Acela II RFP information announcement

[MattW]

The disaster was due to excessive speed, not an issue with the train design, so what's the relevance?

It's only been a day, we can't say what it was yet.

It was already being reported as excessive speed.

Ok Mr. Expert, WHY was the train traveling with excessive speed? It was reported above the signaling system wasn't installed yet. Did the computers send the wrong speed to the motors? Did the driver fall asleep? Did he want to show off? Was the speed limit set too high by someone unrelated to the train itself? Did the brakes fail? Again, we don't know what the actual reason is, and won't for a while (if ever, not every country is open as the U.S.) so that's hardly a reason to jump all over Alstom!

 

[Paulus]

It's almost certainly due to human error.

 

[Ryan]

Wow, it's pretty awesome that a random stranger halfway around the world is able to tell us what happened while the investigation is ongoing.

If you could do the same thing for accidents in the US, we could fire the whole NTSB and let you sit behind your keyboard and tell us what happened wartime there is an accident.

 

[jis]

I sometimes wonder whether he is a planted troll from Rotem

 

[internationalpirate]

What prototype train was being tested? New type of Duplex?

An old test train.

The New Pendolino trainsets have a max rated in service speed of 250 kph or 155 mph. Wikipedia entry on the New Pendolino ETR600 / ED250 trainsets.

That's the maximum design speed, not the maximum revenue service speed, which must be at least 10% lower.

The New Pendolino design is close to the speeds that Amtrak needs for the NEC.

AMTRAK asked for a train set that could do 200 mph service when conditions permitting in the future, and this is why Alstom proposed a frankentrain model consisting of parts from three train models according to French paper.

As you can imagine, this is a very risky preposition compared to the competitor's service-proven "off the shelf" model that cost $1 billion less, and most importantly, recorded ZERO PASSENGER FATALITY to date.

 

[jis]

There may be a bit of GIGO going on here based on a confusion about which RFP one is talking about. The original joint Amtrak-CAHSR RFP did mention eventually operating at 200mph. However when that joint RFP was withdrawn and an NEC specific RFP was issue AFAIR all mention of 200mph disappeared from the new RFP. It basically talked of 160mph and specific segment operating times to be met.

As for what Alstom is offering, we will know for sure exactly what Alstom is offering once that information published when the actual contract is signed. Until then it is all hearsay, take it or leave it. And I for one prefer to leave it as hearsay for now. Since whatever they are offering is acceptable to the techies who issued the RFP it would seem to be a pretty open and shut case.

BTW, just in case anyone is confused this web site has nothing to do with Amtrak other than being a bunch of passenger rail and Amtrak enthusiasts. If anyone thinks that they can influence decisions about what Amtrak will actually buy by raising hell here, they are sadly mistaken. My advise is save your breath.

 

[keelhauled]

AMTRAK asked for a train set that could do 200 mph service when conditions permitting in the future, and this is why Alstom proposed a frankentrain model consisting of parts from three train models according to French paper.

As you can imagine, this is a very risky preposition compared to the competitor's service-proven "off the shelf" model that cost $1 billion less, and most importantly, recorded ZERO PASSENGER FATALITY to date.

How do you know it cost $1 billion less? Have you seen Rotem's bid? Do you know the specifics? Do you know if it met Amtrak's requirements? Do you even know if they did bid? And don't tell me "well, they built some trains on the opposite side of the world for such and such dollars," that has no bearing on the American market or Amtrak's requirements, I mean you say they would cost $50 million per trainset, how do you know that? Do you know how much it would cost Rotem to open an HSR equipment assembly line in the US? Do you have some intimate understanding of the differences between Korean and American manufacturing? Do you know anything other than vague hand-waving?

 

[internationalpirate]

How do you know it cost $1 billion less?

The KTX-II is currently in full production(unlike Alstom's proposed frankentrain model), and is currently selling for $28 million a train set. I am being very generous here, since it could well be less than $56 million per trainset.

Double that for Buy America compliance X 28 sets = $1.57 billion, about $1 billion less than supposed Alstom bid of $2.5 billion.

The reason Alstom's bid cost so much is because it is a frankentrain with parts from three train models, one of which has been out of production for four years now. Anyhow, $2.5 billion for 28 train sets is a highway robbery and that $1 billion saving could be better spent elsewhere in AMTRAK's operation.

Do you even know if they did bid?

Yes, Rotem spokesperson said so.

I mean you say they would cost $50 million per trainset, how do you know that?

Because the price information is in public domain, revealed each time the KTX-II trainsets are sold($28 million)

Do you know how much it would cost Rotem to open an HSR equipment assembly line in the US?

Not much because Rotem already has the Philadelphia plant?

 

[internationalpirate]

As for what Alstom is offering, we will know for sure exactly what Alstom is offering once that information published

It is a modernized single level TGV according to French papers. All current TGV models are bi-level duplex units, so Alstom's taking AGV coach cars that went out of production with TGV power cars to create a "Just for AMTRAK" custom-made single-level TGV model.

And Alstom offering a TGV instead of a Pendulino makes a perfect sense, the Acela II must co-exist with the Acela I, which makes an EMU highly unsuitable in terms of crashworthiness.

 

[jis]

We know what the French paper says. But that is not the definitive specification. We will know exactly what it is when the actual contract is signed. Do you have a problem agreeing with this simple proposition? Let us hold out horses until then. The French paper dos not quote any official source for its information. So we don;t know for sure that it has got it right. What makes sense to you is completely inconsequential since you are not part of the procurement process.

 

[keelhauled]

Double that for Buy America compliance X 28 sets = $1.57 billion, about $1 billion less than supposed Alstom bid of $2.5 billion.

I see. So you're hand-waving a wild guess.

Because the price information is in public domain, revealed each time the KTX-II trainsets are sold($28 million)

Sold half a world away in a different market. I suppose you're telling me that the Korean versions are identical down to the last nut and bolt and therefore there is no possible way for there to be any fluctuation in price?

Not much because Rotem already has the Philadelphia plant?

And I suppose no tooling, worker training, or any sort of assembly line changes are required to convert said plant from making commuter cars to high speed trainsets.

 

[jis]

The really surreal thing about this discussion is that KTX-1's are essentially TGV Resau sets with some minor modifications. and the more recent versions are all derivatives based on licensed technology. So all this seems to be an argument that sounds like "My TGV is better than theirs". At least it is somewhat entertaining.

And yeah, Rotem's track record in delivering anything on time is such that the first thing someone should do when they hear Rotem is run in the other direction. In short their credibility at present in the US is pretty low.

BTW, one thing I noticed about the Korean HSR lines is that most of them are incredibly short lines. I suppose it is not that big a country geographically afterall. Interesting layout though.

 

[PRR 60]

The really surreal thing about this discussion is that KTX-1's are essentially TGV Resau sets with some minor modifications. and the more recent versions are all derivatives based on licensed technology. So all this seems to be an argument that sounds like "My TGV is better than theirs". At least it is somewhat entertaining.

And yeah, Rotem's track record in delivering anything on time is such that the first thing someone should do when they hear Rotem is run in the other direction. In short their credibility at present in the US is pretty low.

To be fair, Alstom's performance with the PATCO transit car rebuild was at least as bad or worse than Rotem's with the SEPTA order. The first prototype rebuilds arrived at Lindenwold over a year late, and then experienced one failure after another dragging out the testing program for over another year. DRPA came very, very close to canceling the order due to Alstom's poor performance.

After all the pain, the SEPTA Silverliner V's seem to be performing pretty well. Perhaps the same will be true of the PATCO rebuilds. However, performance on recent US orders does not seem give any particular advantage to Alstom

 

[jis]

A rebuild is a completely different activity from manufacturing new cars however.

Alstom did pretty well with the Surfliners and the New York subway orders (massive order at that) AFAICT. So I view Alstom as a mixed bag whereas Rotem does not have much positive about it so far.

But I agree with you that such things probably don't play a major role in these decisions.

Although I am not sure what to make of Nippon-Sharyo of late. I wonder who will be on the hook for returning the money to the feds when the contract delivery is not completed by the 2017 deadline.

In terms of recent deliveries it seems Bombardier and Siemens appear to have been doing the best. On the New York subway orders both Bombardier and Alstom have done well as has Kawasaki.

 

[internationalpirate]

Sold half a world away in a different market. I suppose you're telling me that the Korean versions are identical down to the last nut and bolt and therefore there is no possible way for there to be any fluctuation in price?

That's why I assumed it would be twice as much as the Korean version.

And I suppose no tooling, worker training, or any sort of assembly line changes are required to convert said plant from making commuter cars to high speed trainsets.

It is putting together the work force that's the most difficult part of setting up a productio base.

Once that work force is set up and running, then the rest is smooth sailing.

and the more recent versions are all derivatives based on licensed technology.

It is not a licensed design. This is why the KTX-II can be offered for sale in the US and all Alstom can do is watch.

BTW, one thing I noticed about the Korean HSR lines is that most of them are incredibly short lines. I suppose it is not that big a country geographically afterall. Interesting layout though.

The Korean Main HSR line is about 40 miles longer than the New York - Washington DC corridor.

it seems Bombardier and Siemens appear to have been doing the best.

Bombardier didn't bid and Siemens had an EMU penalty. The reality of having to share tracks with Acela I trains at 160 mph meant the Acela II coach cars had to be protected by power cars at both ends.

 

[afigg]

The New Pendolino trainsets have a max rated in service speed of 250 kph or 155 mph. Wikipedia entry on the New Pendolino ETR600 / ED250 trainsets.

That's the maximum design speed, not the maximum revenue service speed, which must be at least 10% lower.

The New Pendolino design is close to the speeds that Amtrak needs for the NEC.

AMTRAK asked for a train set that could do 200 mph service when conditions permitting in the future, and this is why Alstom proposed a frankentrain model consisting of parts from three train models according to French paper.

As you can imagine, this is a very risky preposition compared to the competitor's service-proven "off the shelf" model that cost $1 billion less, and most importantly, recorded ZERO PASSENGER FATALITY to date.

No, the New Pendolino trainsets have a max revenue service speed of 250 kph (155 mph) as stated in the Wikipedia entry and in multiple news reports and in Alstom press releases I found with a quick google search. You could do the same.
What did Amtrak ask for in the original spec posted in January 2014 when it was teamed with CHSRA for its requirements?

"For Amtrak, the Trainset shall be capable of an initial minimum continuous Operating Speed of 257.5 km/h (160 mph) under full load conditions, and a testing speed of the Operating Speed plus 5 mph."

The New Pendolino is pretty close to those max speed requirements. Whether Alstom submitted a slightly uprated and extended New Pendolino design or something else, we will likely find out in the next month or two.

As for higher speeds, the original RFP asked for price options or estimates for 186 mph capable trainsets, but those werebid options, not a requirement from what I see in the documents I have. But to be realistic, the NEC is a long way from being able to build new dedicated HSR corridors on either half of the NEC that could run trains at > 160 mph. The cost of the Acela II trainsets is comparatively small to the cost of the 10s of billions to build all new HSR corridors and the many years it will take to actually do it. Difficult to justify spending extra in 2015-2021 on > 165 mph trainsets for the NEC if they can't be used at such speeds for decades.

Edit: accidentally hit send too soon....

 

[jis]

Yeah. Those Polish Pendolinos have been tested at upto something around 180mph (293kph to be precise). But what is the point of arguing about it? It is a well published fact, and can't fix ignorance when people refuse to check facts before going on and on.

As a matter of fact there was a bit of a kerfuffle between PKP and Alstom about testing and certifying the Pendolinos at 255kph under ETCS2 in Poland. Alstom tested and certified for 255kph using their 293kph test. but that was done under the only ETCS equipped line available in Poland which was ETCS1. So when PKP complained, Alstom retorted by saying well you provide us an ETCS2 equipped line in Poland and we will gladly certify under that too. This was a bit of an embarrassment for PKP since no one in their bureaucracy apparently realized there was no operational ETCS2 line in Poland back then.

 

[afigg]

And Alstom offering a TGV instead of a Pendulino makes a perfect sense, the Acela II must co-exist with the Acela I, which makes an EMU highly unsuitable in terms of crashworthiness.

The mixed operation of the new HSR trainsets with the current Acela trainsets is an odd issue to raise from design safety standpoint for an EMU vs locomotive on each end. The 20 Acela trainsets make up a small part of the traffic on the NEC. The locomotive hauled Amtrak NE Regionals, Keystones, LD trains; the many commuter locomotive hauled & EMU trains and some freight trains make up most of the traffic on the NEC. Then there are other sources of collision risks such as the 11 remaining grade crossings in CT and the occasional car or SUV that somehow ends up driving on or crossing the NEC at unexpected locations.

Besides, the new HSR trainsets and the Acela Is won't co-exist in revenue service for more than a few years.

 

[west point]

IMHO there is absolutely no reason to build / rebuild the NEC for speeds greater than 160 MPH. 160 MPH would mean 1:50 NYP - WASH 225 miles. 220 MPH would mean 1:30 NYP - WASH. So for 20 minutes no way.

The NYP - BOS route of 231 miles will need much more work to get even 160 MPH. This poster would expect 3:00 is doable in about 25 years.

It is all about getting rid of the slow sections such as Frankford curve. Much cheaper in the long run.

At that time the POLs can decide of expansion if realistic. Both NEC and other locations.

 

[jis]

This whole argument about inability to coexist between loco hauled (often push pull) and EMUs) has little foundation in facts. They coexist fine in places where train speeds are much higher than on the NEC. The aspect of passengers occupying the first driving trailer car of the train at upto 125mph happens on the NEC every day. So it is mostly a red herring IMHO.

 

[keelhauled]

On the other hand it all depends on the design. Metrolink thinks their cab cars are at risk of derailing in a collision, which I guess is not so good.

Say, who made those cab cars anyway...

 

[Andrew]

So will the new Acela train-sets be locomotive hauled trains with eight coaches or a total of eight EMU'S?

 

[Hal]

On the other hand it all depends on the design. Metrolink thinks their cab cars are at risk of derailing in a collision, which I guess is not so good.

Say, who made those cab cars anyway...

That manufacturer obviously should not build the Acela II......[emoji57]

 

[jis]

On the other hand it all depends on the design. Metrolink thinks their cab cars are at risk of derailing in a collision, which I guess is not so good.

Say, who made those cab cars anyway...

That manufacturer obviously should not build the Acela II......[emoji57]

Touche! Even though technically it is not clear that it should be an issue. Afterall, what the Koreans would apparently propose is a slightly modified TGV that they have hijacked from Alstom in the first place. Apparently what has been stated in this thread is essentially that the original TGV derivatives have been safe for many years and therefore are preferable to newer technology. Never mind that given the track profile of the NEC it is known that the original TGV or derivatives without tilt cannot meet the segment times that have been stated as requirement in the RFP, without very significant track realignment, some of it even on new right of way.

 

[internationalpirate]

The aspect of passengers occupying the first driving trailer car of the train at upto 125mph happens on the NEC every day. So it is mostly a red herring IMHO.

There are no EMUs cruising at above 150 mph on NEC.

The collision scenario with Acela I rules out EMUs.

On the other hand it all depends on the design. Metrolink thinks their cab cars are at risk of derailing in a collision, which I guess is not so good.

Say, who made those cab cars anyway...

Rotem rolling stocks feature excellent crashworthiness, Metrolink praised it themselves. In fact, no one died at the scene of 93 mph Oxnard crash, but the train engineer did die of complications at hospital a week later.

The Metrolink Bombardier rolling stocks that the Rotem rolling stocks replaced did much worse with 25 deaths at the 2008 Chatsworth crash.

Touche! Afterall, what the Koreans would apparently propose is a slightly modified TGV

The KTX-II is not a slightly modified TGV. It is a TGV style modernized high-crashworthy train engineered from scratch and is basically a single-level modernized TGV that Alstom never built. The closest thing to the KTX-II is the TGV Power Car + AGV Coach frankentrain offered by Alstom.

that they have hijacked from Alstom in the first place.

Alstom laywers would be happy to sue if that was the case.

Never mind that given the track profile of the NEC it is known that the original TGV or derivatives without tilt cannot meet the segment times that have been stated as requirement in the RFP, without very significant track realignment, some of it even on new right of way.

That's not really a problem because the KTX-II has a Shinkansen like acceleration-deceleration performance to cope with the operating conditions of Korean HSR corridors, where high speed trains stop every 20~25 minutes. It can shave off a significant chunk of travel time relative to Acela with superior acceleration-deceleration.