Bi-level Long Distance (LD) fleet replacement RFP discussion H2 2024

Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
railiner said:
Maybe Amtrak should just outsource everything?🤔🤷‍♂️

Some hotel chain to run sleepers, ala The Pullman company…
Restaurant chain to run diners ala The Fred Harvey Company…
Etcetera…
Click to expand...
Back in the old days, although almost all of the railroads outsourced the sleeping car service to Pullman, but only (as far as I know), the Santa Fe outsourced meals to a company like Fred Harvey. It may have been because Pullman was originally a monopoly, both manufacturing the sleeping cars and providing the hotel service, whereas nobody did the same for dining cars.

Anyway, I don't think there would be an advantage today, because Amtrak is really the only significant operator of dining cars in the USA, at least, and I'm not sure that there's enough dining car business to interest a private full-service catering operator. That's a shame because of the political dynamics. If Amtrak spends resources of fine dining, then the Amtrak-haters can start complaining about wasting taxpayer funds on "frills," even though the availability of decent food is part of the package of services needed to maintain the competitiveness of long-distance train service.
 
My post was intended to be facetious…
I wouldn’t seriously want Amtrak to outsource anything…😉

I don’t even like them outsourcing the cafe service on the Downeaster. There’s no reason why they could not offer the same menu, if that’s what the Downeaster sponsors want…🤷‍♂️
 
Steve4031 said:
Amtrak's in house maintenance cant even keep the trains clean.
Click to expand...
There isn't much they can do if Amtrak doesn't provide working car washers.

railiner said:
I don’t even like them outsourcing the cafe service on the Downeaster. There’s no reason why they could not offer the same menu, if that’s what the Downeaster sponsors want…🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
I doubt they could offer cafe service for the same price that the current contractor is offering it.
 
Steve4031 said:
If I recall correctly, Brightline included a service contract in their venture coach order. If I understand correctly, then this is why Brightline has not had the same problems with venture cars as Amtrak has had in Chicago.

In my humble opinion, I believe that Amtrak needs to include a servicing contract regardless of the vendor in all future equipment purchases.
Click to expand...
Amtrak doesn’t like to do that. That’s a major reason Talgo hasn’t been considered. The Talgo’s require a service contract. I would speculate that if a service contract is included, you are no longer able to defer maintenance when budgets are tight.

cirdan said:
I think costs are not the only factor. Every generation of equipment is becoming more advanced and sophisticated with more hi-tech. Finding people with the skills to do maintenance becomes more and more of an issue. It's not just Amtrak, but all across multiple industries and utilities, there is a tendency to de-skill and rely on the manufacturers (or specialist contractors) to maintain vital equipment.

Also, if an external contractor fails to meet contractually agreed levels of reliability or availability, penalty payments are incurred. This gives the customer some level of protection. If your in-house maintenance department fails to deliver, there is not much you can do.
Click to expand...
I would disagree with the last part. You have far more control when you’re doing the work in-house. You lose a lot of control when it’s contracted out. Contractors just don’t happily pay when there are disputes. Those findings are hotly contested, and usually, there are allegations of failures on both sides. I’m not opposed to the service contracts. They probably violate outsourcing provisions in collective bargaining agreements as well, but I don’t think keeping the work in-house is bad. Once it’s contracted out, Amtrak will have lost its own skilled workforce and would be forced to contract that work forever and future contractors would have Amtrak over a barrel. Contracting out is usually a bad solution for something you need all the time or something you need organic capability for.
 
toddinde said:
Amtrak doesn’t like to do that. That’s a major reason Talgo hasn’t been considered. The Talgo’s require a service contract. I would speculate that if a service contract is included, you are no longer able to defer maintenance when budgets are tight.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting…does Talgo require all of its customers to purchase service contracts? And if so, for how long? It would seem to me, that this is more like a lease, than a purchase of new equipment. I would also imagine that they would lose some sales, as a result.
 
Amtrak's workforce and managerial incompetence have had the company over a barrel for years. Chicago has trouble keeping the Seiman's cars in service. It's easy to say the cars are crappy.

Trains magazine had an article about the shortage of replacement parts for superliners and other equipment. The process of getting replacement parts is cumbersome for employees, so they cannibalize other cars to get parts to cobble together a train.

Is it just as difficult to get replacement parts for the venture cars? Or is there a shortage of competent employees who can repair them and get them back on the road?

At some point, Amtrak management will have to overhaul this entire process of servicing trains if it hopes to provide a reliable train service.
 
toddinde said:
I would speculate that if a service contract is included, you are no longer able to defer maintenance when budgets are tight.

... You have far more control when you’re doing the work in-house. You lose a lot of control when it’s contracted out. ...but I don’t think keeping the work in-house is bad. Once it’s contracted out, Amtrak will have lost its own skilled workforce and would be forced to contract that work forever and future contractors would have Amtrak over a barrel. Contracting out is usually a bad solution for something you need all the time or something you need organic capability for.
Click to expand...
Interesting points and I don't disagree with them, in theory. But, in practice? Knowing how low Amtrak's maintenance capabilities have sunk in recent years? I'd ask, "How's that working for ya?" Do we really think that Amtrak can bootstrap itself back to a credible maintenance program? I dunno.
 
MODERATOR'S NOTE: Please steer the discussion back to the bi-level RFP and away from Amtrak hiring and management practices in general. Those do not belong in this thread. Please start a new thread if you really wish to discuss that, and let it take its own course. For now we will leave this thread as is, but in the future if a thread materializes that is discussing this material that is off topic here, we are likely to move things over to a more appropriate thread.

Thanks for your cooperation, understanding and participation.
 
railiner said:
That’s interesting…does Talgo require all of its customers to purchase service contracts? And if so, for how long? It would seem to me, that this is more like a lease, than a purchase of new equipment. I would also imagine that they would lose some sales, as a result.
Click to expand...
I don't know about all, but for Talgo's other customers, this is definitely typical. I think the justification lies in Talgo equipment being fundamentally different from conventional trains, with workshop crews often not being qualified to handle them, or so Talgo's claim.
 
cirdan said:
I don't know about all, but for Talgo's other customers, this is definitely typical. I think the justification lies in Talgo equipment being fundamentally different from conventional trains, with workshop crews often not being qualified to handle them, or so Talgo's claim.
Click to expand...
Following what happened in the long drawn out saga of Amtrak acquiring Venture based equipment, wherein they finally decided to go with maintenance contract for the Airos, and now IDOT is negotiating to add their stuff to that contract, it seems likely that Amtrak would go with maintenance contracts with the manufacturer for the bi-level equipment too at least for a period of 5 years or more. As for how staff will be handled, typically floor staff are contracted by the operator to the manufacturer/ maintenance contractor to the extent it can be worked out protecting benefits etc. We will know more about that detail as time goes on.

One thing that is obvious is that manufacturers who provide contract maintenance have much more incentive to continue producing spare part than when they have no stake in maintenance beyond providing spare parts. Usually the purchase contract has clauses for parts and the problem can be mitigated some by pre-paying for part for a fixed period of time. But really, when you get past 15-20 years the proposition gets more and more unattractive.
 
jis said:
it seems likely that Amtrak would go with maintenance contracts with the manufacturer for the bi-level equipment too at least for a period of 5 years or more.
Click to expand...
The logic behind this may well be, that typically teething troubles caused by minor design flaws will occur in the early years of the equipment's lifetime and need to be rectified as part of the manufacturer's guarantee obligations. With maintenance work and guarantee work often being difficult to keep separate, it may just be more efficient if one party handles both at the same time.

The trouble may come, however, when the five years are over and responsibility has to be transferred to different teams, with the inevitable loss of continuity and experience. Unless of course, there is some provision that staff can be transferred to Amtrak.
 
cirdan said:
The logic behind this may well be, that typically teething troubles caused by minor design flaws will occur in the early years of the equipment's lifetime and need to be rectified as part of the manufacturer's guarantee obligations. With maintenance work and guarantee work often being difficult to keep separate, it may just be more efficient if one party handles both at the same time.

The trouble may come, however, when the five years are over and responsibility has to be transferred to different teams, with the inevitable loss of continuity and experience. Unless of course, there is some provision that staff can be transferred to Amtrak.
Click to expand...
Frankly, I pulled the five year out of a hat to allude to exactly the issue that you raise. Brightline's contract is for all practical purposes, for the useful life of the equipment. They apparently have no intention of setting up an internal department to handle heavy overhauls. They do have staff for light maintenance and FRA inspections and such. Both staff are colocated at their two maintenance facilities.
 
Last edited:
I know the infrastructure bill provided $66 billion for Amtrak and I believe a large chunk of that has provided funding for the Airo fleet. But is the LD fleet replacement also fully funded? I ask because I’ve read that if Congress and White Hose are a clean sweep for republicans, there will be an effort to roll back some of the Biden funding bills.
 
Palmland said:
I know the infrastructure bill provided $66 billion for Amtrak and I believe a large chunk of that has provided funding for the Airo fleet. But is the LD fleet replacement also fully funded? I ask because I’ve read that if Congress and White Hose are a clean sweep for republicans, there will be an effort to roll back some of the Biden funding bills.
Click to expand...
The Airo contract is only $7.3 Billion.

The Superliner replacement order will probably cost somewhere between $7 Billion and $9 Billion, of which $7 Billion has been appropriated as part of IIJA.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top