Acela II RFP information announcement

[afigg]

The Amtrak Procurement Website said than an expansion of Ivy Yard is going to happen to get ready for additional Acela Train-sets and the Gateway Project...

Yes, there is a request for letters of interest and statement of qualifications for upgrades to the Ivy City yard on the Amtrak procurement portal: For Professional Architectural and Engineering Services for the Washington Terminal Yard HSR Infrastructure Improvements. (Link goes to construction contracts page). This is a prelude for an RFP for engineering design, so it is the first step of a lengthy process. There is not a lot of space to spare in the Ivy City yards anymore between Amtrak and MARC & VRE layover trains, so they may have to shoe-horn in additional storage tracks and maintenance facilities.

The gist of the tasks from the procurement page:

Amtrak’s Engineering Department has been directed to develop Engineering Design, Bid Support and Construction Phase Services for the project

titled Design Services - Washington Terminal Yard (WTY) HSR Infrastructure Improvements.

Located in Ivy City, Washington, DC, WTY is the primary maintenance location for the entire NEC fleet of electric locomotives and Amfleet coaches.

WTY is quickly approaching the limits of its capacity and will require substantial infrastructure improvements and upgrades to support future service

operations within WTY and Washington Union Station (WUS).

Amtrak is currently preparing the WTY Master Plan (Master Plan) which articulates a vision for WTY that is the result of significant stakeholder involvement, operational analysis and alternative evaluations. The Master Plan has identified the facilities and general layout of the infrastructure in WTY necessary to support Amtrak and Commuter operations both prior to and following completion of the Gateway Project, and has proposed a phasing strategy that addresses both current deficiencies and pre-Gateway expansion demands consistent with the long range plan.

As part of the HSR initiative, Amtrak is currently procuring new Tier III HSR train sets that will be used to run the additional service and replace the existing

Acela fleet in the future. Amtrak’s schedule for receiving the new equipment is approximately early 2020. Therefore, critical infrastructure improvements must be in place to support the new equipment. The Master Plan has identified a specific concept plan to accommodate the immediate infrastructure needs for the new Tier III HSR train sets and their increased service operation requirements for half hourly service within the Am and PM peak hours. The proposed concept plan will serve as the foundation for this scope of work.

The intent of the Scope of Services is to prepare construction documents for the following:

1. New 2-story, Single-Track HSR S&I Facility located adjacent to the existing HSR S&I Building will provide mechanical maintenance, toilet dumps,

cleaning and food and beverage stocking.

2. 3 Additional Storage/Service Tracks within Coach Yard (building demolition required) will have access road at TOR, without shelters.

3. “Health Hub” Vehicle Diagnostic Center added to north end of the existing HST Carwash.

4. 3 Additional Storage Tracks and Turntable Stub Tracks in northeast area of yard.

5. Electrify Track 1 Storage/Service for temporary HST storage during construction. Electrify Tracks Mail 2, 3-5 for overnight storage.

So early 2020 is now the window for the initial deployment of the new trainsets.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

The Amtrak Procurement Website said than an expansion of Ivy Yard is going to happen to get ready for additional Acela Train-sets and the Gateway Project...

Yes, ..

The gist of the tasks from the procurement page:

...Amtrak ... has proposed a phasing strategy that addresses both current deficiencies and pre-Gateway expansion demands consistent with the long range plan.

As part of the HSR initiative, Amtrak is currently procuring new Tier III HSR train sets that will be used to run the additional service and replace the existing Acela fleet in the future. ... increased service operation requirements for half hourly service within the AM and PM peak hours.

...

So early 2020 is now the window for the initial deployment of the new trainsets.

Half-hourly service within the peak hours.

Does that mean one (1) additional departure each way, or two (2)? And where is the capacity for even one or two or four more Acelas thru the Hudson Tunnel without taking slots from, um, somebody, maybe Keystones? Or Regionals? (The LD trains already have to leave extremely early or mid-morning or even later to use NYP.)

 

[jis]

Half hourly service would mean one additional service each hour in each direction. There is capacity in Hudson tunnels for that except in one commission hour in the rush direction in the morning AFAIR. Anyway that can be taken care of by moving one Amtrak train over to the next or previous hour.

The real Hudson tunnel capacity issue is on weekends with the single tracking. but this added service we are talking of is not on weekends.

 

[west point]

link to the WASH union station master plan. Noteworthy will have 3 boarding concourses to all tracks. Also three platforms for low level boarding. A super lower level of approximately 6 - 9 tracks below present stub tracks that will also have access to both NEC and Long bridge. Eventual capacity 4 times present.

Link will not paste. Go to Amtrak reports and select Wash union station master plan.

 

[Andrew]

Maybe 2020 refers to Fiscal Year 2020?

 

[keelhauled]

Maybe 2020 refers to Fiscal Year 2020?

I don't see how that matters. It's a difference of months in a timeframe half a decade away. (And really, what are the chances it doesn't slip?)

 

[afigg]

link to the WASH union station master plan. Noteworthy will have 3 boarding concourses to all tracks. Also three platforms for low level boarding. A super lower level of approximately 6 - 9 tracks below present stub tracks that will also have access to both NEC and Long bridge. Eventual capacity 4 times present.

Link will not paste. Go to Amtrak reports and select Wash union station master plan.

Link to the Amtrak Reports & Documents page which has the 2012 DC Union Station Master Plan document. That master plan report is now 3 years old and has a lot of ambitious components to it, some of which were tied to the Amtrak NEC Vision with its dedicated 220 mph tracks. I expect parts like a new underground platform level to go into the (very) long term concept file to be preserved as capacity growth options for 30 or 40 years from now. Only the more near term components of the DC Union station plan have much relevance to the HSR trainset order.

If one wants to discuss the WAS master plan and any recent news on it, I started a thread on it 3 years ago (Amtrak to unveil $7 billion plan for DC Union Station).

 

[Andrew]

What about a flyover from Ivy Yard to the Station?

Also, Amtrak is looking at a nominal 425 seats for their new train-sets. An Alstom AGV of the same length of the current Acela Express Train-sets can seat 446 people--which is an almost 50% increase over the current train-sets.

 

[jis]

What about a flyover from Ivy Yard to the Station?

Why? What are the congestion points that would be eliminated? What new congestion points will get created as a result. Is there enough space between Ivy City throat coming under New York Avenue and K Tower? Have you ever looked at a track diagram of Union Terminal?

 

[afigg]

What about a flyover from Ivy Yard to the Station?

Also, Amtrak is looking at a nominal 425 seats for their new train-sets. An Alstom AGV of the same length of the current Acela Express Train-sets can seat 446 people--which is an almost 50% increase over the current train-sets.

What would a flyover accomplish? Where it would flyover to?

As for seats, we don't know what the 2 remaining bidders are proposing. If what they offer has a 440 or 450 seat capacity without reducing the legroom much from the current Acela seats, I expect that will add points to the technical scoring of their bids.

 

[PVD]

I was under the impression that a key point in this whole process is Amtrak securing the FRA waivers needed to make this a distributed power (EMU like) trainset, so the length now dedicated to power cars is (mostly) added to passenger carrying capacity. Is this true, and how is that progressing? That is a big part of significantly raising passenger capacity in a comparably length trainset without decreasing pitch to any great degree.

 

[Hal]

What about a flyover from Ivy Yard to the Station?

You crack me up. What sense would that make? None at all. It can't even be done.

 

[afigg]

I was under the impression that a key point in this whole process is Amtrak securing the FRA waivers needed to make this a distributed power (EMU like) trainset, so the length now dedicated to power cars is (mostly) added to passenger carrying capacity. Is this true, and how is that progressing? That is a big part of significantly raising passenger capacity in a comparably length trainset without decreasing pitch to any great degree.

It is not just FRA Buy America waivers, but the FRA finalizing and issuing the Tier III regulations for safety rules and high speed operations. However, I'm not sure of the status of the Tier III rules. Any HSR trainset contract would have to be contingent on the FRA waivers, rules, and getting approval for the reported $2.5 to $2.7 billion RIFF loan application.

 

[DSS&A]

IIRC, Amtrak was initially looking at 32 sets to replace the present 20 sets: 12 sets "soon-ish" and 20 sets down the line.

I'm wondering...assuming a split of the 28 sets at 12 Amtrak and 16 California, what would that (practically speaking) enable in CA?

You have to remember that CA's system is starting small, so they're not going to need as many trains initially. As the system is built to plan, then you will see further procurement of additional trains.

Well, I was more looking at a perspective of "What would they have to electrify to be able to get anything meaningful out of 16 sets?" I also have to seriously wonder whether Xpress West might not get involved (since that could add another pile of sets).

 

[DSS&A]

Hi,

The link below is to an article on yesterday's big development on the progress of HSR train series to Las Vegas. Proposals will be issued this month and are due in November 2015!!!

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/traffic-transportation/nevada-high-speed-rail-authority-sets-framework-choosing-operator

 

[PVD]

It was the tier 3 regulation stuff I was curious about, I probably clouded the issue by using the term "waiver" which really applies to the "Buy American" provision, building one or two sets overseas, and completing the balance here is very likely to happen.

 

[Andrew]

Besides Alstom, does anyone know who the other bidder is?

 

[PRR 60]

Besides Alstom, does anyone know who the other bidder is?

Yes, somebody knows.

 

[Andrew]

When Amtrak said that they expect to receive the new train-sets in early 2020, I wonder if they were referring to delivery of the new train-sets or actual revenue service.

I also wonder how Amtrak came to the decision to purchase 28 train-sets.

 

[jis]

It was the tier 3 regulation stuff I was curious about, I probably clouded the issue by using the term "waiver" which really applies to the "Buy American" provision, building one or two sets overseas, and completing the balance here is very likely to happen.

There two separable issue relative to Tier III regulations.

There is the pure Tier III regulations which was primarily focused on meeting the requirements of California HSR and hence other HSR operations on dedicated tracks on which only Tier III equipment operates.

NEC is a different kettle of fish requiring mixed operation of Tier II and Tier III equipment at over 125mph.That is what requires an additional special set of rule making or waivers from FRA. I know the person who is in charge of the safety case of Acela IIs mentioned year before last tat they were actively working this issue with the FRA. I don't know where it stands at present. But the bottom line is that whatever operates on the NEC at over 125mph other than the current Acela sets, will require to comply to both Tier III and to the conditions of the waiver to operate mixed with Tier II equipment at speeds greater than 125mph.

 

[afigg]

When Amtrak said that they expect to receive the new train-sets in early 2020, I wonder if they were referring to delivery of the new train-sets or actual revenue service.

I also wonder how Amtrak came to the decision to purchase 28 train-sets.

There are 20 Acela trainsets with 16 in use on a weekday for 80% utilization. For a simplistic analysis, if the goal is to add 2 additional WAS->NYP and NYP->WAS trips for half-hour frequencies at the morning and evening peak rush hours (ie 5:30, 6:30 PM departures each way), that takes 4 additional trainsets. Add 1 additional frequency peak rush hour trip each way BOS<->NYP, that would take 2 additional trainsets (morning and late afternoon). Which results in a total of 22 in weekday use. Rounding off 80% utilization gets 28 sets.

A stated goal is also to add more weekday BOS-NYP Acela class trips, some of which would likely be done by trainsets currently laying over at NYP. So Amtrak presumably did their schedule analysis and, based on future trip time goals, service turnaround times, and settled on 28 trainsets as meeting their expanded Acela service needs. There is trainset use analysis for the bidder to respond to, somewhere in the original RFP documents, as I recall, but I don't remember which file that was in.

The original Acela order was supposed to be 26 trainsets at one time, IIRC.

 

[Andrew]

When Amtrak said that they expect to receive the new train-sets in early 2020, I wonder if they were referring to delivery of the new train-sets or actual revenue service.

I also wonder how Amtrak came to the decision to purchase 28 train-sets.

There are 20 Acela trainsets with 16 in use on a weekday for 80% utilization. For a simplistic analysis, if the goal is to add 2 additional WAS->NYP and NYP->WAS trips for half-hour frequencies at the morning and evening peak rush hours (ie 5:30, 6:30 PM departures each way), that takes 4 additional trainsets. Add 1 additional frequency peak rush hour trip each way BOS<->NYP, that would take 2 additional trainsets (morning and late afternoon). Which results in a total of 22 in weekday use. Rounding off 80% utilization gets 28 sets.

A stated goal is also to add more weekday BOS-NYP Acela class trips, some of which would likely be done by trainsets currently laying over at NYP. So Amtrak presumably did their schedule analysis and, based on future trip time goals, service turnaround times, and settled on 28 trainsets as meeting their expanded Acela service needs. There is trainset use analysis for the bidder to respond to, somewhere in the original RFP documents, as I recall, but I don't remember which file that was in.

The original Acela order was supposed to be 26 trainsets at one time, IIRC.

I just expected additional Washington--New York Acela trains with higher capacity train-sets operating between New York and Boston, for a total of 30 new train-sets.

Amtrak's top two goals to increase capacity on the Northeast Corridor is through these new Acela trains and the Gateway Project--but it would be a real shame if only the new Acela trains get ordered without new tunnels!

If Amtrak's future NEC revenue can get reinstated back into Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, is it true that they can only be used for capital improvements, and not expansion projects, such as new hudson tunnels?

 

[Eric S]

If Amtrak's future NEC revenue can get reinstated back into Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, is it true that they can only be used for capital improvements, and not expansion projects, such as new hudson tunnels?

What do you mean? Expansion projects would be capital improvements. But, you seem to significantly overestimate just how much revenue Amtrak generates and can "use" for various projects.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

If Amtrak's future NEC revenue can get reinstated back into Amtrak's Northeast Corridor ...

... you seem to significantly overestimate just how much revenue Amtrak generates and can "use" for various projects.

There's the problem. The annual "operating surplus before counting some stuff" comes to several 100 millions, and that's wonderful. But even getting the NEC up to a state of good repair could take $20 Billion or more.

Just to look at a handful of big ticket items, say, the new tunnels into Penn Station, the Portal Bridge(s), new bridge over the Susquehanna, the Baltimore tunnels, those are all one $ Billion each and more. For the first Portal Bridge project, the estimates are for about a $ Billion even, or 10 x $100 million. So that one project alone would absorb ALL the Acela's current operating surplus for a few years.

+++++

A better way to think of the problem it might be, Congreesscritters either (1) aren't so smart, or (2) their humongous brains are overloaded with more info than even Google can handle. So Congresscritters can usually remember simple things. Complex things they remember simply.

To simplify the NEC so that even a Congresscritter can understand and remember it, break it down.

The NEC has huge (1) routine maintenance expenses, and now the Acele operating surpluses can help more with that (because none is being diverted to the LD maintenance and operating costs). Of course, the Acela operating surpluses still would not cover ALL the ongoing maintenance of the NEC, but it could make a good impact on the budget.

Because of postponed or deferred maintenance, a lot of the infrastructure on the NEC needs a lot of work to reach what should be normal, (2) state of good repair, just catch-up work.

To improve the NEC to faster speeds and greater capacity, a large and costly batch of projects will be needed. (3) New infrastructure needs include tunnels and bridges, signaling, catenary, and other stuff like the new trains being discussed here.

If the needed work is to be done, Amtrak has a little flexibility with the funds it has or hopes to get. So in the present case, it looks like all of any increased annual operating surpluses from the new Acela II equipment will go to pay off the loan used to buy the new trains. That's good. But it will mean there's little or no added money for regular maintenance on the right of way, much less anything for new infrastructure.

Keep in mind that you can only spend the money once. It can't be spent for (1) and for (2) and for (3).

(Perhaps in rare cases one project might fit all three definitions of spending. But we can't fix the NEC with a few miracle multipurpose projects. Mostly we can spend the money only once.)

So the anticipated operating surpluses have been spoken for. They will buy the new trains, and if anything is left over it will go to routine maintenance or catch-up work. For your favorite, the Gateway project, the Billions will have to come from somewhere else.

 

[Andrew]

If Amtrak's future NEC revenue can get reinstated back into Amtrak's Northeast Corridor ...

... you seem to significantly overestimate just how much revenue Amtrak generates and can "use" for various projects.

There's the problem. The annual "operating surplus before counting some stuff" comes to several 100 millions, and that's wonderful. But even getting the NEC up to a state of good repair could take $20 Billion or more.

Just to look at a handful of big ticket items, say, the new tunnels into Penn Station, the Portal Bridge(s), new bridge over the Susquehanna, the Baltimore tunnels, those are all one $ Billion each and more. For the first Portal Bridge project, the estimates are for about a $ Billion even, or 10 x $100 million. So that one project alone would absorb ALL the Acela's current operating surplus for a few years.

+++++

A better way to think of the problem it might be, Congreesscritters either (1) aren't so smart, or (2) their humongous brains are overloaded with more info than even Google can handle. So Congresscritters can usually remember simple things. Complex things they remember simply.

To simplify the NEC so that even a Congresscritter can understand and remember it, break it down.

The NEC has huge (1) routine maintenance expenses, and now the Acele operating surpluses can help more with that (because none is being diverted to the LD maintenance and operating costs). Of course, the Acela operating surpluses still would not cover ALL the ongoing maintenance of the NEC, but it could make a good impact on the budget.

Because of postponed or deferred maintenance, a lot of the infrastructure on the NEC needs a lot of work to reach what should be normal, (2) state of good repair, just catch-up work.

To improve the NEC to faster speeds and greater capacity, a large and costly batch of projects will be needed. (3) New infrastructure needs include tunnels and bridges, signaling, catenary, and other stuff like the new trains being discussed here.

If the needed work is to be done, Amtrak has a little flexibility with the funds it has or hopes to get. So in the present case, it looks like all of any increased annual operating surpluses from the new Acela II equipment will go to pay off the loan used to buy the new trains. That's good. But it will mean there's little or no added money for regular maintenance on the right of way, much less anything for new infrastructure.

Keep in mind that you can only spend the money once. It can't be spent for (1) and for (2) and for (3).

(Perhaps in rare cases one project might fit all three definitions of spending. But we can't fix the NEC with a few miracle multipurpose projects. Mostly we can spend the money only once.)

So the anticipated operating surpluses have been spoken for. They will buy the new trains, and if anything is left over it will go to routine maintenance or catch-up work. For your favorite, the Gateway project, the Billions will have to come from somewhere else.

If the Fed's really do end up paying half of Gateway, it is my understanding that the New Starts Program and CMAQ funds are on the table. I appreciate Amtrak making it a top priority to procure new Acela Trains--but Gateway is just as important if not more important. Cost-sharing by the commuter rail agencies for Gateway is also on the table.

It would be nice if the old Acela trains could be used on Keystone service or Amtrak Empire Service to Albany with a diesel locomotive...