and on award of the bid, that may be a public document that will get posted.


----------



## Ryan

Excellent news. Let get these babies built and in service.


----------



## MattW

I m surprised, but relieved that that happened so quickly. I expected the lawyers to get involved then drag the process out over the next eleventy dozen years!


----------



## afigg

MattW said:


> I m surprised, but relieved that that happened so quickly. I expected the lawyers to get involved then drag the process out over the next eleventy dozen years!


That could still happen. Caterpillar/EMD could go to court claiming that their protest was incorrectly rejected or file an appeal.


----------



## rickycourtney

Right, just because the Illinois Department of Transportation rejected the formal protest... doesn't mean the legal problems are over. Lawyers for Caterpillar/EMD can stretch this process out for months or even years as they exhaust every possible option for appeal (and they can do it even if they have no chance of winning the case!)

I hope they won't... but they probably will.

I guess I didn't realize that Caterpillar made such a huge investment trying to make it into the passenger locomotive... an investment that may all be for not if Siemens gets this contract. This is much more than an order for 32 locomotives to be used on the corridor trains... 225 locomotives for the long-distance routes are also at stake. Remember, Amtrak's orders for the P32-8WH and the Genesis (P40DC, P32AC-DM, and P42DC) locomotives kept GE's production lines humming for a decade.

That being said, we have no idea if Amtrak will actually be able to afford to buy 225 locomotives for the long-distance routes.


----------



## Railroad Bill

Since Caterpillar is an Illinois based company, I am surprised that the state DOT would not favor a contract to them. I would think the state legislators would be under a considerable amount of pressure to help a home grown industry with millions of dollars in business. ?


----------



## andersone

As a former resident of Elmwood, some 30 miles west of Peoria, a town where everyone worked at CAT, I am sorry to see this course of events. I remember what the 78 strike did to the company, and quite honestly I am saddened not to see CAT get the work. They build damn good stuff.

As a federal subcontractor, I am also aware of the protest process. It ain't over til the fat lady sings.


----------



## MikefromCrete

The locomotives would have been built in Munice, IN. at a plant EMD/CAT built in order to fire all their union workers in London, Ont. Apparently Hoosiers don't mind working for lower wages than everybody else. So, Illinois really won't have benefited that much by giving the contract to EMD.


----------



## afigg

Railroad Bill said:


> Since Caterpillar is an Illinois based company, I am surprised that the state DOT would not favor a contract to them. I would think the state legislators would be under a considerable amount of pressure to help a home grown industry with millions of dollars in business. ?


This is not just an Illinois state procurement, but a multi-state procurement. IL DOT is just acting as the coordinating lead agency. The Evaluation Report that gave higher scores to Siemens for Responsive points, price offer points is for IL DOT, CalTrans, and Washington State DOT (WSDOT). IL is representing the Midwest Coalition of IL, MI, MO. Then the contract is funded by the FRA HSIPR grants and CA state bonds (for a portion of the locomotives allotted to CA).

If were just a state of Illinois contract with the state putting up some or most of the money, then Caterpillar would be able to play the political card by going to state legislators and the Governor and try to undercut the state agency decision process. This is Illinois, after all, which is not exactly a state with a reputation for totally clean government.  But as a multi-state procurement with the FRA and Amtrak deeply involved, their political power play options are limited. They can't go to WA and complain about not getting jobs in IL and IN. With the Siemens locomotives to be built in Sacramento, Caterpillar/EMD is not going to get a responsive reception in CA. Caterpillar might try a political play in Congress, but that is a much more complex political terrain.

If Caterpillar/EMD decides to continue to protest the contract award, it will have to be through the accepted legal channels. The problem Caterpillar faces is that Siemens won the evaluation with the most points in each category: contract responsive points, price, and lower life cycle cost. Unless they can show that the points were incorrectly assigned, a judge is not likely to overrule the contract award decision.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

andersone said:


> As a former resident of Elmwood, some 30 miles west of Peoria, a town where everyone worked at CAT, I am sorry to see this course of events. I remember what the 78 strike did to the company, and quite honestly I am saddened not to see CAT get the work. They build damn good stuff.
> 
> As a federal subcontractor, I am also aware of the protest process. It ain't over til the fat lady sings.


As the (happily former) owner of an otherwise Isuzu truck with a CAT 3126 diesel, I strongly disagree with you. Everything on that truck worked right except the engine and the Allison tranny it drove through. The tranny is out of the preview of this post, but that engine, in no particular order, leaked fuel like nuts, hemoraged (expensive Cat brand only) oil primarily through crankcase blow-by, jettisoned its oil pump once (thank god for self protection!), and shot two HEUI (I called them hooey) pumps in 18 months and 32,000 miles. It was a nice truck with a crappy engine. Oh, and the cool part? The cool part was when the turbo compressor blades shredded, got into the engine, and managed to turn my $28,000 truck engine into something only suitable for maritime applications- generally as a 3/4 ton boat anchor.


----------



## gaspeamtrak

MikefromCrete said:


> The locomotives would have been built in Munice, IN. at a plant EMD/CAT built in order to fire all their union workers in London, Ont. Apparently Hoosiers don't mind working for lower wages than everybody else. So, Illinois really won't have benefited that much by giving the contract to EMD.


You are so right!


----------



## neroden

rickycourtney said:


> That being said, we have no idea if Amtrak will actually be able to afford to buy 225 locomotives for the long-distance routes.


The base order plus the option is sufficient to replace all regularly used road power except the dual-modes at Albany (which would need a different contract anyway). The remaining fleet would be "road switchers" and backups. I seriously doubt that Amtrak is going to exercise the entire option, certainly not all at once. By the time Amtrak has funded part of the option, technology may have changed and it may be desirable to put out a new bid. It would also, frankly, make more sense to order new dual-modes (not just to replace the fleet at Albany, but to get rid of those engine changes at DC, Harrisburg, and New Haven).



afigg said:


> If Caterpillar/EMD decides to continue to protest the contract award, it will have to be through the accepted legal channels. The problem Caterpillar faces is that Siemens won the evaluation with the most points in each category: contract responsive points, price, and lower life cycle cost. Unless they can show that the points were incorrectly assigned, a judge is not likely to overrule the contract award decision.


Worse for Caterpillar and EMD, if they cause too much delay by protesting, they will generate ill-will at Illinois DOT. Which I wouldn't do if I were them.


----------



## PRR 60

afigg said:


> ...
> 
> If Caterpillar/EMD decides to continue to protest the contract award, it will have to be through the accepted legal channels. The problem Caterpillar faces is that Siemens won the evaluation with the most points in each category: contract responsive points, price, and lower life cycle cost. Unless they can show that the points were incorrectly assigned, a judge is not likely to overrule the contract award decision.


That is not the situation. The 125mph capability was a firm yes/no requirement of the bid. A product that does not meet the 125mph requirement is disqualified from further consideration. If EMD can show that the product specified by Siemens does not meet the 125mph requirement gatekeeper, then a judge can void the award.


----------



## afigg

PRR 60 said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> If Caterpillar/EMD decides to continue to protest the contract award, it will have to be through the accepted legal channels. The problem Caterpillar faces is that Siemens won the evaluation with the most points in each category: contract responsive points, price, and lower life cycle cost. Unless they can show that the points were incorrectly assigned, a judge is not likely to overrule the contract award decision.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the situation. The 125mph capability was a firm yes/no requirement of the bid. A product that does not meet the 125mph requirement is disqualified from further consideration. If EMD can show that the product specified by Siemens does not meet the 125mph requirement gatekeeper, then a judge can void the award.
Click to expand...

Which is essentially what I wrote. If the Siemens proposal is not compliant with the performance specifications, then the contract responsive points were not correctly applied and Siemens would lose the contract. The technical reviewers of the three bids determined that the Siemens proposal met the speed requirements, so EMD has an uphill fight here.


----------



## Trogdor

neroden said:


> It would also, frankly, make more sense to order new dual-modes (not just to replace the fleet at Albany, but to get rid of those engine changes at DC, Harrisburg, and New Haven).


No it wouldn't.

The equipment rotation would be an absolute mess to try and keep all the locomotives separate based on whether they operate on trains that run through into non-electric territory vs. those that just stay on the NEC spine. Plus, you already have all the ACS-64s coming anyway.


----------



## PRR 60

My comment was directed at this statement:



> ...The problem Caterpillar faces is that Siemens won the evaluation with the most points in each category: contract responsive points, price, and lower life cycle cost. Unless they can show that the points were incorrectly assigned, a judge is not likely to overrule the contract award decision.


EMD's ability to prevail in an appeal does not depend on how scoring points were assigned for the items you mentioned and will not be impacted by the relative scores of the Siemens and EMD bids. The EMD complaint is focused on one issue and one issue only: the pass/fail requirement that the locomotive be a capable of 125mph. A pass/fail requirement is a gatekeeper. It is not scored for review. You either meet it or you don't. If you meet it, then the scoring in other areas becomes relevant. A bid that fails a pass/fail requirement is rejected without further review.

IDOT has found the Siemans product meets the 125mph capability and therefore is compliant. Scoring was then applied for bid comparison. EMD is claiming that the Siemens bid was not compliant and should have been rejected outright. If EMD appeals in the legal system, the burden of proof will be on EMD to show that the IDOT assessment of 125mph compliance was wrong. If EMD's arguments are not persuasive, then it's game over. However, if EMD shows to the court's satisfaction that the Siemens product does not meet the 125mph requirement, then it's a new ballgame. The court will find that the Siemens bid should not have proceeded to scoring at all. No matter how well the Siemens bid scored in other areas, the Siemens bid will be tossed.


----------



## rickycourtney

neroden said:


> rickycourtney said:
> 
> 
> 
> That being said, we have no idea if Amtrak will actually be able to afford to buy 225 locomotives for the long-distance routes.
> 
> 
> 
> The base order plus the option is sufficient to replace all regularly used road power except the dual-modes at Albany (which would need a different contract anyway). The remaining fleet would be "road switchers" and backups. I seriously doubt that Amtrak is going to exercise the entire option, certainly not all at once. By the time Amtrak has funded part of the option, technology may have changed and it may be desirable to put out a new bid. It would also, frankly, make more sense to order new dual-modes (not just to replace the fleet at Albany, but to get rid of those engine changes at DC, Harrisburg, and New Haven).
Click to expand...

I don't see why Amtrak wouldn't want to replace their entire fleet of Diesels with just one model. Having a high parts commonality saves money during maintenance.

Consider, that the bulk of Amtrak's road power is just one model... the P42DC (205 active), along with it's older sister the P40DC (25 active, all rebuilt to be like the P42DC) and the prototype P32-8WH (18 active).


----------



## cirdan

abcnews said:


> Perhaps I should have said "Retro" styling… A modern engine, but with a updated Retro look. Not a replica of an old engine, but more of a throwback design.
> 
> Was it Ford that went with a classic retro style on the Thunderbird, yet it was quite stylish and modern looking. Just a reminder of the classic 1960s models...
> 
> I was thinking a modern railroad engine, with a classic streamlined front hood and windshield.


With a bit of imagination you could say the Genesis locomotive already does that.


----------



## cirdan

neroden said:


> Worse for Caterpillar and EMD, if they cause too much delay by protesting, they will generate ill-will at Illinois DOT. Which I wouldn't do if I were them.


The stuff that gets into the news in this type of situation is usually only a very small part of the whole story.

Corporations like CAT and Siemens know very well where they can win and where they can't and don't throw good money after bad opening lawsuits out of spite.

But they may sometimes have to go through the motions because that is something shareholders expect they will do, and no senior managers want to be accused of neglecting their duty.


----------



## cirdan

PRR 60 said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> If Caterpillar/EMD decides to continue to protest the contract award, it will have to be through the accepted legal channels. The problem Caterpillar faces is that Siemens won the evaluation with the most points in each category: contract responsive points, price, and lower life cycle cost. Unless they can show that the points were incorrectly assigned, a judge is not likely to overrule the contract award decision.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the situation. The 125mph capability was a firm yes/no requirement of the bid. A product that does not meet the 125mph requirement is disqualified from further consideration. If EMD can show that the product specified by Siemens does not meet the 125mph requirement gatekeeper, then a judge can void the award.
Click to expand...

Even after a contract is awarded, there is room for further negotiation. They could thus simply ask Siemens to make some modifications to the design to make it fulfill those requirements


----------



## engr08

If Siemens can produce the motor that can go 125mph they should really look into building a dual mode motor for New York State. With the money being poured into high speed rail up there it would be foolish not to. It would be in Amtrak best interest to try to move away from the third rail system coming into Penn Station and use the overhead system. It reduce the gapping situation where you lose third and youre just gliding until you pick it back up, with a stead flow of power going with the overhead system.


----------



## afigg

cirdan said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the situation. The 125mph capability was a firm yes/no requirement of the bid. A product that does not meet the 125mph requirement is disqualified from further consideration. If EMD can show that the product specified by Siemens does not meet the 125mph requirement gatekeeper, then a judge can void the award.
> 
> 
> 
> Even after a contract is awarded, there is room for further negotiation. They could thus simply ask Siemens to make some modifications to the design to make it fulfill those requirements
Click to expand...

There are limits to what design modifications can be made and stay in bounds of the RFP and bid price. Changes to the operator controls, headlights, track signal systems are one thing. A switch to an alternate more powerful engine would be a major design change with significant cost impacts.
If Amtrak were funded like DOD, they could have a "fly-off" competition as was done for the F-16, F-35. Down select 2 companies, pay them to build 2 competing prototypes, and then test them. The equivalent would be to have Siemens and Caterpillar/EMD build or provide working locomotives, take them to Pueblo, and see which performs the best.

But this is a diesel locomotive order, not fighter jets at the (then) cutting edge of technology. Diesel locomotives and ICE engines are mature technologies, so the performance should be able to be predicted with a fair degree of accuracy.


----------



## jis

Then again Siemens could be made to eat the additional cost needed to meet the requirements or throw the whole thing into a new process I suppose. Nothing guarantees a profit for Siemens in any of the Contract. Whether Siemens makes money or not depends on the how well they are able to execute the contract within the promised price per unit I would think.


----------



## neroden

Trogdor said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would also, frankly, make more sense to order new dual-modes (not just to replace the fleet at Albany, but to get rid of those engine changes at DC, Harrisburg, and New Haven).
> 
> 
> 
> No it wouldn't.
> 
> The equipment rotation would be an absolute mess to try and keep all the locomotives separate based on whether they operate on trains that run through into non-electric territory vs. those that just stay on the NEC spine. Plus, you already have all the ACS-64s coming anyway.
Click to expand...

Deciding on service provision based on "the equipment rotation" rather than based on what the customers see (sitting for an hour at DC vs. not sitting for an hour at DC) makes no commercial sense. Many, many organizations have been sunk by doing what is easiest for the management rather than what is easiest for the customers.
That is all I have to say on that matter.


----------



## cirdan

afigg said:


> But this is a diesel locomotive order, not fighter jets at the (then) cutting edge of technology. Diesel locomotives and ICE engines are mature technologies, so the performance should be able to be predicted with a fair degree of accuracy.


In the early 1990s, Amtrak borrowed a German ICE train and a Swedish X2000 and ran them in service. Seeing how these things perform under real conditions, how passengers react, things that work, things that don't etc says much more than some theoretical analysis. I think it would be good if manufacturers provided / loaned a locomotive at their own cost and these get judged by actual performance rather than mathematical calculations that may or may not reflect reality. This is how bus manufacturers sell their stock. Admittedly the market is different and doesn't work in the same way. But by focussing too much on the paperwork rather seeking the proof of the pudding in the eating, Amtrak may be closing off certain good ideas and solution just because they don't tick the boxes.


----------



## jis

neroden said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would also, frankly, make more sense to order new dual-modes (not just to replace the fleet at Albany, but to get rid of those engine changes at DC, Harrisburg, and New Haven).
> 
> 
> 
> No it wouldn't.
> 
> The equipment rotation would be an absolute mess to try and keep all the locomotives separate based on whether they operate on trains that run through into non-electric territory vs. those that just stay on the NEC spine. Plus, you already have all the ACS-64s coming anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deciding on service provision based on "the equipment rotation" rather than based on what the customers see (sitting for an hour at DC vs. not sitting for an hour at DC) makes no commercial sense. Many, many organizations have been sunk by doing what is easiest for the management rather than what is easiest for the customers.
> That is all I have to say on that matter.
Click to expand...

It is also generally true that a train sitting for 15 extra minutes at Washington DC will not sink Amtrak, and its commercial cost is unmeasurably small in all likelihood. If things are running on schedule no one has to sit for an hour at Washington DC for an engine change. They might have such thrown into the schedule for padding for other purposes.
It will become an issue only when true HSR is extended through Washington to the south and at that point more than likely that electrification will be extended south.


----------



## Paulus

jis said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would also, frankly, make more sense to order new dual-modes (not just to replace the fleet at Albany, but to get rid of those engine changes at DC, Harrisburg, and New Haven).
> 
> 
> 
> No it wouldn't.
> The equipment rotation would be an absolute mess to try and keep all the locomotives separate based on whether they operate on trains that run through into non-electric territory vs. those that just stay on the NEC spine. Plus, you already have all the ACS-64s coming anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deciding on service provision based on "the equipment rotation" rather than based on what the customers see (sitting for an hour at DC vs. not sitting for an hour at DC) makes no commercial sense. Many, many organizations have been sunk by doing what is easiest for the management rather than what is easiest for the customers.
> That is all I have to say on that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is also generally true that a train sitting for 15 extra minutes at Washington DC will not sink Amtrak, and its commercial cost is unmeasurably small in all likelihood. If things are running on schedule no one has to sit for an hour at Washington DC for an engine change. They might have such thrown into the schedule for padding for other purposes.
> It will become an issue only when true HSR is extended through Washington to the south and at that point more than likely that electrification will be extended south.
Click to expand...

Can't have true HSR without electrification anyhow.


----------



## jis

Paulus said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would also, frankly, make more sense to order new dual-modes (not just to replace the fleet at Albany, but to get rid of those engine changes at DC, Harrisburg, and New Haven).
> 
> 
> 
> No it wouldn't.
> The equipment rotation would be an absolute mess to try and keep all the locomotives separate based on whether they operate on trains that run through into non-electric territory vs. those that just stay on the NEC spine. Plus, you already have all the ACS-64s coming anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deciding on service provision based on "the equipment rotation" rather than based on what the customers see (sitting for an hour at DC vs. not sitting for an hour at DC) makes no commercial sense. Many, many organizations have been sunk by doing what is easiest for the management rather than what is easiest for the customers.
> That is all I have to say on that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is also generally true that a train sitting for 15 extra minutes at Washington DC will not sink Amtrak, and its commercial cost is unmeasurably small in all likelihood. If things are running on schedule no one has to sit for an hour at Washington DC for an engine change. They might have such thrown into the schedule for padding for other purposes.
> It will become an issue only when true HSR is extended through Washington to the south and at that point more than likely that electrification will be extended south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't have true HSR without electrification anyhow.
Click to expand...

That's my point. When it becomes HSR the problem will take care of itself.


----------



## Trogdor

neroden said:


> Deciding on service provision based on "the equipment rotation" rather than based on what the customers see (sitting for an hour at DC vs. not sitting for an hour at DC) makes no commercial sense. Many, many organizations have been sunk by doing what is easiest for the management rather than what is easiest for the customers.
> 
> That is all I have to say on that matter.


It's not about what's easiest for management. It's about equipment rotation. That's a real thing, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Each ACS-64 costs about $6.5 million each. A dual-mode locomotive easily adds $1-2 million to that price tag. Reducing equipment rotation flexibility means you need more equipment to cover the same service. This means 1 or 2 extra locomotives, so somewhere around $7-15 million in extra capital costs, just for the same amount of service. Then, each locomotive requires maintenance and inspections, many of which are calendar-based and not mileage based, so you're increasing maintenance costs for the lifetime of that fleet (20 years or more).

Jis is right, much of the sitting around for an hour has nothing to do with engine changes and more to do with making sure that trains are on time to make their slots. New Haven, CT, is a better example, because Amtrak controls the entire railroad on both sides (so, minimal schedule padding needed). In that case, the total dwell is only 10-12 minutes, which is 8-10 minutes longer than trains that run through to/from Boston. So, now your sitting for an hour in DC becomes...sitting for 50 minutes in DC?

And lots of companies make decisions for internal reasons, even if "what the customers see" looks bad (see also: virtually every mass transportation company in North America, including passenger rail, buses, airlines). What the customer doesn't see is the efficiency that is necessary to keep a company viable. Many companies have been sunk by running an inefficient operation.


----------



## jis

And of course we won't even mention the notorious white hours in the SNCF schedules.


----------



## engr08

Trogdor said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would also, frankly, make more sense to order new dual-modes (not just to replace the fleet at Albany, but to get rid of those engine changes at DC, Harrisburg, and New Haven).
> 
> 
> 
> No it wouldn't.
> 
> The equipment rotation would be an absolute mess to try and keep all the locomotives separate based on whether they operate on trains that run through into non-electric territory vs. those that just stay on the NEC spine. Plus, you already have all the ACS-64s coming anyway
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same about the dual mode equipment on the long hauls but I was thinking about the job cuts that would come to DC. You have a bunch of yard crews that would be cut because they take the motors off and mechanical as well because they are the ones that hook up the power, do a brake test, etc. Lets just leave the way it is, I think they do a good enough getting these motors off and on.


----------



## Trogdor

It's not about job cuts, but in any event, you'd probably have to add jobs to places like Boston and New York/Sunnyside, because in that scenario the equipment rotation that allows a train coming in with an electric to leave with an electric would have to be adjusted, so the electric would be swapped out and the dual-mode put in its place (or vice versa), because the train that came in from WAS is now heading out to RVR.


----------



## jis

We still need a dual mode locomotive that can actually get certification to operate at 125mph. The problem with the only current one is its axle loading. It is unlikely to ever get certified to operate at 125mph even in pure electric mode, or so I am told by folks that make such decisions on the NEC.


----------



## engr08

ge



Trogdor said:


> It's not about job cuts, but in any event, you'd probably have to add jobs to places like Boston and New York/Sunnyside, because in that scenario the equipment rotation that allows a train coming in with an electric to leave with an electric would have to be adjusted, so the electric would be swapped out and the dual-mode put in its place (or vice versa), because the train that came in from WAS is now heading out to RVR.


Im re-reading what youre saying twice and im not understanding what you are saying. To my knowledge dual mode mean two, like an ALP45 or P32DM. I'll give you an example about what im trying to say. A train leaves NYP heading to RVR, it arrives into WAS and they now have to remove the electric. A diesel is attach to continue the trip to RVR. You need crews to take off the electric and attach the diesel. Now lets say a train leave NYP with an ALP45 (using this as an example) this train can continue its trip without anyone taking off anything. Now the crews that originally did the engine swap is no longer needed, probably just a couple of crews in case an engine goes bad. Will it be nice to use it, yes but I would worry about the cuts to the employees.


----------



## jis

I think we may be getting a bit into the weeds of how one would operate the railroad and allocate consists in a situation where dual modes are available to run the off NEC spine service into non-electrified territory.

I think Trog is using a scenario where consist are allocated for runs either on electrified territory or on extended service based on whatever is available, and if the available consist has the wrong kind of locomotive that would be replaced by the right kind at the point of origination. So there would be some additional loco swapping taking place at places like Sunnyside and Southampton St., and of course there will be no loco change at Wasington DC.

An alternative way would be to create two consist pools one for operation within the electrified zone with electric engines, and another for operation off the spine into non-electrified zones and with dual-mode engines. And then the railroad would be run with these two separate pools with an appropriately powered consist allocated for each service, sort of like the LD pool is separate from the Regional pool. In this case there will be very few engine changes needed.

I am not suggesting one is better than the other. Just pointing out that different ways of operating will involve different level of engine changes.

Generally using two pools that cannot substitute one for the other leads to a less efficient utilization of resources - as a matter of general provable fact in operations. And yet at times there are good reasons to do so. Whether this is a good place with a good reason, I don't know.


----------



## cirdan

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/five-u-states-place-contested-093058258.html



> Five U.S. states place contested locomotive order with Siemens
> 
> FRANKFURT, March 18 (Reuters) - Germany's Siemens said on Tuesday that five U.S. states had placed an order for 32 diesel-electric passenger locomotives worth about 165 million euros ($230 million), one day after U.S. rival Caterpillar said it planned to challenge the contract.
> 
> The contract includes options for another 225 locomotives, Siemens said. The locomotives are to be built at Siemens' plant in Sacramento, California and will be equipped with diesel engines made by Cummins, it said.
> 
> Caterpillar announced on Monday that it had filed formal complaints challenging the decision by its home state of Illinois to give the contract to a partnership formed by Siemens and Cummins Inc.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

cirdan said:


> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/five-u-states-place-contested-093058258.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FRANKFURT, March 18 (Reuters) - Germany's Siemens said on Tuesday that five U.S. states had placed an order for 32 diesel-electric passenger locomotives worth about 165 million euros ($230 million), one day after U.S. rival Caterpillar said it planned to challenge the contract.
Click to expand...

Well, good. Let's keep things moving.

What happens next? I assume that Caterpillar will have to persuade a judge to overturn the states' decision and order a do-over. The faster the matter can get before the judge, the sooner it can be resolved, right?


----------



## Fan Railer

It's been finalized, and it seems that EMD has lost the fight for now. They've also named the locomotive... "Charger." What do you think?

http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/pressemitteilungen/2014/infrastructure-cities/rail-systems/ICRL201403009e.pdf

Fair use quote:



> The Departments of Transportation for the U.S. states of Illinois, California, Michigan, Missouri and Washington have awarded Siemens a contract for the delivery of 32 diesel-electric passenger locomotives. The contract is valued at approximately €165 million ($225 million). It includes a purchase option for another 225 locomotives which will be used for regional and mainline trains traveling at speeds of up to 200 km/h (125 mph). The 32 locomotives ordered are scheduled to be delivered between fall of 2016 and mid-2017. "For Siemens this order marks our entry into the U.S. diesel-electric locomotive market and strongly underscores our long-term vision for the U.S. passenger rail market", Jochen Eickholt, CEO of the Siemens Rail Systems Division, emphasized. The diesel-electric locomotives will be manufactured at the Siemens plant in Sacramento, California...
> 
> ... The official Notice to Proceed has now been formally granted...
> 
> ...The Charger locomotives will be used exclusively in passenger service. The primary traction drive, a 4,400 hp-rated diesel engine with 16 cylinders and a cubic capacity of 95 liters, will be manufactured in the U.S. by Cummins Inc., headquartered in Columbus, Indiana. These modern locomotives are powerful and efficient and will deliver a cleaner ride, with better air quality and reduced emission rates ensuring compliance with the Federal Railroad's EPA Tier IV regulation required to be in place in 2015...
> 
> ...The contract includes 32 vehicles plus spare parts supply. In addition, there are options for an additional 75 locomotives for use in regional transportation and another 150 locomotives for mainline transportation.
> 
> The Charger locomotive reaches a tractive effort on starting of 290 kN with a weight of around 120 tons. The Cummins QSK95 diesel engine is 4,400 hp-rated. These U.S. locomotives are based technically on the Siemens Eurosprinter, Eurorunner and Vectron locomotive platforms which have been proven through several billion kilometers in both freight and passenger service. The components are procured and manufactured exclusively in the United States.


----------



## jis

I wonder what the parts commonality will be with the Sprinters? Most likely same trucks and motors, and most of the electrical between the DC link and the wheels?


----------



## cirdan

jis said:


> I wonder what the parts commonality will be with the Sprinters? Most likely same trucks and motors, and most of the electrical between the DC link and the wheels?


I guess also on the level of electronics and control system and the communications bus. Even if some customization is needed to equip a diesel rather than an electric, it would make sense to use the same underlying platform.

Possibly this might even imply you could m.u. a Charger with a Sprinter. Not that it would make much sense though.


----------



## afigg

Fan Railer said:


> It's been finalized, and it seems that EMD has lost the fight for now. They've also named the locomotive... "Charger." What do you think?


The Charger? Pretty bleh name IMHO. In an age where we all have multiple chargers for all the electronic gadgets, sounds like a wall socket charger.
That the Notice To Proceed (NTP) has been granted is an important step. There is often a long gap between the official contract award and the formal NTP as the managers, accountants and auditors hammer out the details of the contract. The contract negotiation process and NTP appears to have been expedited. Now we will see if Caterpillar/EMD are able to stall the contract work in court.


----------



## Paulus

I wonder if this means that a Siemens victory for Acela II means the return of "American Flyer"


----------



## Agent

Fan Railer said:


> It's been finalized, and it seems that EMD has lost the fight for now. They've also named the locomotive... "Charger." What do you think?


I have to ask, do they plan on these locomotives going to San Diego?


----------



## Paulus

Agent said:


> Fan Railer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's been finalized, and it seems that EMD has lost the fight for now. They've also named the locomotive... "Charger." What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> I have to ask, do they plan on these locomotives going to San Diego?
Click to expand...

Yup, some will go to the Surfliners.


----------



## CHamilton

Agent said:


> Fan Railer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's been finalized, and it seems that EMD has lost the fight for now. They've also named the locomotive... "Charger." What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> I have to ask, do they plan on these locomotives going to San Diego?
Click to expand...

I was waiting for that one


----------



## Fan Railer

jis said:


> I wonder what the parts commonality will be with the Sprinters? Most likely same trucks and motors, and most of the electrical between the DC link and the wheels?


My guess is that they'll have to beef the truck / suspension up a little bit to handle the extra weight, much like Bombardier beefed up the ALP-46 truck /suspension to support the ALP-45DP's increased weight.


----------



## NE933

afigg said:


> Fan Railer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's been finalized, and it seems that EMD has lost the fight for now. They've also named the locomotive... "Charger." What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> The Charger? Pretty bleh name IMHO. In an age where we all have multiple chargers for all the electronic gadgets, sounds like a wall socket charger.
> That the Notice To Proceed (NTP) has been granted is an important step. There is often a long gap between the official contract award and the formal NTP as the managers, accountants and auditors hammer out the details of the contract. The contract negotiation process and NTP appears to have been expedited. Now we will see if Caterpillar/EMD are able to stall the contract work in court.
Click to expand...

'Charger' has a powerful ring to it.

We hear armies struggling for victory commanding their troops to "Charge!!", and this is what Amtrak must do. Charge, and start taking control and responsibility.

If I were Joe B., I would go similar to the lifespan of the F40 and Genesis patterns, and add on 50 Charger locomotives now, then once and if they prove well, go with the other 175. Reasoning for an initial Amtrak order of 50 is that if the states have faith in this product (and who can't with Siemens), so can the NRPC.


----------



## jis

The problem of finding the money does not vaporize simply because the states have chosen something though.


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> The problem of finding the money does not vaporize simply because the states have chosen something though.


Amtrak's FY2015 appropriations request which was posted today provides info on their new proposed funding approach that could provide the capital funds over time to pay for new locomotives and rolling stock for the LD trains. Mainly by splitting the federal grants into 3 categories: NEC, state support and LD with $295 million in FY15 for capital grants for the LD trains. Keep it at the circa $280 million a year level as shown in the request and Amtrak can buy the new locomotives in incremental batches. I should start a thread on the new FY2015 funding request, but I don't know if I want to start a thread that is likely to get quite heated.


----------



## jis

So remind me again, which five states are officially involved in the procurement that IDOT is managing? Illinois, Michigan, California and ....?


----------



## afigg

Anyway, if the new locomotives are to be called Chargers and they stick to the convention of using the engine horsepower rating in the name, would Amtrak call them the American Cities Charger - 44 or ACC-44? Hmm, no, that could confuse people to think the new locomotives are associated with the Atlantic Coast Conference. 

ok, so something something C-44? Ideas?


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> So remind me again, which five states are officially involved in the procurement that IDOT is managing? Illinois, Michigan, California and ....?


Missouri and Washington state. The EMD protest letter was also copied to Iowa DOT although I expect Iowa DOT is a passive observer at this point since the Iowa governor and Iowa House leadership have all but killed their portion of the Chicago-Quad Cities-Iowa City corridor project.


----------



## Alice

Siemens facility in Sacramento to build locomotives for U.S. rail projects

This is about the Chargers.



> Siemens on Tuesday announced that it has been awarded a $225 million contract to build 32 diesel-electric locomotives – all of which will be assembled at the Siemens rail manufacturing facility in Sacramento – for rail projects in California and four other states.


----------



## MattW

Ok, I'm lost, when did we lose 3 locomotives for 32 instead of 35?


----------



## neroden

Trogdor said:


> New Haven, CT, is a better example, because Amtrak controls the entire railroad on both sides (so, minimal schedule padding needed). In that case, the total dwell is only 10-12 minutes, which is 8-10 minutes longer than trains that run through to/from Boston.


The states have spent hundreds of millions to cut 10-12 minutes off of schedules.

A single dual-mode could cut roughly 20 minutes off the schedule of #147 (to use the extreme example, which has to change engines twice during its run). And it doesn't cost hundreds of millions.

It's obviously worth it, maybe not to run dual-modes on *all* trains which run through, but certainly to run them on *some*. It would be different if Amtrak had no dual-mode fleet at all, but Amtrak has to have a dual-mode fleet anyway, and expansion of its role is appropriate.


----------



## Fan Railer

MattW said:


> Ok, I'm lost, when did we lose 3 locomotives for 32 instead of 35?


It's always been 32-35 locomotives. I guess they finally settled on the lower end of things for some reason.


----------



## afigg

MattW said:


> Ok, I'm lost, when did we lose 3 locomotives for 32 instead of 35?


The variable is Washington state DOT which will purchase between 5 to 8 locomotives. So they broke the bid into a base of 32 locomotives with a fixed price option of 3 locomotives for WSDOT. All 32 to 35 locomotives are to be delivered by June, 2017 so I figure there is at least some stimulus funds in the option for 3 WSDOT locomotives.
Skimming some of the RFP documents, the options for up to 225 additional locomotives are priced through a formula which was not part of the technical and price evaluation. The RFP documents are still available on the IL DOT Multi-State Locomotive Procurement website, but the site may get taken down at some point with the contract award and NTP. Those interested in the details may want to download and save the relevant documents for future reference. Some of the questions asked by the prospective offerors in the question response Addendums are interesting. Who wanted a 30 day extension on submitting the bid to get corporate approval (extension was not granted)?


----------



## afigg

Found the CalTrans press release on the Siemens contract award, which of course, notes that the locomotives will be built in Sacramento. The CalTrans release does not add that much info, but it does a have a link to the Master Agreement for the contract (8 page PDF) which is skimpy because it is missing the exhibit attachment documents.

The agreement is to last 7 years but it can be extended to 10 years. So that is the window for exercising the options under the contract. Also, the requirement is in the Master Agreement that a consist of 2 locomotives and 8 bi-level cars on level, tangent track shall sustain 125 mph speed at the conditions set forth in the PRIIA spec. So Siemens has signed up to meet that requirement. Presumably in there as a counter to the expected EMD/Caterpillar protest.


----------



## PRR 60

afigg said:


> Found the CalTrans press release on the Siemens contract award, which of course, notes that the locomotives will be built in Sacramento. The CalTrans release does not add that much info, but it does a have a link to the Master Agreement for the contract (8 page PDF) which is skimpy because it is missing the exhibit attachment documents.
> 
> The agreement is to last 7 years but it can be extended to 10 years. So that is the window for exercising the options under the contract. Also, the requirement is in the Master Agreement that a consist of 2 locomotives and 8 bi-level cars on level, tangent track shall sustain 125 mph speed at the conditions set forth in the PRIIA spec. So Siemens has signed up to meet that requirement. Presumably in there as a counter to the expected EMD/Caterpillar protest.


Not an "expected" protest. EMD Caterpillar filed an appeal March 17 with the Illinois Procurement Policy Review Board and the Cook County, Ill., Chancery Court.


----------



## afigg

PRR 60 said:


> Not an "expected" protest. EMD Caterpillar filed an appeal March 17 with the Illinois Procurement Policy Review Board and the Cook County, Ill., Chancery Court.


Well, to be picky, the signatures on the Master Agreement are dated from March 8 to March 13, so if the EMD protest appeal was filed on March 17, the agreement was ahead of the "expected" appeal.


----------



## PRR 60

afigg said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not an "expected" protest. EMD Caterpillar filed an appeal March 17 with the Illinois Procurement Policy Review Board and the Cook County, Ill., Chancery Court.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, to be picky, the signatures on the Master Agreement are dated from March 8 to March 13, so if the EMD protest appeal was filed on March 17, the agreement was ahead of the "expected" appeal.
Click to expand...

The formal appeal, which I am sure both sides expected, occurs after the award of the contract. Until a contract is executed, there is no actionable harm as a basis for remedial action.

EMD originally asked IDOT for reconsideration prior to the final award. That a procedural step. I don't think they expected a favorable outcome from IDOT. After all, IDOT made the original determination. If they reversed on reconsideration, then they would have been saying they were wrong in the first place, and no government agency likes doing that.

Now that IDOT has awarded the contract and issued a notice to proceed, EMD has grounds to go to the state procurement board (which oversees all state contracts) and to the courts to argue that the bid analysis and award violated the terms of the procurement documents. Assuming EMD wants to pursue this down the line, they can ask for an injunction to halt work while the courts hear the arguments.

I've read the EMD argument and the procurement specification, and on the surface I think EMD has a persuasive case. The procurement specification required the use of a specific methodology for determining the HP required to meet the specified performance, including the parameters to be used in that methodology (weight, drag area, etc.). This was worded as a firm requirement and did not include "or approved equal" or similar wording that would permit use of another method. Using that methodology, EMD determined the required HP and designed the locomotive accordingly.

Siemens used a different methodology than the one in the spec and bid a lower HP locomotive. By accepting the EMD bid as compliant, IDOT accepted Siemens use of that alternate methodology. EMD is arguing that, when the required methodology is applied to the Siemens locomotive, it does not meet spec. They argue that IDOT, by accepting the Siemens methodology in the bid analysis, effectively changed the terms of the procurement specification after the fact: that had EMD been permitted to use the same methodology, they could have submitted a lower HP locomotive at a lower price, but were not afforded that opportunity. It's an uneven playing field argument.

Back before I became a burden on society (retired), one of my areas was preparation of procurement specifications and technical review of bids. A fundamental requirement of bid and procurement is that all bidders must be afforded the same opportunity to bid. To allow one bidder to change a requirement in the specification without notifying and permitting all bidders to make the same change is just the sort of thing that gets contracts tossed out by the courts. This is especially true with public sector bidding.

Unless there are some weasel words buried somewhere in the spec that I did not see (possible), or unless EMD was afforded an opportunity to rebid (maybe), the EMD appeal will be interesting to follow.


----------



## Amfleeter

Just a question, but when Amtrak decides to get in on buying new locomotives, would they be able to just jump on this, or will they have to start their own bidding process, giving EMD another shot, and possibly allowing GE to bid something? I'm surprised in the first place that GE didn't bid - possibly waiting for Amtrak, or already talking to Amtrak? It would be interesting to see what GE has to bid - possibly a Genesis with GEVO internals?


----------



## Paulus

Amfleeter said:


> Just a question, but when Amtrak decides to get in on buying new locomotives, would they be able to just jump on this, or will they have to start their own bidding process, giving EMD another shot, and possibly allowing GE to bid something? I'm surprised in the first place that GE didn't bid - possibly waiting for Amtrak, or already talking to Amtrak? It would be interesting to see what GE has to bid - possibly a Genesis with GEVO internals?


There was an option included for a long distance version, shouldn't be any need to rebid.


----------



## jis

Amfleeter said:


> Just a question, but when Amtrak decides to get in on buying new locomotives, would they be able to just jump on this, or will they have to start their own bidding process, giving EMD another shot, and possibly allowing GE to bid something? I'm surprised in the first place that GE didn't bid - possibly waiting for Amtrak, or already talking to Amtrak? It would be interesting to see what GE has to bid - possibly a Genesis with GEVO internals?


There are reliable rumors that GE has no intention of entering the passenger diesel market on its own. It will likely play it in collaboration with MPI, as it did in this RFP possibly. MPI did put in a bid and it is believed to have been based on the HSP46 that they are delivering to MBTA which uses a GE Prime Mover, though they probably had to find a new body meeting the height restrictions in this RFP.

So, no AFAIK they are not having any secret chats with Amtrak about any such. So if anyone is dreaming of a Genesis II they will most likely be disappointed.


----------



## Amtrak172

These new locomotives aren't going to be replacing the P42's right?

Amtrak172


----------



## jis

They will be displacing P42s on the Midwest and California Corridor trains. But those P42s will be deployed in other parts of the Amtrak network.


----------



## PerRock

Amtrak172 said:


> These new locomotives aren't going to be replacing the P42's right?
> 
> Amtrak172





jis said:


> They will be displacing P42s on the Midwest and California Corridor trains. But those P42s will be deployed in other parts of the Amtrak network.


Correct, However part of the order is the option for ordering long distance versions to replace the P42s used on the long distance trains. But that isn't going even really be discussed for a number of years.

peter


----------



## jis

PerRock said:


> Amtrak172 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These new locomotives aren't going to be replacing the P42's right?
> 
> Amtrak172
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will be displacing P42s on the Midwest and California Corridor trains. But those P42s will be deployed in other parts of the Amtrak network.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct, However part of the order is the option for ordering long distance versions to replace the P42s used on the long distance trains. But that isn't going even really be discussed for a number of years.
> 
> peter
Click to expand...

Good point Peter! I suppose we'll discuss that seriously when it is funded.


----------



## neroden

PRR 60 said:


> They argue that IDOT, by accepting the Siemens methodology in the bid analysis, effectively changed the terms of the procurement specification after the fact: that had EMD been permitted to use the same methodology, they could have submitted a lower HP locomotive at a lower price, but were not afforded that opportunity. It's an uneven playing field argument.


I don't know Illinois law very well, but based on what I've read about bidding in Illinois in the past, I'm pretty sure that it's one of the states where exigent circumstances, emergency, etc., allows all of that "even playing field" stuff to be thrown out the window. And you can bet that the governor of Illinois will not tolerate messing with his schedule; he cares about this getting done. If he loses office then EMD might have a chance at getting the contract, otherwise they have no chance whatsoever.


----------



## MikefromCrete

neroden said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They argue that IDOT, by accepting the Siemens methodology in the bid analysis, effectively changed the terms of the procurement specification after the fact: that had EMD been permitted to use the same methodology, they could have submitted a lower HP locomotive at a lower price, but were not afforded that opportunity. It's an uneven playing field argument.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know Illinois law very well, but based on what I've read about bidding in Illinois in the past, I'm pretty sure that it's one of the states where exigent circumstances, emergency, etc., allows all of that "even playing field" stuff to be thrown out the window. And you can bet that the governor of Illinois will not tolerate messing with his schedule; he cares about this getting done. If he loses office then EMD might have a chance at getting the contract, otherwise they have no chance whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Since EMD is based in Illinois, you would think that would give it leg up on the matter, but it didn't. Perhaps Siemens just submitted a better bid. EMD should submit a better bid next time.


----------



## Fan Railer

Two things:

1; I don't recall seeing the formal IDOT response to the initial protest shared here, but my memory has been known to be shoddy at times. Anyway, here it is: http://www2.illinois.gov/cpo/dot/Documents/Departments%20Recommendation%20on%20EMD's%20Protest.pdf

Can anyone say, "Apply ice pack to the burn here"?

2; This will eventually warrant a separate thread, but for now I'll start it here, it seems like Amtrak is pursuing a separate contract for 15 tier IV compliant diesel locomotives, perhaps to replace P32-8WHs: http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/mechanical/locomotives/amtrak-rfi-ponders-tier-4-locomotive-order.html?channel=35

It will be interesting to see where this goes.


----------



## Ryan

Wow, IDOT came out guns blazing. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## PerRock

That's a good read!

One question however, what is all this business with the iPads they talk about. Based solely off from the protest response is does sound like Siemens tried to bribe the officials with iPads.

peter


----------



## Paulus

PerRock said:


> That's a good read!
> 
> One question however, what is all this business with the iPads they talk about. Based solely off from the protest response is does sound like Siemens tried to bribe the officials with iPads.
> 
> peter


I suspect it was more of a "Here's a more convenient and/or interactive way of reading our stuff."


----------



## andersone

I think Paulus has the right idea,, the technology is so cheap that if a presentation were platform driven, could make a positive effect. We are just not used to folks providing overhead projectors as part of the presentation.

The part I love is count the plastic section separators as pages


----------



## PerRock

andersone said:


> The part I love is count the plastic section separators as pages


I got a good laugh out of that as well.

peter


----------



## Fan Railer

Coming from the other side, I do find it dubious that IDOT simply rejected EMD's use of the 90% transmission efficiency value from diesel alternator to wheel rim. Correct me if I'm wrong, but should that be common knowledge in the railroad industry that you're not going to get 100% of rated prime mover power to the wheels for tractive effort, even if there IS a separate HEP motor? It's not like its something new or ground breaking. And assuming 90% efficiency is actually pretty high, considering the average efficiency ratings are usually between 80%-90%. IDOT just dismissed it like nothing, which raises a flag for me. It seems like there's more going on behind the scenes from a political standpoint.

I'd also like to see the full documentation that was given to EMD via the FOIA act, since IDOT claims several times that EMD mis-interprets the information in those documents as part of their argument, yet never provides proof on their own part. If EMD's protest was shoddy, in IDOT's terms, then IDOT's initial response, from a technical perspective, is utter BS.


----------



## neroden

Fan Railer said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1; I don't recall seeing the formal IDOT response to the initial protest shared here, but my memory has been known to be shoddy at times. Anyway, here it is:


Niiiice. And pretty definitive, unless there's someone politically backing EMD in one of the official decision-making positions.

If EMD tries to keep this up their ass will be handed to them. They made the governor's office mad. They have no legal case -- looks like Illinois law is quite strict about what you're allowed to protest, and extremely strict about the deadline for protesting.



> 2; This will eventually warrant a separate thread, but for now I'll start it here, it seems like Amtrak is pursuing a separate contract for 15 tier IV compliant diesel locomotives, perhaps to replace P32-8WHs:


This isn't even enough to replace all the P32-8WHs.

The clue for where these will be allocated is that this is in association with the Carl Moyer Grant Program. This is a California-specific program, meaning that these locomotives would initially be used strictly or at least primarily in California. It is also intended for switchers, though it can be used for non-switch locos on a case by case basis.

The new RFI must be replacing some of the following:

- one of the older stored switchers (there is one new switcher at Oakland and one new switcher at LA)

- 5 P32-8s used occasionally for road duties, more often for switching, in California

- 15 Amtrak-owned F59PHIs used on the Surfliner;

- or possibly (unlikely) some of the California-owned locomotives (16 F59PHIs, 2 P32-8s)

The RFI is for sufficiently many locos that it has to be replacing some F59PHIs.

Since the contract is supposed to be for "15 locomotives and 1 switcher", I'm going to guess it will immediately replace all the F59PHIs on the Surfliner, and add a switcher at either LA or Oakland, though this is just a guess. I would expect the F59PHIs to be retained and cascaded to replace P32-8s, and probably the GP38H-3s used as standby power on the Downeaster. The F59PHIs are preferable to P32-8s for passenger service because of the separate HEP generator.

The P32-8s themselves would probably all be taken out of passenger service, because (after the multi-state order *and* the order in this RFI are delivered) there would be enough F59PHIs to cover protect/standby/rescue engine requirements.

But I wouldn't dare to guess whether the P32-8s would actually leave Amtrak service entirely; Amtrak still needs road power for non-revenue trains. It may make sense to cascade the P32-8s to this role, and get rid of the GP38H-3s instead. Or even to replace the 2000 hp GP38 switchers with P32-8s. (The GP38 switchers were last rebuilt in the 1990s.) It probably wouldn't make sense to replace the lower-horsepower switchers with the P32-8s, of course.


----------



## Fan Railer

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## afigg

neroden said:


> The clue for where these will be allocated is that this is in association with the Carl Moyer Grant Program. This is a California-specific program, meaning that these locomotives would initially be used strictly or at least primarily in California. It is also intended for switchers, though it can be used for non-switch locos on a case by case basis.
> 
> The new RFI must be replacing some of the following:
> 
> - one of the older stored switchers (there is one new switcher at Oakland and one new switcher at LA)
> 
> - 5 P32-8s used occasionally for road duties, more often for switching, in California
> 
> - 15 Amtrak-owned F59PHIs used on the Surfliner;
> 
> - or possibly (unlikely) some of the California-owned locomotives (16 F59PHIs, 2 P32-8s)
> 
> The RFI is for sufficiently many locos that it has to be replacing some F59PHIs.
> 
> Since the contract is supposed to be for "15 locomotives and 1 switcher", I'm going to guess it will immediately replace all the F59PHIs on the Surfliner, and add a switcher at either LA or Oakland, though this is just a guess. I would expect the F59PHIs to be retained and cascaded to replace P32-8s, and probably the GP38H-3s used as standby power on the Downeaster. The F59PHIs are preferable to P32-8s for passenger service because of the separate HEP generator.


It should be noted that the RFI is to support Amtrak's _application_ to the Carl Moyer Grant Program. Presumably the RFI is aimed at Siemens to provide prices and data to exercise options on 15 Charger locomotives, although EMD may decide to respond and propose F125s, if for no other reason than to get in Siemens way.

But this is not a "contract", but for an application for a CA state grant program which for 15 locomotives at circa $7 million each plus a yard switcher would be in the $100 to $110 million range. We don't know if getting the grant award is a near sure thing or whether Amtrak is taking a long shot at trying to land the grant so they can reallocate 15 of their locomotives elsewhere.


----------



## neroden

Yes, it's not a sure thing. However, the Carl Moyer Grant Program has a very restrictive set of uses. It is only for diesel equipment, and it can't be used for most Class I freight locomotives. It also only applies to organizations which are trying to use "cleaner than required" engines.

So Amtrak's application for replacing Tier 0 diesels with Tier 4 diesels would be competing with applications for retrofitting or replacing stuff like this:

- fire truck engines

- portable generators used in agriculture

- tractors

- lawn mowers

- marine engines

- heavy construction truck engines

The thing about this is that many of these categories (a) have stricter emissions standards than railroad locomotives to start with, and (b) the equipment has shorter lifetimes than locomotives, so the average equipment age is newer to start with. (Marine engines are a major exception.) Much of the old, smoke-belching stuff in these categories was probably already decomissioned in the last 20 years either due to breakage or minimum emissions standards. The previous years' rounds of grants will have gotten rid of a bunch more of the old stuff. Furthermore, a lot of this other stuff is really quite cheap to do and won't use up a large portion of the funding. (Again, marine engines are a major exception.)

The program is supposed to try to get the most emissions reductions for their buck.

As a result, an application for locomotive replacements is likely to have larger emissions reductions compared to most applications, and has a pretty good shot. (By the way, "cascading" of locomotives has been approved by the grant program before, as long as the worst-emissions locomotives are then retired. I also believe that Amtrak has successfully gotten grants from this program for switcher replacement before.)

If there are some big marine engine repowering applications, which are expensive and have large emissions reductions, then Amtrak might lose the application, but I still think it has a good shot.

In this context, either Siemens Chargers or EMD F125s would probably be fine. They'll both be in use in California. I think those are the only two likely possibilities.


----------



## cirdan

jis said:


> PerRock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak172 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These new locomotives aren't going to be replacing the P42's right?
> 
> Amtrak172
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> They will be displacing P42s on the Midwest and California Corridor trains. But those P42s will be deployed in other parts of the Amtrak network.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct, However part of the order is the option for ordering long distance versions to replace the P42s used on the long distance trains. But that isn't going even really be discussed for a number of years.
> 
> peter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good point Peter! I suppose we'll discuss that seriously when it is funded.
Click to expand...

I also guess that with technlogy continually advancing the way it is, that what gets ordered then wont be identical to what's being ordered now, even if the platform and certain elements might ne the same. Think P40 vs P42.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I dunno why people spend so much time trying to replace older, dirtier, but still relatively clean Diesel engines. They'd be better off yanking some of the 1980s era clunkers I've seen around LA off the road then a bunch of relatively clean F59PHis.


----------



## cirdan

Fan Railer said:


> Coming from the other side, I do find it dubious that IDOT simply rejected EMD's use of the 90% transmission efficiency value from diesel alternator to wheel rim. Correct me if I'm wrong, but should that be common knowledge in the railroad industry that you're not going to get 100% of rated prime mover power to the wheels for tractive effort, even if there IS a separate HEP motor? It's not like its something new or ground breaking. And assuming 90% efficiency is actually pretty high, considering the average efficiency ratings are usually between 80%-90%. IDOT just dismissed it like nothing, which raises a flag for me. It seems like there's more going on behind the scenes from a political standpoint.
> 
> I'd also like to see the full documentation that was given to EMD via the FOIA act, since IDOT claims several times that EMD mis-interprets the information in those documents as part of their argument, yet never provides proof on their own part. If EMD's protest was shoddy, in IDOT's terms, then IDOT's initial response, from a technical perspective, is utter BS.


Nowhere does it say 100% was being assumed. It just says that 90% is being rejected as a blanket figure. If Siemens can credibly prove they are offering a system with a consistently higher efficiency then i think its fair to use that higher figure in the calculations rather than the90% assumption.

Though having said that, and speaking as an engineer, I agree with you that even the 90% claim is on the high side.


----------



## Ryan

There's nothing that says that efficiency isn't a part of the formula used for calculations.

It sounds like EMD just decided to throw an extra 90% knockdown factor onto both sets of numbers, which just so happens to put Seimens under the threshold and leave them just above it. I'm sure that's totally a coincidence.


----------



## Paulus

Green Maned Lion said:


> I dunno why people spend so much time trying to replace older, dirtier, but still relatively clean Diesel engines. They'd be better off yanking some of the 1980s era clunkers I've seen around LA off the road then a bunch of relatively clean F59PHis.


There's not that terribly many of them in my experience driving around SoCal and they're required to pass smog tests.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

At their original emissions level, not the current one.


----------



## MetraUPWest

I have a lot of experience with both old and the most recent EMD products, and the current EMD locomotives are pretty embarassing. There's a reason GE destroys them in the freight market- and GE has plenty of problems too so what does that tell you?

EMD should focus on making a good product again rather than trying to sue away the competition.


----------



## neroden

Green Maned Lion said:


> I dunno why people spend so much time trying to replace older, dirtier, but still relatively clean Diesel engines. They'd be better off yanking some of the 1980s era clunkers I've seen around LA off the road then a bunch of relatively clean F59PHis.


What are you thinking of? There's a separate program to replace or repower the freight switcher locomotives.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

The Carl Moyer grant program is about getting older Diesel engines out of service in California- by engine I mean motor, not locomotive. I don't know where the public got the crazy idea that Diesel engines are dirty. For any given year a given diesel of given power produces less pollutants (especially since ULSD) across the whole spectrum than it's gas equivalent, excluding carbon particulates, which are relatively safe.

California would do much better restricting usage of classic gas cars, and assisting poor people acquiring newer cars than the garbage you frequently find running around on the west coast.

For $4,000,000 you can get one old diesel locomotive out of California. Or you can replace 150 ancient Ford pickups with belching straight sixes and V8s with modern F150 EcoBoosts that get double the fuel economy, produce a 50th the pollution, and are safer for both their owner and the rest of the drivers on the road.


----------



## Paulus

> I don't know where the public got the crazy idea that Diesel engines are dirty.


From facts maybe?

"Are gasoline-fueled cars or large diesel trucks the bigger source of secondary organic aerosol (SOA), a major component of smog? UC Berkeley researchers have stepped into this debate with a new study that says diesel exhaust contributes 15 times more than gas emissions per liter of fuel burned."



> and assisting poor people acquiring newer cars than the garbage you frequently find running around on the west coast.


Already a state program.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Congratulations. You cherry picked one emissions component.


----------



## neroden

Green Maned Lion said:


> California would do much better restricting usage of classic gas cars, and assisting poor people acquiring newer cars than the garbage you frequently find running around on the west coast.


Oh, you meant ON-road vehicles. You wrote "1980s era clunkers I've seen around LA off the road" (note the word "off", which confused me). Sure. Separate program, and different politics because the politics of automobiles is weird and complicated.


----------



## MetraUPWest

I still haven't figure out why with automobiles as emissions laws became more stringent they became more reliable, and locomotives are the exact opposite. "Dirty" locomotives are FAR more reliable than clean ones.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

The reliability of a modern crappy automobile has improved because the companies that made them could no longer get away with selling garbage any longer. GM for instance designed components to break at intervals. When Toyota briefly tried to sell superior cars in the 80s and 90s, that kind of joke didn't fly anymore.

But for the companies that actually built good cars- Peugeot, Volvo, Saab, and Mercedes-Benz, the quality of their products peaked in mid 80s. It was downhill since. Volvo sold of its car manufacturing business in 2000, Saab is dead, Peugeot does NOT build superior products anymore. Mercedes spent the late 90s to mid 2000s in a sort of lost decade, the legacy of which is still hurting them.


----------



## Paulus

Green Maned Lion said:


> Congratulations. You cherry picked one emissions component.


Second link on google as I recall and "major component of smog" is kinda one of the more important things as far as CA is concerned.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Yeah but those are people who want to live in California.


----------



## Paulus

Green Maned Lion said:


> Yeah but those are people who want to live in California.


Having been to Jersey several times that resounds rather strongly in our favor.


----------



## frequentflyer

So will most likely go to Seimens EMD or MPI?


----------



## jis

If they acquire them by exercising the options then it will be Siemens. Not EMD or MPI.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Amfleeter

jis said:


> If they acquire them by exercising the options then it will be Siemens. Not EMD or MPI.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


Just a question regarding MPI, is the new Tier IV, 5400 HP MP40PH-3C upgrade, probably regeared for 125 MPH with a larger fuel tank (1850 gallons probably isn't enough for LD) something Amtrak could possibly consider? GO Transit is currently having their MP40s upgraded to the new standard, so it is there, along with being a proven platform.


----------



## frequentflyer

What is it about the MPX, outside of the smaller fuel tank that Amtrak doesn't like? Its not vaporware, its here and running. And is it me or does the MPX ride a on a longer than normal platform for a four axle locomotive. The MPX could be Amtrak's next F40, but looks odd riding on such a long platform.


----------



## jis

With the contract and options in place with Siemens specially with an engine that has significant common parts with the electrics, specially on the electric drive and truck components, I'd be very surprised if Amtrak would go with anything else at this point. MPI will of course have to figure out how to get a carbody that meets Amtrak's requirements too. Of course if a state goes off on its own it can get anything they please. I would be very very surprised if MPX becomes Amtrak's next F40. I do not think it will.


----------



## andersone

My last 4 Chev's

1996 Tahoe - 285K miles

1997 1500 pickup 241K miles

2003 Tahoe 186k miles (still own it)

2003 Suburban 157k miles (purchased used, still run it)

all with the 8 cyl motors, oil changed every 3K (religiously)


----------



## MetraUPWest

The MPXpress is HEAVY- WAY too heavy for Amtrak. Metra's MP36s weigh 297,700 pounds. I don't know what the MP40s weigh since I don't run them but they have to be at least as heavy as our MP36s are. Compare that to Amtrak's P42s which only weigh 268,000 pounds. Metra doesn't allow the MP36 to run on 3 different lines because it is too heavy for bridges on those lines- UP North, UP Northwest, and Southwest Service. I would imagine there are a lot of places it's too heavy for on the Amtrak system as well.

The MPXpress is as tall as an F40, too, and as we all know there were lots of places the F40 didn't fit in the northeast. That's why the P40/P42 were designed in the first place. I can't imagine Amtrak would ever go from finally having a locomotive with no restrictions back to one that did, it just wouldn't make sense.


----------



## jis

Amfleeter said:


> Just a question regarding MPI, is the new Tier IV, 5400 HP MP40PH-3C upgrade, probably regeared for 125 MPH with a larger fuel tank (1850 gallons probably isn't enough for LD) something Amtrak could possibly consider? GO Transit is currently having their MP40s upgraded to the new standard, so it is there, along with being a proven platform.


For one thing, with the kind of axle load that MPI has the engine will possibly never get certified to operate at 125mph. As it is NJT is having a heck of a time getting the ALP45-DP with similar axle loads getting certified, and it is quite possible that it will never run in commercial service at 125mph due to the damage that it does to the track, though physically it is capable of doing so in E-mode.


----------



## MetraUPWest

You have government regulation to thank!! The MPXpress and ALP45 had to be that heavy to meet the current crashworthiness standards (which the P42 and F59 does NOT meet). The MPX is the heaviest 4 axle unit ever built. I would NEVER want to ride in one at 125mph. It's plenty bouncy already at 79mph.


----------



## Amfleeter

I really wonder how Siemens is going to pull off the Charger, if the MPX had to be the heaviest 4 axle ever built to pass the standard. Could 6 axles be the answer to the weight conundrum with diesel pax units?


----------



## jis

A six axle 125 mph locomotive? A single run will require the track to be realigned after the run.  6 axle trucks and high speed don't play well together.

Actually ALP45-DP is essentially an ALP-46 with a downrated main transformer and with two high speed diesel engines added on. Its weight has more to do with the diesel engines than with crash protection. It has the same crash protection that the ALP-46 has. If its OHE electric capability was removed it would be a considerably lighter engine absent the heavy main transformer. I don;t think Siemens will have any problem making the engine light enough to be certified for 125mph.


----------



## Caesar La Rock

What if the locomotives were in A1A-A1A wheel arrangement like the E units were? Wouldn't that help with the high speed operation?


----------



## jis

The whole point is that with the modified Tier I buff strength rules in the CEM annex it should not be necessary for engines to be as heavy as they are today. It is generally a bad idea to use trucks with more than 2 axles for high speed operations. That is why no one uses them. It is also a bad idea for high speed trains to be super heavy, since building suspension that behaves well at high speed for heavier equipment is much harder. Also heavier equipment does greater damage to track thus increasing maintenance costs and making service that much less financially viable. There are many such good reasons to control weight of equipment if one wants to be serious about running things at higher speed, rather than to try to just put lipstick on a pig and call it high speed.


----------



## Amfleeter

I do wonder, with all the advancement in the last decade or two with turboshaft engines, which have become vastly more efficient since the days of the Turboliner and GTELs - to a degree where they're actually competitive with diesels in many applications, especially the marine industry, if turboshafts might actually be the future of prime movers, as they become more and more efficient - especially considering the fact they're so much lighter and smaller.

A suitable engine actually does exist - the widely used PW150A turbprop, which develops 5071 HP. It'd need a conversion to a turboshaft - which from my understanding, isn't that hard when it's a turboprop, since you just need to convert the mechanical parts to output the horsepower in a different manner, and possibly some emissions upgrades - exhaust flow shouldn't be a problem - I'd imagine you could use a GEVO or SD70ACE body and convert the 'wings' into exhausts to keep the very hot air off workers. Only weighs about a quarter of an EMD 710, too. I'd imagine if Amtrak or someone else suggested interest, one of the jet engine manufacturers would be happy to oblige this experiment - probably GE, not P&W, though. GE would not be happy if a railroad talked to P&W.

Another note is that jet engines could be used to supply the power to a dual mode in both modes - jet engines (should) be able to run on just electricity, reducing the weight of a dual mode.


----------



## jis

Amfleeter said:


> Another note is that jet engines could be used to supply the power to a dual mode in both modes - jet engines (should) be able to run on just electricity, reducing the weight of a dual mode.


Did you perhaps forget that the transmission usually used with turbine engines is still electrical?  What do you exactly mean when you say that turbine engines can run on electricity?


----------



## Amfleeter

jis said:


> Amfleeter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another note is that jet engines could be used to supply the power to a dual mode in both modes - jet engines (should) be able to run on just electricity, reducing the weight of a dual mode.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you perhaps forget that the transmission usually used with turbine engines is still electrical?  What do you exactly mean when you say that turbine engines can run on electricity?
Click to expand...

Electricity can be used to heat up the air inside the engine in the combustion chamber without using fuel. Should have clarified that. The technology itself was actually developed for nuclear-powered aircraft, if you want a little fun fact about it.


----------



## Ryan

I'm not sure why you would propose doing that.

Just use the electricity to run the propulsion motors.


----------



## jis

Yes, it entirely seems like yet another solution looking for a problem, which is not that terribly uncommon around here either.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Paulus said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but those are people who want to live in California.
> 
> 
> 
> Having been to Jersey several times that resounds rather strongly in our favor.
Click to expand...

I hate New Jersey. I live here for work reason and will leave ASAP. I used to live in Reading and pine for it daily. Just FYI.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

andersone said:


> My last 4 Chev's
> 
> 1996 Tahoe - 285K miles
> 
> 1997 1500 pickup 241K miles
> 
> 2003 Tahoe 186k miles (still own it)
> 
> 2003 Suburban 157k miles (purchased used, still run it)
> 
> all with the 8 cyl motors, oil changed every 3K (religiously)


If we play that game, my last 7 Mercedes
1976 Mercedes-Benz 240D Diesel 1,042,525 - tboned in accident oil change ~3500 miles

1982 Mercedes-Benz 300D Turbodiesel 761,415 - blew up in failed experiment with waste gate modification. ~3500 mile oil change

1985 Mercedes-Benz 300TD Turbodiesel 456,000 - sold it when my dad bought me a car to "get that eyesore off my property" ~3500 oil change

1995 Mercedes-Benz C220 198,000 - sold to Russian exporter due to problems with wiring harness -7500 oil change

1995 Mercedes-Benz E300 Diesel 306,000 - I still own it. It's off the road due to body seem problems- I think due to bad accident repair. Caught it too late, though, too much rust. ~7500 oil change

1979 Mercedes-Benz 300SD Turbodiesel 276k miles - toy, really. Restored it. West coast car. Changed the oil once, only drove it 6-7000 miles in the 5 years I owned it. Sold it to finance purchase of a Ford van for my business.

2005 Mercedes-Benz ML350 130k - daily driver. I don't enjoy it much. I've never much cared for gas cars, and it breaks a lot. I'm trying to hold out for the new Vito minivan next year. -14000 mile oil change

All cars serviced by Mercedes-Benz of Little Silver.


----------



## neroden

Amfleeter said:


> I do wonder, with all the advancement in the last decade or two with turboshaft engines, which have become vastly more efficient since the days of the Turboliner and GTELs - to a degree where they're actually competitive with diesels in many applications, especially the marine industry,


After doing my research, I find that the issue with turbine engines (of any sort) is that they like to run at pretty high minimum speeds. If your required power and energy draw is consistently high, they're marvelously efficient (which is why they've taken over all stationary large thermal power plants). But if you're just using a trickle of power, that means either you have to use much more fuel than you really needed to, or you have to turn the turbine on and off a lot -- which also uses a lot of energy and is quite problematic. Which is why small engines are piston engines.

So, in this case, the problem with turbine engines in railroad locomotives is that railroads are too efficient -- they use too little energy to make turbines worthwhile! As a result, the only way I could see a turbine engine working in a locomotive is if the immediate power source for the locomotive was a huge set of batteries, with the turbine being used solely to recharge the batteries; this would allow the turbine to run continuously at top efficiency for hours and then turn off for hours, rather than adjusting as the power demands of the locomotive change. This would be a different design from standard diesel locomotives, and its viability will depend on the state of battery technology.


----------



## cirdan

neroden said:


> Amfleeter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do wonder, with all the advancement in the last decade or two with turboshaft engines, which have become vastly more efficient since the days of the Turboliner and GTELs - to a degree where they're actually competitive with diesels in many applications, especially the marine industry,
> 
> 
> 
> After doing my research, I find that the issue with turbine engines (of any sort) is that they like to run at pretty high minimum speeds. If your required power and energy draw is consistently high, they're marvelously efficient (which is why they've taken over all stationary large thermal power plants). But if you're just using a trickle of power, that means either you have to use much more fuel than you really needed to, or you have to turn the turbine on and off a lot -- which also uses a lot of energy and is quite problematic. Which is why small engines are piston engines.
> 
> So, in this case, the problem with turbine engines in railroad locomotives is that railroads are too efficient -- they use too little energy to make turbines worthwhile! As a result, the only way I could see a turbine engine working in a locomotive is if the immediate power source for the locomotive was a huge set of batteries, with the turbine being used solely to recharge the batteries; this would allow the turbine to run continuously at top efficiency for hours and then turn off for hours, rather than adjusting as the power demands of the locomotive change. This would be a different design from standard diesel locomotives, and its viability will depend on the state of battery technology.
Click to expand...

From what I've been told about the UPRR and other gas turbine locomotives is that the efficiency of a gas turbine is pretty good when running at or near full load, but as soon as you reduce the throttle, efficiency drops away very rapidly. The railroad environment, with all its slow sections and idling is thus far from ideal for that type of technology.


----------



## neroden

That's why it would only work if it were done as a battery-electric locomotive, with the turbine recharging the batteries. The turbine would *only* operate at full load, or not at all. Requires huge batteries to deal with the changes in traction motor power demand as speed changes etc.


----------



## cirdan

neroden said:


> That's why it would only work if it were done as a battery-electric locomotive, with the turbine recharging the batteries. The turbine would *only* operate at full load, or not at all. Requires huge batteries to deal with the changes in traction motor power demand as speed changes etc.


But batteries are a millstone to efficiency. Under optimal conditions you recover 80% of what you put in. Under realistic conditions its 60% or less. The rest of the system would have to be extremely efficient to make good on that. Plus of course energy wasted in lugging around very heavy batteries does not make for a highly efficient locomotive overall.

Batteries have a part to play in lightweight railcars covering short distances. But technology will have to develop quite a bit before they can be used for traction of heavy locomotives.


----------



## Ryan

jis said:


> Yes, it entirely seems like yet another solution looking for a problem, which is not that terribly uncommon around here either.


What was that you were saying?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

The definition of insanity is trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. The Union Pacific turbine engines were a disaster. The United Aircraft Turbo Train was so bad Amtrak sabotaged the equipment so they could take it out of service. The Turboliner I sets were removed from service after less than ten years. The Turboliner IIs were likewise canned.

Amtrak went through hoops to avoid using the Turboliner IIIs. And then the very man pushing for their use becomes Amtraks CEO and promptly disowns them.

Even Bombardier calls their Jettrain a disaster.

Please take your ideas about turbine engines and stick them where the sun don't shine. There is no place for them in an industry where the only sensible form of power is the Diesel engine. Just like in over the road use.


----------



## Ziv

What was wrong with the JetTrain? I thought it could give you service up to 150 mph on non-electrified rail lines. I don't know how many places it would work, but getting tilt cars up to 150 mph on non-NEC routes would be cool. I imagine the problem was that the turbines gulped fuel like it was going out of style, but I have never seen the problems spelled out.



Green Maned Lion said:


> Even Bombardier calls their Jettrain a disaster.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Fuel economy and reliability.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

and the jettrain had problems pulling more than 4 cars, because of light weight on drivers, also the fuel ecconomy went down the drain when run with more than one car test consist.


----------



## NE933

Dutchrailnut said:


> and the jettrain had problems pulling more than 4 cars, because of light weight on drivers, also the fuel ecconomy went down the drain when run with more than one car test consist.


Did Amtrak pay for the JetTrain as part of the Acela deal? I ask this because a fossil fueled version was mentioned in numerous printings at the time, as part of the contract that eventually gave birth to Acela.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I think it was entirely an experimental project, IIRC. An immensely stupid one.


----------



## jis

No Amtrak did not pay for it. But the geniuses at FRA did.


----------



## neroden

cirdan said:


> But batteries are a millstone to efficiency.


That's why I said it would depend on battery technology.
I happen to know of some stuff under development which should vastly improve the state of the art of battery technology. If it manages to get into production, the situation regarding batteries could look very different in ten or twenty years.


----------



## Bob Dylan

TESLA and the Asian Corporations are heavily involved in New Battery Technology!


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Nonsense. Battery technology leaps that made the Tesla technology possible came from mobile device development. Battery technology advancements coming henceforth will also come from mobile device development. Why? The auto companies simply do not have the money to fund that kind of R&D research, nor the desire. Apple and Samsung hold the cell phone market basically between them. Statistics:

Company - Market Cap - Revenue - Profit

GM - 60 billlion - 155 billion - 5 billion

Ford - 70 billion - 146 billion - 7.2 billion

Toyota - 188 billion - 216 billion - 9.4 Billion

Tesla - 30 billion - 2 Billion - (32 Million)

Apple - 571 billion - 171 billion - 37 billion

Samsung - 177 billion - 217 billion - 32 billion

At the end of the year, after all investments in the future, Tesla, Toyota, GM, and Ford combined have less profit left over to spare on investing in battery technology then just Apple.

Ford, GM, and Toyota have a myriad of things that they need to invest money on researching. And the truth of the matter is, despite its phenomonal market capitalization, Tesla has very little money to lever on investing anything. Apple, on the other hand, derives over 80% of its profit from manufacturing products (laptops, phones, and tablets), the life blood of which is to fit, into a smaller package than last year, more power, more features, more capability, and a better battery life into a smaller physical space.

I applaud Tesla for revolutionizing the auto industry. I applaud Elon Musk for starting the first viable automobile business from ground up since Soichiro Honda. But the truth of the matter is, the auto industry is a highly unprofitable business, fraught with years of massive losses, terrible returns on investments, and a practically non existent profit margin. They will piggyback on the advancements that turned a moribund computer company (which I bought for the equivalent of, I swear to god, 57¢ a share) into the largest company in the world.

Tesla didn't do much in the way of battery advancements. They took the battery advancements that the mobile device business made possible, and demonstrated what happens when you take actually capable batteries, and design a car around them. The Tesla doesn't have the battery packaging problems of every other electric vehicle out there, for instance- it was designed from the ground up as an electric car. It isn't bound by other companies architectures, and wasn't bound by other companies cost constraints. They decided to design a technological tour de force that demonstrated that electric cars were viable. Not as efficient as a diesel-electric hybrid, no, but viable.


----------



## cirdan

Thanks for that interesting analysis, Green Maned Lion.

Some observations.

In mobile devices, computers etc, the emphasis of battery design is not on efficiency (nobody looks at overall power consumption and choses their smartphone on the basis of that). Emphasis is on batterly life and overall energy stored. So if there is a new battery technology that can store say, 20% more energy in the same space and weight, but charging / discharging efficiency is 10% less, you take it anyway because having that much more battery life when you're on the road is more vauable to you than the costs of electricity. Not so with electric vehicles where electricity costs will be a major cost factor for owners.

I can thus see that at some point there will have to be a divergence of technologies. And the automakers will have to pony up the money for research.


----------



## jis

Also, don't forget the aircraft manufacturers, specially what with the move towards all electric planes. Remember the battery flap in the context of the 787?


----------



## neroden

The particular technology revolution I have in mind should generate batteries with much better energy storage / weight ratios and lower charge/discharge losses, but there will be still a number of different types depending on the duty cycle. If it needs to be able to release high power fast you get a different design from if it needs to hold energy for long periods with little "storage leakage"; these seem to be tradeoffs.


----------



## Fan Railer

jis said:


> Amfleeter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a question regarding MPI, is the new Tier IV, 5400 HP MP40PH-3C upgrade, probably regeared for 125 MPH with a larger fuel tank (1850 gallons probably isn't enough for LD) something Amtrak could possibly consider? GO Transit is currently having their MP40s upgraded to the new standard, so it is there, along with being a proven platform.
> 
> 
> 
> For one thing, with the kind of axle load that MPI has the engine will possibly never get certified to operate at 125mph. As it is NJT is having a heck of a time getting the ALP45-DP with similar axle loads getting certified,_ and it is quite possible that it will never run in commercial service at 125mph due to the damage that it does to the track, though physically it is capable of doing so in E-mode._
Click to expand...

Sorry for being a bit late, but in all actuality, the ALP-45DP isn't physically capable of hitting anywhere near 100 mph (MAS on the NJT system, all on the NEC), much less 125 mph with any heavy train. I was in the cab car of a NYP bound train a few weeks ago, and we had a 45 at the rear shoving 10 MultiLevel Coaches. With the throttle wide open, we balanced out at 89 mph, 1 mph short of the ALP-45DP's current MAS (the engineer even said to the conductor that he didn't even have to worry about throttling back at 90 mph because we'd never reach that speed with that consist). Point being, at 4000 kW (5360 hp) in e-mode, that locomotive develop enough continuous tractive effort to reach the advertised top speed with a heavy NJT consist anyway.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

The ALP45 iirc was rated at 125 with 8 MLVs. Increase consist weight by 30 percent, I presume the top speed might go down a bit.


----------



## Fan Railer

Siemens Charger preliminary spec sheet released with the All Aboard Florida purchase announcement:

http://inr.synapticdigital.com/siemens/AAF/

http://www.allaboardflorida.com/files/aaf-locomotive-factsheet-v2.pdf


----------



## Gemuser

Loved this bit of revisionist history from the Siemens press release:



> This will be the first privately-owned, operated and maintained passenger rail system in the United States.


----------



## Amfleeter

Looks like the Charger's only 12.5 feet tall - it will easily fit the Hudson Tunnels. Suprising - I was thinking it was going to be 14.5-15.2 feet tall. Hell, it's shorter than the P42 _and_ the ACS-64. Wonder if it's based off the Eurorunner shell.

Also, the cab's nearly identical to the ACS-64.

On another note, Nippon-Sharyo now has competition for coach-building from Siemens. Don't know where this will go - N-S has a serious experience advantage building North American passenger coaches.


----------



## jis

Amfleeter said:


> Looks like the Charger's only 12.5 feet tall - it will easily fit the Hudson Tunnels. Suprising - I was thinking it was going to be 14.5-15.2 feet tall. Hell, it's shorter than the P42 _and_ the ACS-64. Wonder if it's based off the Eurorunner shell.


Why on earth would they design a different carbody for the Charger when they have a perfectly good one they can borrow from the Sprinter? Afterall money does not grow on trees to fund these additional adventures in design.
Similarly Bombardier basically just tweaked the ALP-46 carbody to get the carbody for ALP-45.

Besides the Charger would have been in violation of the RFP requirements if it came out to be taller than 14'6" anyway.



> Also, the cab's nearly identical to the ACS-64.


Ditto


> On another note, Nippon-Sharyo now has competition for coach-building from Siemens. Don't know where this will go - N-S has a serious experience advantage building North American passenger coaches.


You mean in addition to Bombardier and Alstom, surely? Also not to mention CAF? The most deployed FRA railcar in the US at present probably is Bombardier built. Just look at LIRR and Metro North to see what I mean.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

_Railway Age_
Wednesday, July 02, 2014
Amtrak RFP seeks 28 next-gen HSR trainsets 
Written by Douglas John Bowen



inShare










 Amtrak

Amtrak said Wednesday, July 2, 2014 it has officially issued

its Request for Proposals for up to 28 next-generation 

high speed trainsets to replace its current Acela Express 

equipment on the Northeast Corridor.
...

Current manufacturers of HSR equipment ... will be eligible to 

submit bids, Amtrak said. *Responses are due by Oct. 1, 2014*,

an Amtrak spokesman informed _Railway Age_.

++++++++++++++++

Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

May I congratulate Amtrak on its high grade secret-keeping 

abilities if it got bids and not a word about them has leaked. 

LOL.


----------



## afigg

WoodyinNYC said:


> Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?
> 
> May I congratulate Amtrak on its high grade secret-keeping abilities if it got bids and not a word about them has leaked.
> 
> LOL.


If there was not an extension of the October 1 deadline, then the bids have been submitted. The bid review and assessment process is a very structured and controlled one, in part to prevent lawsuits from the losing bidders. Beyond perhaps a public acknowledgement of the bids having been submitted, I would not expect to see any public statements from Amtrak for months.

Railway Age posted a news report earlier this week on Amtrak equipment plans, that indicated that the bids for the HSR trainsets have been submitted: Amtrak's new wheels hit the rails. The article is mainly a rehash of previous reports, so the writer might have been assuming that the bids were submitted.


----------



## Fan Railer

I don't know what Amfleeter is talking about (or looking at, for that matter), but the ACS-64 and the new Charger locomotive share the same body shell, and thus have the same roof height of 12'6".


----------



## Amfleeter

Siemens unveiled a model of the Charger at Innotrans. A helpful attendee posted a picture over on trainorders. Thought you would all be interested. A bit different than I personally though it would look.

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?17,3539808


----------



## PerRock

It looks very similar to the existing Eurorunner design (which I thought it would) just a single-cab version rather then dual cab. Any idea why they decided to go with a single-cab design?

I found this, albiet fisheye, but larger image:







peter


----------



## cirdan

Gemuser said:


> Loved this bit of revisionist history from the Siemens press release:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This will be the first privately-owned, operated and maintained passenger rail system in the United States.
Click to expand...


Siemens PR dept are pretty good at hyperbole and don't have the budget for a history book.

Siemens has also claimed they invented the streetcar.


----------



## cirdan

WoodyinNYC said:


> inShare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak
> 
> Amtrak said Wednesday, July 2, 2014 it has officially issued
> 
> its Request for Proposals for up to 28 next-generation
> 
> high speed trainsets to replace its current Acela Express
> 
> equipment on the Northeast Corridor.
> ...


is it just me, or does that picture have echoes of this ?


----------



## PerRock

Trick of the angle; it's got a more elongted nose. Although these Acela II images are all just artist drawings and nothing close to realistic. They're based off from the Bombardier Zefiro. But if I had to bet on it, the Acela lIs will be made be Siemens, or a Japanese company.






peter


----------



## Fan Railer

PerRock said:


> It looks very similar to the existing Eurorunner design (which I thought it would) just a single-cab version rather then dual cab. Any idea why they decided to go with a single-cab design?
> 
> I found this, albiet fisheye, but larger image:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peter


I imagine that the RFP did not specify the need for a dual cab design... and IIRC, a single cab design is cheaper to outfit. Afterall, the railroads that are to use the Charger will either book-end their trains (locomotive on both ends) or operate with cab control cars, so there's no need for a locomotive with two fully functional cabs (one on each end). A hostler station at the blind end will do (as they have on the Genesis now).


----------



## jis

So the car that is shown in the photo.... is that what the AAF cars will look like. Looks neat, and very European!


----------



## battalion51

Fan Railer said:


> I imagine that the RFP did not specify the need for a dual cab design... and IIRC, a single cab design is cheaper to outfit. Afterall, the railroads that are to use the Charger will either book-end their trains (locomotive on both ends) or operate with cab control cars, so there's no need for a locomotive with two fully functional cabs (one on each end). A hostler station at the blind end will do (as they have on the Genesis now).


Fan Railer, they do not have a hostler station on the P-40s anymore, they were removed in the late 90s. The P-42s never had them installed. Whether they still exist on the P-32 AC-DMs I don't know.

As long as there is a back door, side doors, and/or back porch (think F59PHI), there is a place for a Conductor to guide an Engineer by radio or hand signal.


----------



## Amfleeter

It is indeed a nice looking coach - hopefully it lives up to it's Railjet origins and has the very nice interior to match. I have to notice the very large windows - those will be nice to have if I ever get the chance to ride aboard one.

The (apparent) lack of traps seems odd to me for a North American coach - has Siemens considered the possibility of the Viaggo Comfort being purchased by other US passenger outfits, such as Amtrak? If it's purchased by anyone else, there's a good chance it may need to use low platforms in places at some point, since low platforms are the norm in the US outside of the Northeast and, soon, the AAF corridor. The door does seem oddly long - perhaps part of it is the traps.


----------



## CHamilton

jis said:


> So the car that is shown in the photo.... is that what the AAF cars will look like. Looks neat, and very European!


According to the Siemens rep who spoke at the RailPAC meeting on Saturday, the passenger cars will be based on the RailJet equipment used in Austria, and the locos will have an elongated nose similar to PerRock's picture. At least in theory. He said that the renderings he showed us (and which were marked Confidential, so they can't be shared) were the one design that he could guarantee that they _wouldn't_ look like by the time design is finalized.


----------



## PaulM

Amfleeter said:


> http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?17,3539808


The DMU "Fliegender Hamburger" (flying hamburger) looses a bit in translation.


----------



## MikefromCrete

Amfleeter said:


> It is indeed a nice looking coach - hopefully it lives up to it's Railjet origins and has the very nice interior to match. I have to notice the very large windows - those will be nice to have if I ever get the chance to ride aboard one.
> 
> The (apparent) lack of traps seems odd to me for a North American coach - has Siemens considered the possibility of the Viaggo Comfort being purchased by other US passenger outfits, such as Amtrak? If it's purchased by anyone else, there's a good chance it may need to use low platforms in places at some point, since low platforms are the norm in the US outside of the Northeast and, soon, the AAF corridor. The door does seem oddly long - perhaps part of it is the traps.


The coach is probably some generic model and has nothing to do with any possible future orders from either Amtrak or AAF.


----------



## PerRock

The coach is the



MikefromCrete said:


> Amfleeter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is indeed a nice looking coach - hopefully it lives up to it's Railjet origins and has the very nice interior to match. I have to notice the very large windows - those will be nice to have if I ever get the chance to ride aboard one.
> 
> The (apparent) lack of traps seems odd to me for a North American coach - has Siemens considered the possibility of the Viaggo Comfort being purchased by other US passenger outfits, such as Amtrak? If it's purchased by anyone else, there's a good chance it may need to use low platforms in places at some point, since low platforms are the norm in the US outside of the Northeast and, soon, the AAF corridor. The door does seem oddly long - perhaps part of it is the traps.
> 
> 
> 
> The coach is probably some generic model and has nothing to do with any possible future orders from either Amtrak or AAF.
Click to expand...

The coach is the planned on for All Aboard Florida, if you read the press releases about that purchase it states they'll be using US versions of the Viaggio coaches (the same one used on the RailJet). And the pictured model quite clearly states that it's the US Viaggio coach.

peter


----------



## oldtimer

The model pictured appears to have an extruded metal roll up door and a crew access door next to it. Is this a cabbage car?


----------



## PerRock

oldtimer said:


> The model pictured appears to have an extruded metal roll up door and a crew access door next to it. Is this a cabbage car?


No, it's a fully fledged engine. That "roll-up door" would be ventilation for the engine, and not a door at all.

peter


----------



## Paulus

Per recent LOSSAN meeting, Midwest is seriously considering additional locomotive purchases and Siemens is shopping it to various other agencies. Locomotives will be built at a rate of four per month and Siemens apparently is hoping to keep the production line open for a decade


----------



## neroden

The initial planned locomotive purchase for the Midwest seemed like it was barely enough to handle the planned services (basically no spares), so I should hope they're seriously considering additional locomotive purchases. Good to hear that they are.


----------



## battalion51

If they're planning to have just enough to cover services with no spares that actually could be a benefit to Amtrak maintaining contracts to operate. The Chargers coming in will immediately reduce strain on the current road fleet which is stretched extremely thin. However, before long you're looking at having a large surplus of locomotives. Granted the DASH8s may be nearing retirement, but they're not easy to retire without at least some replacements since they act as switchers in places like New Orleans, Miami, Sanford, and Lorton. The P-40s may be candidates, but a whole lot of money was spent to bring them back to life after being idle the better part of a decade. If the Charger fleet can only cover its daily services, with no spares you now have a function for at least some of the surplus power to protect those trains, something an outside operator like Corridor Capital couldn't provide.


----------



## neroden

There will be no surplus of locomotives. The Dash-8s should have been retired already. The revived P-40s will probably last about as long as the P-42s... but the P-42s are already 18 years old, and will be 22 years old in 2018 when the Chargers are all delivered.

Amtrak already wants to replace the P42s -- that's why there's a gigantic option on the Charger order for something like 225 locomotives.


----------



## jis

I agree. Things will move from a borderline crisis situation, which is where we are at present, with locomotives failing en-route or causing delayed departure, several times a week, to a more or less comfortable situation with vast reduction in locomotive failure related reliability issues.


----------



## Fan Railer

neroden said:


> There will be no surplus of locomotives. The Dash-8s should have been retired already. The revived P-40s will probably last about as long as the P-42s... but the P-42s are already 18 years old, and will be 22 years old in 2018 when the Chargers are all delivered.
> 
> Amtrak already wants to replace the P42s -- that's why there's a gigantic option on the Charger order for something like 225 locomotives.


Word elsewhere is that there's good reason for the Dash-8s to outlast the Gennies and the F59PHIs.

On another note, here's the Siemens page for their line of passenger cars:

http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/en/interurban-mobility/rail-solutions/passenger-coaches/Pages/passenger-coaches.aspx


----------



## jis

Can't wait to see those American version of Viaggio Classics to start rolling in Florida!


----------



## afigg

neroden said:


> There will be no surplus of locomotives. The Dash-8s should have been retired already. The revived P-40s will probably last about as long as the P-42s... but the P-42s are already 18 years old, and will be 22 years old in 2018 when the Chargers are all delivered.
> 
> Amtrak already wants to replace the P42s -- that's why there's a gigantic option on the Charger order for something like 225 locomotives.


The P-42s entered service from 1996 to 2001 so the youngest units are ~13 years old. But in 5 years, they will be 18 years old and with a lot of additional mileage on them.

The options in the RFP for the Next Gen diesel order were for up to 225 locomotives total, up to 75 corridor configuration, up to 150 in LD configuration. I think we can expect that CA and the Midwest states will exercise some of the options for the corridor configuration unitd. Which in turn will free up some P-42s and perhaps all of Amtrak's California F-59PHIs. But the P-42s are not getting any younger and are running up the miles. The 2012 Fleet Strategy plan listed the average mileage for all the P-42s at 2.25 million miles, so add 2-3 years of use to that average for late 2014.

With Siemens producing Chargers for the states and AAF, Amtrak could purchase Charger replacements for the P-42 in smaller order quantities of 20 to 40 units at a time to manage the capital outlay and cash flow. At the base order price of a little over $7 million each for the Charger, an order for 40 locomotives is going to cost about the same as the CAF Viewliner order, so it could be a challenge without increased capital grant funding from Congress. If it has not done so already, Siemens should hire a well connected DC lobbyist firm.


----------



## Paulus

California will purchase additional 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.


----------



## afigg

Paulus said:


> 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.
Click to expand...

Good find. Based on prior reports, I suspect most of the funds will go to buying Siemens Charger locomotives to replace Amtrak owned locomotives used on the CA corridor services. The approval news also pegs the option cost for buying the Chargers at $6.5 million a unit, so that the cost basis to Amtrak if they can scrounge up funding to place orders to begin replacing the P-40 and P-42 locomotives.


----------



## Bjartmarr

Paulus said:


> California will purchase additional locomotives (page 106)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OBIS is an integrated video and audio communications system for on-train travel and service messages as well as potential advertising messages.
Click to expand...

Oh no!

We have those things on our buses here in Los Angeles. I can't read a book on the bus any more, as it's constantly blaring out advertising. If they put them on the train, I'm going to drive instead.


----------



## neroden

Audio advertising needs to be banned outright. It's a public service to disable speakers which are blaring it.


----------



## battalion51

Video advertising on mass transit seems to becoming commonplace in my travels. However I agree that any audio should be restricted to information regarding the operation of the train (next stop, destination when stopped at a station, closing doors, etc.).


----------



## George K

battalion51 said:


> Video advertising on mass transit seems to becoming commonplace in my travels. However I agree that any audio should be restricted to information regarding the operation of the train (next stop, destination when stopped at a station, closing doors, etc.).


With the option of turning it off. At 3 AM, I certainly don't want some robot telling me what our next stop is.


----------



## afigg

If this news report is correct, MARC will be piggy backing on the Illinois order and purchasing Siemens Charger locomotives to replace their electrics. I think MdTA and MARC will regret their decision in 5 or 10 years if fuel costs shoot way up, but the state agency doesn't want electric locomotives anymore.

Baltimore Sun: MTA seeks $58 million for new MARC engines. Excerpt:



> The MTA is moving to make the purchase now because Amtrak plans to stop maintaining MARC's electric fleet. The national railroad, which has maintained MARC's electric locomotives since 1983, notified the agency last fall that it would discontinue that work next summer.
> 
> Amtrak told the Maryland agency it cannot keep spare parts for MARC's aging electric fleet in stock anymore because it no longer uses them itself. Kimberly Woods, an Amtrak spokeswoman, said Amtrak has had some of the same locomotives, but the national passenger railroad is moving to replace them.
> 
> The MTA plans to ask the state Board of Public Works for permission to piggyback on an Illinois contract with Siemens Industry Inc. to buy the diesel engines.


At the unit price for the Chargers, wouldn't cost Maryland that much more upfront for the ACS-64s.


----------



## jis

MARC has the issue of maintaining a diesel fleet anyway for its Camden and Brubswick Lines. So while not something that I think is the best, it is understandable why they want to just do everything using diesels. The good thing is that the lighter Chargers will ause less track damage than the MPI behemoths that they have now. So the ride on the Acelas and Regionals would not be as bumpy as it is now on MARC territory perhaps.


----------



## Hal

jis said:


> MARC has the issue of maintaining a diesel fleet anyway for its Camden and Brubswick Lines. So while not something that I think is the best, it is understandable why they want to just do everything using diesels. The good thing is that the lighter Chargers will ause less track damage than the MPI behemoths that they have now. So the ride on the Acelas and Regionals would not be as bumpy as it is now on MARC territory perhaps.


That is why they want diesels. To maintain one fleet.


----------



## west point

Questions.

1. Is the present diesel fleet AC or DC ?.

2. What will the new fleet be ?

3. New diesels tier 4 EPA what is the present fleet ?

4. Present diesel cannot maintain 125 MPH

5. Any train over 4 cars will probably require 2 locos tomaintain Amtrak's 125 MPH requirement.

6. Awful lot of other differences.


----------



## jis

Present diesels cannot even get upto 125, let alone maintaining.


----------



## PerRock

Bombardier TRAXX can reach 124mph. the Vossloh Euro hits 124mph as well, Wikipedia says the BR Class 67 is designed to reach 124 as well.

So yes present diesels can almost reach 125mph.

peter


----------



## jis

Not the ones that are presently owned by MARC. Remember? We are talking about MARC's Diesel engine plans. Not just any diesels. The point being that MARC will still end up with two different types of diesels. One the current set that are not capable of 125 and the other the new set that presumably will be able to. That is what I was talking about.

Of course we all know that there are several diesel models that can operate at 200kph.


----------



## Ryan

Hal said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> MARC has the issue of maintaining a diesel fleet anyway for its Camden and Brubswick Lines. So while not something that I think is the best, it is understandable why they want to just do everything using diesels. The good thing is that the lighter Chargers will ause less track damage than the MPI behemoths that they have now. So the ride on the Acelas and Regionals would not be as bumpy as it is now on MARC territory perhaps.
> 
> 
> 
> That is why they want diesels. To maintain one fleet.
Click to expand...

Also, Amtrak charges a massive amount of money for power. MARC is better off running diesels,unless fuel get silly expensive, which is sad.


----------



## jis

Since MARC already uses a mix of diesel and electric on the NEC, is it the case that their schedules really don;t need 125mph at all, and is planned based on MAS of 110? Just curious.


----------



## Hal

jis said:


> Since MARC already uses a mix of diesel and electric on the NEC, is it the case that their schedules really don;t need 125mph at all, and is planned based on MAS of 110? Just curious.


MARC does not run 125. Also they would have to replace two thirds of the coaches.


----------



## west point

Has there been a disclosure of actual electric costs to MARC? Until there is I cannot in good conscience make any statement of MARC's electric costs.


----------



## jis

The question of electric costs may be moot, just like it is for MBTA too. Having just a diesel fleet just makes too much sense given their overall service structure.


----------



## Ryan

Hal said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since MARC already uses a mix of diesel and electric on the NEC, is it the case that their schedules really don;t need 125mph at all, and is planned based on MAS of 110? Just curious.
> 
> 
> 
> MARC does not run 125. Also they would have to replace two thirds of the coaches.
Click to expand...

MARC very much runs 125 on the expresses, as long as you have all K cars and an electric motor.




MARC 409 routinely carries this equipment lineup and makes use of the speed on the express run from OTN to NCR. Sometimes we have to crawl in to NCR because we're on the heels of 67, but on occasion we fly right in.


----------



## Ryan

west point said:


> Has there been a disclosure of actual electric costs to MARC? Until there is I cannot in good conscience make any statement of MARC's electric costs.


I was told the overall operational cost by someone there once upon a time (~2 years ago), but forget them. The motors cost almost exactly twice as much to operate as the diesels between power costs and maintenance costs paid to Amtrak.


----------



## neroden

Ryan said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has there been a disclosure of actual electric costs to MARC? Until there is I cannot in good conscience make any statement of MARC's electric costs.
> 
> 
> 
> I was told the overall operational cost by someone there once upon a time (~2 years ago), but forget them. The motors cost almost exactly twice as much to operate as the diesels between power costs and maintenance costs paid to Amtrak.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's gotta be mostly the maintenance costs on the shop queen HHP-8s and aged ACS-64s. We don't have a breakdown of the *fuel* costs.


----------



## jis

neroden said:


> Yeah, but that's gotta be mostly the maintenance costs on the shop queen HHP-8s and aged ACS-64s. We don't have a breakdown of the *fuel* costs.


AEM-7s. There are no aged ACS-64s in existence yet. 

Given that MARC has only one line that is electric I was actually amazed when they originally went along with getting electric power for it. Irrespective of fuel cost it just does not make much sense (unless electric power cost was amazingly cheaper than diesel - which all indications are that they are not).. Perhaps back then they thought it would always be Amtrak operating their trains, and then it made sense to just plug into Amtrak's pool of electric locomotives. But now that they may be contemplating an independent operator for all their trains that imperative disappears and perhaps that is what is showing. Their experience with operating electric power has also been shall we say, less than stellar so far.


----------



## Ryan

neroden said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has there been a disclosure of actual electric costs to MARC? Until there is I cannot in good conscience make any statement of MARC's electric costs.
> 
> 
> 
> I was told the overall operational cost by someone there once upon a time (~2 years ago), but forget them. The motors cost almost exactly twice as much to operate as the diesels between power costs and maintenance costs paid to Amtrak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, but that's gotta be mostly the maintenance costs on the shop queen HHP-8s and aged ACS-64s. We don't have a breakdown of the *fuel* costs.
Click to expand...

No, "fuel" costs were explicitly discussed as a major contributor.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but that's gotta be mostly the maintenance costs on the shop queen HHP-8s and aged ACS-64s. We don't have a breakdown of the *fuel* costs.
> 
> 
> 
> AEM-7s. There are no aged ACS-64s in existence yet.
Click to expand...

*Cough* yes, thank you.


----------



## west point

Again the cost of electricity needs careful analysis. If MARC got ACS-64s their stop and go operations could have a lot of regenerative braking credits. Granted we do not know if their electric costs include credits for regeneration. Dynamic braking just wastes the slowing energy. Do diesels cause more or less wear on their train's braking systems ? Inquiring minds.

On the other side of the coin if MARC would go to all electric Penn line WASH - Baltimore - Perryville - Wilmington ( future ) what would be the increase capacity needed for the electric transmission infrastructure ? Always goes back to obsolete 25 Hz system making extra costs..


----------



## afigg

Railway Age article on the MARC decision to purchase Siemens charger diesels: MARC replacing electric locomotive fleet with high-speed diesels. Adds techincal specifications background to the Baltimore Sun report. But the Railway Age report added this tidbit of info:



> MARC’s Charger locomotives are expected to be delivered by late 2017. As of Aug. 12, 2015, a date had not been scheduled for the matter to go before Maryland’s Board of Public Works. It had been on the board’s Aug. 5 agenda but was withdrawn after a losing bidder filed a complaint with the federal government. Shepard said the MTA “believes the complaint has no merit but it would likely take several weeks to resolve.”


So EMD filed another protest after losing another bid to Siemens?


----------



## Caesar La Rock

EMD is seriously losing that many orders? They might as well go out of business, I mean GE has just about every freight locomotive order under it's belt and Metrolink is currently the only one that has ordered the F125s. Then you have Brookville, MPI, etc. all out there.


----------



## keelhauled

Well GE is the only one who can build heavy haul freight locomotives at this point, EMD still doesn't have a working Tier 4 design. Though they still build freight engines for export. But they're owned by Caterpillar, who I doubt highly is going to abandon a relatively recent purchase of a company in what is very much a growth industry globally.

Edit: and really, no one knows how the Chargers will do. Siemens knows what its doing, but Cummins has never mass produced diesel engines for railroad locomotives before. If the Chargers turn out to be more like the HHP-8s than F40s, then it becomes an open market again for Amtrak's next diesel order.


----------



## Caesar La Rock

Cummins engines for the most part are pretty reliable in heavy duty transit buses and even over the road coaches, like what Greyhound uses. What kills those engines is all the EPA junk they stuff into them. I have a feeling the engines will do alright, of course maybe I'm speaking too soon or I'm too optimistic about it.


----------



## MattW

I'm still waiting for Amtrak to make a move here either by requiring high-speed service so as to not congest the corridor, or increasing the track-usage charge to MARC thus offsetting any cost advantage.


----------



## keelhauled

Well MARC already uses diesels on the corridor, so I can't imagine any possible justification for Amtrak to suddenly increase their fees.


----------



## jis

Besides the new engines that they are getting are 125mph capable. How much higher speed do you want when Amtrak's own trains, other than the Acelas cannot go any faster?


----------



## MattW

There's a huge difference between a 125mph capable diesel and 125mph capable electric. Unless Siemens has some fancy new technological breakthrough no one knows about, they'll still accelerate like slugs and may not even make track speed between some stops on a commuter schedule.


----------



## jis

You can just keep dreaming about Amtrak deciding to charge more for slower trains. That is completely absurd to start with when it takes more expensive maintenance to keep the tracks suitable for higher speed operations. That just is not going to happen. If anything trains willg et slowed down to accommodate local traffic as has happened in NJ.

Besides it is the NEC Commission that will get to decide such things if things proceed the way they are, and not Amtrak unilaterally.


----------



## west point

Since the NEC commission is often cited where are the published rates for use of one agency's facilities by another?. Examples so what does Amtrak pay for MNRR's track and power ?, SEPTA pay Amtrak and Amtrak pay SEPTA . Amtrak pay LIRR for DC current ? And so forth ?.


----------



## jis

They currently aren't published and the information is relatively hard to come by unless you are an insider.


----------



## neroden

west point said:


> Again the cost of electricity needs careful analysis. If MARC got ACS-64s their stop and go operations could have a lot of regenerative braking credits. Granted we do not know if their electric costs include credits for regeneration.


I've been told that Amtrak uses an obsolete and grossly inaccurate "guesstimate" method of charging for electricity, based on miles or hours or something, having absolutely nothing to do with actual electricity usage. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Similar problems are happening with streetlights, which are generally not metered. Cities have had to go through complex negotiations to get credit from the electric utility for using more energy-efficient streetlights. (And we're talking huge differences, cutting the electric use to 1/20 of what it was before.)

This should be fixed. Locomotives are capable of metering electricity usage; an adjustment would have to be made for "before the meter" electricity losses in the locomotive, but it would be a lot better than what's going on now.


----------



## Andrew

Amtrak has ordered 32 of these locomotives.

Should they order more options, how would the additional 225 locomotives get paid for?


----------



## Paulus

Andrew said:


> Amtrak has ordered 32 of these locomotives.
> 
> Should they order more options, how would the additional 225 locomotives get paid for?


Amtrak hasn't ordered any of them. Individual states have.


----------



## Andrew

Paulus said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak has ordered 32 of these locomotives.
> 
> Should they order more options, how would the additional 225 locomotives get paid for?
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak hasn't ordered any of them. Individual states have.
Click to expand...

So maybe states, such as Illinois, will chip in to fund future locomotives and Nippon coaches...

Amtrak ordered the Charger locomotives in early 2014. How long until they enter revenue service? The reason why I ask is because it is my understanding that the oldest locomotives they will replace will have entered revenue service in 1991.


----------



## jis

Amtrak did not order Charger locomotives. The states did, and oh yeah, so did AAF. But not Amtrak


----------



## Andrew

jis said:


> Amtrak did not order Charger locomotives. The states did, and oh yeah, so did AAF. But not Amtrak


I wonder if the additional Charger option locomotives will get ordered, or if another locomotive option will get chosen instead.


----------



## cirdan

Andrew said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak did not order Charger locomotives. The states did, and oh yeah, so did AAF. But not Amtrak
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the additional Charger option locomotives will get ordered, or if another locomotive option will get chosen instead.
Click to expand...

I guess Amtrak will be watching the performance and reliability of these locomotives very closely.

If they perform to satisfaction, the odds would definitely be in favor of a follow-up order.

I assume Siemens is fully aware of this and will be doing everything possible to make sure they are good locomotives.

But the real proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we won't know about that until expereience has actually been gathered.


----------



## Andrew

cirdan said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak did not order Charger locomotives. The states did, and oh yeah, so did AAF. But not Amtrak
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the additional Charger option locomotives will get ordered, or if another locomotive option will get chosen instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess Amtrak will be watching the performance and reliability of these locomotives very closely.
> 
> If they perform to satisfaction, the odds would definitely be in favor of a follow-up order.
> 
> I assume Siemens is fully aware of this and will be doing everything possible to make sure they are good locomotives.
> 
> But the real proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we won't know about that until expereience has actually been gathered.
Click to expand...

We will know in the not too distant future how these things work out!

If the Charger locomotive does not live up to expectations, then I expect Bombardier and EMD to compete for the other 225 locomotives. (A DM locomotive order will also get issued, since Amtrak's current DM locomotives that are used in New York State entered service in 1995).


----------



## afigg

On the Next Generation Pool Committee website, found this short February, 2015 viewgraph presentation on the status of the Siemens Charger contract with renderings and planned delivery schedule. And option order size plans for Caltrans and IDOT.

In the August 2015 Activities report under the Section 305 Executive Board page, it states that the order with options is now at 47 units. Since Maryland has not yet gotten final approval from whatever board MdDOT was waiting on, the 47 units likely does not include the 8 Chargers MARC wants to purchase. I would expect the All Aboard Florida buy is also not part of the joint state order.


----------



## jis

The AAF order is not part of the state order. What AAF has ordered is really an Americanized Viaggio train set which includes two Charger derived power heads for each set together with the requisite number of Viaggio Comfort derived cars. I suspect the power heads will be very similar to the Chargers delivered to the states but aesthetically they may look different beyond just a different livery.

Think of it this way.... the states have a turnkey order for a bunch of locomotives whereas AAF has an order for a bunch of integrated train sets. I suspect Siemens will go out of its way to put its best foot forward to make those train sets look real good and perform really well, both technically, and also in terms of passenger comfort and amenities. They are going to be Siemens' showcase for the North American market.


----------



## Andrew

That presentation says that IDOT is ordering another 12 option locomotives, and Caltrans 14 option locomotives, so I suppose these options are in addition to the 35 that were previously ordered?

And MARC's potential order would add to these options?

Also, what does Caltran's locomotive look taller near the passenger coach?


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Andrew said:


> ...
> 
> Also, why does Caltran's locomotive look taller near the passenger coach?


Note that the photos we see are not to the same scale. The left photo is locomotive only, while the right photo, of the Caltrans model, includes a slice of the following car. The Chargers are designed to work for both single-level trains and the taller bi-level trains. The slope on the roof of the loco is for aerodynamic purposes, so the air flowing over the single-level Charger goes up and over the following bi-level car, and doesn't slam into the front of it.

You did notice an amusing little something: As shown, the Midwest and Caltrans locomotives are different in details beyond the paint jobs. The doors, the window shapes and placement, and even the undercar treatments are all a bit different. I hope those assorted differences didn't drive up the cost too much. 

I'd expected modifications for the engines to pull Washington State's Talgos, which have quite a different profile from the Midwest and Cali bi-levels. But why so many differences between the Midwest and Cali locos I have no idea.


----------



## afigg

Andrew said:


> That presentation says that IDOT is ordering another 12 option locomotives, and Caltrans 14 option locomotives, so I suppose these options are in addition to the 35 that were previously ordered?
> 
> And MARC's potential order would add to these options?


If there are 47 units ordered through the joint state purchase contract, then, yes, option orders have been placed. Whether by Caltrans or IDOT, don't know. The info may be available in Caltrans and IDOT public documents for board meetings, agenda, presentations, etc.


----------



## Andrew

I bet at least Metro North or both Metro North and the Long Island Rail Road will end up procuring Charger locomotives--and Charger Dual Mode Locomotives--in the not too distant future.

With expected double decker coach orders by Metro North, I wonder if the locomotives Metro North ends up ordering will have taller roofs.


----------



## jis

The MNRR double decker will be at most 14' 6' tall just like the LIRR C3s or the NJT MLVs. So there is no reason for the engines to be any taller than normal. In any case they cannot be more that 14' 6" tall.


----------



## Andrew

I think the MLV's have a better chance of getting ordered than the C3's.

The Spirit locomotive is another potential locomotive to order.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

> Friday, October 02, 2015
> 
> Cummins completes first QSK95 rail engineWritten by Keith Barrow
> 
> CUMMINS has dispatched its first production QSK95 diesel engine for the rail market to Siemens' plant in Sacramento, California, where it will be fitted into a 200km/h Charger diesel locomotive.


Update from the *International Railway Journal*. Pretty routine, I guess, but always good not to hear that something failed a crash test or whatever. 

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/locomotives/cummins-completes-first-qsk95-rail-engine.html?channel=528

Hope the link works.


----------



## neroden

WoodyinNYC said:


> You did notice an amusing little something: As shown, the Midwest and Caltrans locomotives are different in details beyond the paint jobs. The doors, the window shapes and placement, and even the undercar treatments are all a bit different. I hope those assorted differences didn't drive up the cost too much.


Oh, that's just weird. I hope those differences aren't real and come from different dates of modeling. Doors, windows, and vents are wildly different on the two images; I'm hoping one is from an outdated design and the other is from a more recent design. With any luck the fairing on the top in the back is basically modular and removable.


----------



## afigg

WoodyinNYC said:


> Friday, October 02, 2015
> 
> Cummins completes first QSK95 rail engine
> 
> Written by Keith Barrow
> 
> CUMMINS has dispatched its first production QSK95 diesel engine for the rail market to Siemens' plant in Sacramento, California, where it will be fitted into a 200km/h Charger diesel locomotive.
> 
> 
> 
> Update from the *International Railway Journal*. Pretty routine, I guess, but always good not to hear that something failed a crash test or whatever.
Click to expand...

Would have thought that Siemens would have been further along in the first article build and test process for the Chargers than this. There is a lot of testing ahead. On the other hand, the article states the QSK95 is the first production engine, so Cummins may have previously shipped a pre-production prototype engine to Siemens.


----------



## jis

I hope they remembered to remove the Volkswagen Emission Control software module, before they started testing for Tier IV emission control.


----------



## George K

jis said:


> I hope they remembered to remove the Volkswagen Emission Control software module, before they started testing for Tier IV emission control.


's okay. I'm sure that the results will be just fine _at the time of testing.  _


----------



## neroden

afigg said:


> Would have thought that Siemens would have been further along in the first article build and test process for the Chargers than this. There is a lot of testing ahead. On the other hand, the article states the QSK95 is the first production engine, so Cummins may have previously shipped a pre-production prototype engine to Siemens.


All Siemens really needs is to make sure that

(a) the engine fits in the hole they've left for it,

(b) the frame as designed carries the weight of the engine,

(c ) the engine has the power specified, specified emissions, and specified ability to control it

If Cummins left some room for design changes in its preproduction specifications -- telling Siemens the engine would take up more space than it actually does and weigh more than it actually does -- then it would be very easy for them to be shipping the production engine quite late, without necessitating redesign of the rest of the locomotive. And if it's lighter and smaller than the preproduction specs, Siemens gives a thumbs up and uses it.


----------



## Andrew

Since Amtrak will be using the new Charger Locomotives, and has options for several more, does this make it more likely for Metra and Metro North/LIRR to purchase future Charger Locomotives as well?


----------



## keelhauled

Andrew said:


> Since Amtrak will be using the new Charger Locomotives, and has options for several more, does this make it more likely for Metra and Metro North/LIRR to purchase future Charger Locomotives as well?


As well as the Charger, EMD, MPI, and Brookville all offer diesel passenger locomotives. I am sure they will all bid on any potential order. It is far to early to speculate on any results of a hypothetical order.


----------



## jis

Andrew said:


> Since Amtrak will be using the new Charger Locomotives, and has options for several more, does this make it more likely for Metra and Metro North/LIRR to purchase future Charger Locomotives as well?


There is a possibility that Amtrak may be using the Chargers at some point for their LD fleet. That in and of itself has very little effect on the Commuter railroads. Given their past history beyond F40s, the answer would appear to be an emphatic "NO", specially for Metra, NJT, VRE etc. Only MARC, which is partially operated by Amtrak appears to be going for the Charger so far.

Until a contract on a dual mode comes to pass and a selection is made for that, it is quite hard to tell what MNRR or LIRR might or might not do.


----------



## MetraUPWest

Metra has NO interest in purchasing new locomotives.

They are currently undergoing rebuild programs for the F40PHM-2s, MP36s, and some of the F40PH-2s. They also purchased 3 ex-AMT F59PHs.

I don't see them buying any brand new locomotives any time soon. They're taking the wait and see approach, which I think is a very good decision.


----------



## Andrew

It will be interesting to see if Amtrak orders more Charger locomotives for Corridor and Long Distance Services--but then chooses a completely different locomotive for Dual-Mode runs.


----------



## keelhauled

/me bangs head against table.

Amtrak hasn't ordered any Charger locomotives, they are bought and paid for by states. The same will most likely be true of New Tork's dual modes. It will be a seperate procurement process by different parties.


----------



## PVD

To add to that, MNRR has been overhauling their dual modes (along with the rest of their power). That diminishes the likelihood of them doing anything in the near term.


----------



## afigg

The Next Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee webpage has posted a September update to their activities report which has nuggets of info on the status of the Siemens contract as well as the specifications for the Dual-Mode locomotive that NY state is planning to put out for bid.

Looks like the Charger first unit build is on schedule (with enough acronyms to meet your daily acronym quota):



> Diesel-Electric Locomotive Procurement update as of September 24, 2015:
> “a) The invoices for milestone C (Invoice #7 & #8, associated with 12 ea. IDOT Option Locomotives) are being processed by IDOT
> b) FDR follow-up action items continue for closure. One item remains and we anticipate closure by next week, pending receipt of the balance of submittal drawings, which are expected next week, as well.
> c) The FAI for the diesel engine was held on 9/22 and went well. The FAI for the Prime Mover (Engine and alternator together) is planned for October in Sacramento.
> d) Manufacturing for the first locomotive carbody continues. The integral fuel tank and the underframe has been completed and welding of the truck frames continues. The truck frame FAI is planned for October 8.
> e) The follow-up weld process review was held on September 15-16.
> f) One more draft DCR has been processed by the JPEs. Now we have fifteen draft (DCRs) are being prepared and Rich Stegner has contacted Tammy Krause, to send a list re-capping the DCRs and will begin drafting DCRs asap.
> g) Follow up Technical Advisory Groups (TAG) continue working on an on-going basis for the action items from the AAR Standard vehicle qualification testing and acceptance. AAR’s David Cackovic is the facilitator.
> h) The Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) planning team is reviewing logistics for fueling locations.
> i) The locomotive weight is 272,000 lbs (+/-) and the calculated P2 force is still within specified limits. Weight is being closely monitored.”


FAI = First Article Inspection, DCR = Document Revision Changes.

The Dual Mode locomotive specification is almost complete, but has to be approved by the Executive Board before it is official. It should be noted in the text below that 4 manufacturers have provided input for the DM specification, so the NY state RFP will be subject to an open bid. Siemens may not get the contract. In the November, 2014 notes for the development of the Dual-Mode locomotive specification, there this response to why was the maximum specified speed for the Dual-Mode was lowered from 125 to 110 mph:



> Technical Explanation: The Locomotive Working Group met by conference call on Thursday 11/13 and discussed the request made by the FRA. The four major locomotive manufacturers went back to their technical people to address the consequences of the addition of the 3rd Rail gear and electronics as well as the on-board energy storage capability, to the Diesel-Electric locomotive platform. Siemens has already responded; Bombardier will meet with NYSDOT, CTDOT and MNR in NYC tomorrow morning; and MPI/GE and EMD/Progress Rail are working on their responses.
> 
> Siemens advises that, using the 272,000 pound PRIIA Charger D-E locomotive as a base platform, the addition of the 3rd Rail DC gear and associated electronics will add weight as well as 3 feet of length to the locomotive. The resulting DM locomotive would weight approximately 291,500 pounds, which is a little over our 286,000 pound target for the NYC legacy infrastructure; at 291,500 pounds, the locomotive would be below the PRIIA P2 force limit at 110 MPH, however, it would exceed the PRIIA P2 force limit at 125 MPH. The addition of the on-board energy storage system will add about 15,000 pounds, and would require either more locomotive length and weight or a reduction in other items such as fuel tank size or a smaller engine. (This is how GE modified the Genesis P40/P42 to develop the P32AC-DM, reducing the fuel tank from 2,200 to 1,800 gallons and reducing the engine size from 4,000/4,200 HP to 3,200 HP.)


----------



## PVD

Is that NY buying for Empire service, LIRR, future MNRR, or TBD?


----------



## jis

TBD


----------



## PVD

Even without MN it would still be in the range of 40+ units, not a bad sized order. LIRR currently specs higher electric running speeds than Amtrak, and Amtrak has a higher diesel running speed, HEP load on the LSL would probably somewhat higher than LIRR, but I'm sure it will "all come out in the wash"


----------



## neroden

Bleah, third rail again? Maybe it is a Metro-North or LIRR order. Were it intended only for Amtrak, I'd have hoped for catenary & pantographs.


----------



## PVD

If NY buys the power, it is doubtful that they would pay to extend the cat a little further on the Empire Connection, and if they want to preserve LIRR electric running from Jamaica to NYP, 750 VDC over-running third rail isn't going anywhere. I share your preference for cat, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## MattW

Energy storage? As in batteries? They want this thing to be able to operate electrically off-source? Am I getting this right?


----------



## PVD

More likely limited added storage to deal with gapping scenarios, and/or comtribution of energy captured in regen braking towards HEP load, but I'm only guessing.


----------



## Andrew

What does LSL stand for?

I just wonder how much longer it will be until new dual-mode locomotives are ordered.

Don't locomotives have a 25 year useful life?


----------



## PerRock

LSL = Lake Shore Limited

When whoever needs them decides to get some.

Life span for a locomotive depends on the locomotive. But 25 years, is about average yes.


----------



## PVD

Sorry about the mnemonic. Anyway, I memtioned that train specifically, because it can be a long one, right now when there is no joined Boston section, it pulls baggage, 3 sleepers,cafe,diner and usually 4 coaches up from NY.


----------



## A Voice

Andrew said:


> What does LSL stand for?
> 
> I just wonder how much longer it will be until new dual-mode locomotives are ordered.
> 
> Don't locomotives have a 25 year useful life?


The predecessor to the P32AC-DM, the FL-9, were all at least 35 years old when replaced. Right now, those P32's are just 17 to 20 years old.

Average life for a locomotive can be misleading anyway. While the HHP-8 was retired at around fifteen years, Amtrak still has a solitary SW-1 which has passed its 65th birthday.


----------



## afigg

PVD said:


> More likely limited added storage to deal with gapping scenarios, and/or contribution of energy captured in regen braking towards HEP load, but I'm only guessing.


Yes, the energy storage is to deal with gaps in the 3rd rail. The specification documents are available on the website, including the draft spec for the Dual Mode (DC 3rd Rail) locomotive, for those interested. In the Dual Mode spec, it states:



> Manufacturer shall propose, as an option, provision for on-board energy storage with sufficient power to move the locomotive and attached cars when the locomotive has been stopped on a gap in the 3rd rail traction power at a speed not to exceed 5 mph (8.05 km/hr) for up to 250 ft (76.25 m) until the locomotive 3rd rail shoes can once again draw power from the 3rd rail traction system. HEP does not have to be provided during the period of operation under on-board energy storage procedures.


----------



## west point

Loco life IMO depends on hours of operation, total RPMs of prime mover, miles traveled, condition of track traversed, weather subjected. Add all those up to get some idea. MNRR's FL-9s short mileage and daytime storage at GCT under cover may have allowed them to last longer ? .


----------



## Dutchrailnut

don't know about Amtrak P32acdm, but MN units have a battery jog feature, allowing locomotive to be moved when off rail or with engine shut down, it is just not workable from a cab car.


----------



## Andrew

It is my understanding that Metro North anticipates retiring their current Dual-Mode Locomotives in 2025--which would make them an average of 27 years old at age of retirement.

So then maybe Amtrak would retire their current Dual-Mode Locomotives at the same time?

I also wonder how long the Sprinter Locomotives will be able to stay in service.


----------



## PVD

Metro North has indicated that they are doing some type of overhaul, but I have no details as to the extent or the effect on service life. Now that the Governor has just made his big greenhouse gas pledge, ordering Tier 4 (or whatever comes next) power would be a small but very visible move on that front.


----------



## jis

Words are cheap. We'll see how long it takes him to back it up with moolah


----------



## PVD

It's the perfect politician promise- make a pledge that sounds good but the hard part comes after you're gone and the next guy has to make good.


----------



## neroden

FWIW, Cuomo's announcement: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-joined-vice-president-gore-announces-new-actions-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions

It's mostly about promoting solar panels. Which is cool, but given the current market trends, he probably didn't need to do *anything* to get that many solar panels installed.

It includes authorization of community solar (a pricing scheme) which has been in the works for several years now.

The announcement also talks about merging the RGGI carbon-emissions market with the California/Quebec/Ontario carbon-emissions market, which is kind of bloody obvious and has probably been under discussion for years.

This is an even more perfect sort of politician promise: promise to accomplish something which was going to happen anyway, and jump out ahead of the parade to take credit for it. It's what Andrew Cuomo did with same-sex marriage, which was a foregone conclusion before he got into office -- jump ahead of the parade.


----------



## Andrew

Will the additional option locomotives likely get funded by state budgets?

What about the Dual-Mode locomotives?


----------



## PerRock

Andrew said:


> What about the Dual-Mode locomotives?


Until some company makes an RFP there are no dual-mode locomotives getting bought, planned, or built. You might as well stop asking about them. It's beginning to get annoying.

Peter


----------



## afigg

PerRock said:


> Andrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the Dual-Mode locomotives?
> 
> 
> 
> Until some company makes an RFP there are no dual-mode locomotives getting bought, planned, or built. You might as well stop asking about them. It's beginning to get annoying.
Click to expand...

There is planning underway on dual mode (3rd rail) locomotives. NY DOT, Amtrak, and Metro-North RR have been working with the PRIIA section 305 Next Generation Equipment Committee (NGEC) to draft and finalize a specification for a Dual Mode (3rd Rail) Diesel locomotive. Reviewing the notes for the Next Gen committee, the dual mode specification was originally intended to be completed in early 2014, but the process has dragged out. Somewhere in the notes, I recall reading that once the spec is finalized and approved, NY DOT expected to proceed with issuing an RFP.

However, the topic of a dual mode locomotive is only marginally related to this thread, as the Dual Mode locomotive RFP will be open to all 4 potential bidders and Siemens may not get the contract. While I think that while Siemens is the likely favorite to get the contract, NY politics may result in a different manufacturer being selected. I posted some dual mode spec info earlier in this thread because it was tangentially related to the Siemens Charger locomotive and possible future orders for Charger variants. However, Andrew keep asking off-topic questions about the likely Dual Mode locomotive order that can't be answered because an RFP has not even been issued, let alone an order placed.


----------



## jis

The only fly in the ointment right now, which may get resolved by then 2017/18 maybe), is that NYSDOT does not have any real money to back any issuing of anything at present.


----------



## Andrew

I still bet that many locomotives will replace current ones in service in Amtrak, LIRR and Metro North in the 2020's, instead of having the current locomotives stay in service until the 2030's.

Also, how long is it usually from when an RFP gets issued until a contract gets signed?


----------



## PerRock

Depends on just about everything. It can take weeks or years.

peter


----------



## A Voice

Andrew said:


> I still bet that many locomotives will replace current ones in service in Amtrak, LIRR and Metro North in the 2020's, instead of having the current locomotives stay in service until the 2030's.
> 
> Also, how long is it usually from when an RFP gets issued until a contract gets signed?


That's certainly a safe prediction, since by January 1, 2030 all Genesis locomotives - P40, P42, and those P32 dual-modes - will be as old (29 to 37 years) as the F40PH would if it were still in service _today_, and far older than many E-units which Amtrak inherited in 1971. So yes, there will quite obviously be new locomotives sometime in the next fifteen years.

However, it is also true that if this is not going to happen until the 2020 time frame, there is little or nothing to discuss about it right now.


----------



## jis

I just re-read this entire thread from start to finish. It is entertaining to see how many people need to eat how many different flavors of crow for definitive statements they made that did not come true. That includes myself on a couple of occasions. At least makes one more humble about how reality has a way to derail the best thought out prognostications.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997

35 locos has now been increased to 58.

28 to Illinois, 2 to Missouri, 20 to California, and 8 to Washington.


----------



## jis

Plus 20 for AAF.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997

jis said:


> Plus 20 for AAF.


Yeah. But this one is the state DOT RFP. That excludes the AAF ones.


----------



## west point

funny thought. Could say 10 chargers be built with cabs on both ends ? Was thinking they could be used for Ethan Allen, Vermonter etc and other routes where there is no wye at end of route ?

Suspect that it might be too heavy for B-B trucks ?


----------



## WoodyinNYC

west point said:


> funny thought. Could say 10 chargers be built with cabs on both ends ? Was thinking they could be used for Ethan Allen, Vermonter etc and other routes where there is no wye at end of route ?
> 
> Suspect that it might be too heavy for B-B trucks ?


I've grown to very much like the notion of detouring the _Southwest Chief_ by way of Pueblo up to Colorado Springs to tap that market. Without knowing a dayum thing about operations, I was concerned how to get the _Chief_ back in the right direction to continue to L.A. or CHI.


----------



## jis

By using the existing wye in Pueblo of course, just like is done in Tampa for the Star.


----------



## Palmetto

Yes but Woody mentions going farther north to Colo Springs. That presents a problem to turn the train, no? Splitting the train and going up to Denver seems the way to go, if anything,


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Palmetto said:


> Yes but Woody mentions going farther north to Colo Springs. That presents a problem to turn the train, no? Splitting the train and going up to Denver seems the way to go, if anything,


Yes, I picked up the notion of going up to Colorado Springs from a local leader mentioning that possibility in one of the linked articles.

Pueblo is a nice little place, with 164,000 metro population. Then just 45 miles up the road, Colorado Springs metro has 700,000 people, plus Pike's Peak, the Garden of the Gods, and the Air Force Academy to draw visitors.

Together, Pueblo and Colorado Springs would fix one piece of the problem that keeps the _Southwest Chief_ underperforming. Today the route connects two of the nation's three largest urban areas -- Chicago and L.A. -- but in between it's almost empty, with Kansas City and Albuquerque the only two large metro areas served. Adding the nearly 800,000 residents of Pueblo and Colorado Springs would provide a third "tentpole" to support the route. (Wichita and Las Vegas are two other potential tentpoles, but that's another story.)

Of course, Denver, with 2.9 million people, seems a very attractive tentpole. But that gets to be a whole different train.

As it is, a detour to Colorado Springs would add at least 4 hours to the schedule. That would ruin Westbound arrival times in Flagstaff and Williams (Grand Canyon RR) by putting them post-midnight, and making the morning arrival in L.A. more like noon. Eastbound a 4-hour detour actually improves the time for the stop at Newton serving Wichita some miles away. But it pushes the morning departure from Kansas City to noonish, losing the convenient morning-out/ evening-return corridor-like schedule it has now. And an 8 p.m. arrival in Chicago loses all connections from the _Chief_, ALL.

Someone with more skill than I have (Amtrak and BNSF, that is) might figure out how to tweak the scheduled run times to keep the current good timings at the stops. But it won't be easy. And making a quick turnaround at Colorado Springs would be essential.

Glad to know there's a wye at Pueblo already, because that could be as far as this proposed detour could afford to go.


----------



## PVD

I've gone to the Springs many times for USA Hockey or USOC stuff, and if I'm not flying into Denver and driving (nonstop real plane, no connection to RJ or commuter) I have always taken the CZ into Denver and driven. The rental stuation in Raton never worked out, and the early morning arrival Westbound and evening departure Eastbound into/out of Denver worked well.


----------



## OBS

The Vermonter does not have a problem as there is a wye in the St. Albans yard. I believe there is one in Rutland as well...


----------



## jis

Palmetto said:


> Yes but Woody mentions going farther north to Colo Springs. That presents a problem to turn the train, no? Splitting the train and going up to Denver seems the way to go, if anything,


But the first question to ask is how will it get to Colorado Springs. Which miracle will cause UP/BNSF to allow such a move anyway on the Joint Line? If by some miracle it manages to get to Colorado Springs, then it can use the wye at Manitou Jct. near Colorado Springs to turn around.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> But the first question to ask is how will it get to Colorado Springs. Which miracle will cause UP/BNSF to allow such a move anyway on the Joint Line?


You mean the Joint Line which was created by the United States Railroad Administration during the nationalization of the railroads by Woodrow Wilson? 
There's an example of the right type of miracle.


----------



## Palmetto

jis said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but Woody mentions going farther north to Colo Springs. That presents a problem to turn the train, no? Splitting the train and going up to Denver seems the way to go, if anything,
> 
> 
> 
> But the first question to ask is how will it get to Colorado Springs. Which miracle will cause UP/BNSF to allow such a move anyway on the Joint Line? If by some miracle it manages to get to Colorado Springs, then it can use the wye at Manitou Jct. near Colorado Springs to turn around.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree with you on the railroads' giving the okay to use their ROW. I still think going up to Denver would be the right move, given the fact that there is a connection possible to 5 & 6.


----------

