Acela II RFP information announcement

[Anderson]

There are not enough ACS-64s to expand operations of electrified trains beyond what is currently electrified.

WAS - RVR is not electrified. It might happen eventually, but at present there is neither the traffic justification nor the money.

Also, per VA's existing plans, you'd just move the diesel/electric switch to Richmond...which would put all of the delays from changing engines down there. At present, no more than two of the nine trains do the same thing past RVR (two go to NPN, one to NFK, two to RGH, and two down the A-Line to CHS en route to SAV).

 

[afigg]

Forbes article on the HSR procurement: Taking Past Lessons Learned, Amtrak Designs The Next Acela. This is mainstream press, so they may get technical details wrong. Down the webpage, for example, there is a July 2 article which confuses the new procurement with the earlier plans to extend the Acelas. The quotes are from Mark Yachmetz, Amtraks Chief of Rail Fleet Initiatives.

Excerpts:

The current Acela trainsets were designed to specifications laid out by Amtrak. Over time, this turned out to cause operational troubles and ballooning costs. This time around, Amtrak is taking lessons learned the first time around to simplify the equipment. Were looking for something that is service proven overseas, said Yachmetz.

The current equipment we use for Acela was the first time these components were assembled in this configuration. It was the last time these components were ever assembled in this configuration. There were no economies of scale of purchase. As the technology aged, we were really sort of out there by ourselves. This limited Amtraks ability to expand Acela service with the current train configuration. This time around, Amtrak is attempting to future proof Acela.

Amtrak is also looking to add approximately 120 seats to the new Acela model, but without increasing the 205 meter overall length of the trainset. Amtrak will accomplish this by moving from concentrated power to distributed power. Essentially, this would eliminate the leading and trailing engines of each trainset, and replace them cars capable of carrying passengers. With this model, each car produces power individually, much like a subway train. This enables the train to carry additional passengers while not increasing the overall length. The train will still have the styled front and back cars for aerodynamic reasons, but there will no longer be dedicated engine cars.

As for overall length, 205 meters is here to stay for the time being. We are looking for something that would be the equivalent of the length of eight current Acela cars, says Yachmetz. Somebody could come in with seven cars, each one a little longer, or nine cars a little bit shorter. Total length is what were looking at.

However, lengthening the trainset in the future will not be ruled out. The contract will stipulate an option which would allow future purchases to be extended to 10 cars with roughly 600 seats, or roughly twice the capacity of current Acela trainsets. That was one of the lessons learned from Acela, is that it wasnt anticipated that we would ever make those trains longer, so when we went to actually look at it, it became prohibitively expensive.

 

[Anderson]

Ok...what's actually accurate in all of that?

 

[neroden]

Hmm. So:

(a) 205 meters (615 feet), capable of being expanded to 256 meters (768 feet).

(b) EMUs, not power cars

I wonder what's up with the platform situation. Does anyone know what the limiting platform lengths are along the NEC? This still seems awfully short. Presumably there are some platforms which are very expensive to lengthen?

 

[afigg]

Hmm. So:

(a) 205 meters (615 feet), capable of being expanded to 256 meters (768 feet).

(b) EMUs, not power cars

I wonder what's up with the platform situation. Does anyone know what the limiting platform lengths are along the NEC? This still seems awfully short. Presumably there are some platforms which are very expensive to lengthen?

Digging up the thread on the HSR trainset RFP? There was an interesting document posted to the FRA website eLibrary today with Amtrak's Buy America waiver request for the 28 HSR trainsets, but I'll get to it later (or someone else will).

The high level platforms at WAS are all 9 cars long. There are other stations with 9 car high level platforms, IIRC, but I don't have a list in front of me.

The main reason I believe for setting the HSR trainset length at the same length as the Acela trainsets is to be able to use the existing Acela maintenance facilities without spending a lot of money to lengthen them.

 

[Anderson]

Hmm. So:

(a) 205 meters (615 feet), capable of being expanded to 256 meters (768 feet).

(b) EMUs, not power cars

I wonder what's up with the platform situation. Does anyone know what the limiting platform lengths are along the NEC? This still seems awfully short. Presumably there are some platforms which are very expensive to lengthen?

Digging up the thread on the HSR trainset RFP? There was an interesting document posted to the FRA website eLibrary today with Amtrak's Buy America waiver request for the 28 HSR trainsets, but I'll get to it later (or someone else will).

The high level platforms at WAS are all 9 cars long. There are other stations with 9 car high level platforms, IIRC, but I don't have a list in front of me.

The main reason I believe for setting the HSR trainset length at the same length as the Acela trainsets is to be able to use the existing Acela maintenance facilities without spending a lot of money to lengthen them.

The facility point is my understanding as well. I think they can go from 6 cars to 8 cars without issues, but getting to 10 is a problem. Also, once you get past 10 cars you start having platforming issues all over the place.

 

[afigg]

The FRA website has posted in their eLibrary section a request letter: Amtrak Buy America Waiver Request for eight (8) components of high speed rail trainsets. The link goes to the FRA webpage with the document link, not the document itself (which is a 10 page scanned PDF).

Since the letter, dated November 3, is scanned, I can't readily cut and paste, so here are the highlights:

1. There are 8 components in the waiver request: car body shells, integrated cab/CEM structure, 5 brake components, and paintwork (not because the paintwork can't be done in the US, but the car body shells need to be painted before shipping overseas to prevent corrosion).

2. The proposals that were submitted on October 1 were the Technical proposals only. The Financial proposals are pending depending on FRA's response to the waiver request.
3. The goal for initial operational service is 2019. Without the waiver, the offerors expect it wll take 2 years to build and setup a facility that can make the requested waiver components, will add at least $2 million to the cost of each trainset, and that the aluminium car body shell manufacturing facility would be built solely for this project and then disassembled.
4. The waiver request is also relevant to the possible RRIF loan because the RRIF loan program also has Buy America requirements. Amtrak submitted a draft application for RRIF financing on July 31, 2014 to start the process.
5. With the new trainsets and half hourly peak service, the number of Acela Express seats between WAS and NYP will increase by ~180% during the peak travel hours, ~40% during the remainder of the day, and ~40% between BOS and NYP.

This is a fairly substantial waiver request, so there could be political considerations.

There is a note that one builder who participated in earlier discussions did not submit a proposal in response to the RFP.

 

[Acela150]

Hmm. So:

(a) 205 meters (615 feet), capable of being expanded to 256 meters (768 feet).

(b) EMUs, not power cars

I wonder what's up with the platform situation. Does anyone know what the limiting platform lengths are along the NEC? This still seems awfully short. Presumably there are some platforms which are very expensive to lengthen?

Digging up the thread on the HSR trainset RFP? There was an interesting document posted to the FRA website eLibrary today with Amtrak's Buy America waiver request for the 28 HSR trainsets, but I'll get to it later (or someone else will).

The high level platforms at WAS are all 9 cars long. There are other stations with 9 car high level platforms, IIRC, but I don't have a list in front of me.

The main reason I believe for setting the HSR trainset length at the same length as the Acela trainsets is to be able to use the existing Acela maintenance facilities without spending a lot of money to lengthen them.

The facility point is my understanding as well. I think they can go from 6 cars to 8 cars without issues, but getting to 10 is a problem. Also, once you get past 10 cars you start having platforming issues all over the place.

I have to disagree with that. LD trains can fit in many stations without issues and they are mostly 10+ cars.

 

[afigg]

I have to disagree with that. LD trains can fit in many stations without issues and they are mostly 10+ cars.

The issue for the Acela trainsets are the length of the High Level platforms. The through tracks at WAS on the lower level leading to the First St tunnel have 15 and 17 car long low level platforms while the max length for the high level platforms on the upper is 9 cars long. New Haven has a 9 car long HLPs.

 

[Anderson]

I have to disagree with that. LD trains can fit in many stations without issues and they are mostly 10+ cars.

The issue for the Acela trainsets are the length of the High Level platforms. The through tracks at WAS on the lower level leading to the First St tunnel have 15 and 17 car long low level platforms while the max length for the high level platforms on the upper is 9 cars long. New Haven has a 9 car long HLPs.

This is part of it. NEC-North is the other part...from what I understand, while you have a bunch of 10-12 car platforms in the WAS-NYP area, north of NYP the number drops dramatically, meaning you'd basically need two sets of Acelas: One for WAS-NYP and another, shorter set to handle through operation to BOS. I gather that Amtrak does not want to do that sort of thing for a host of reasons.

Also, at least historically (I asked on here a few weeks back) what would happen is that those super-long LD trains would single-spot at NYP, WAS, and probably PHL...but would be stuck spotting 2-4 times elsewhere. Additionally, the longest LD train we've seen on the NEC in the last few years on a regular basis has been the Meteor, which usually has 3 sleepers, 2 FSCs, 4 coaches, and a baggage car (10 cars). A fifth coach (11 cars) has been added on occasion as well. Besides that, no train has gone past 10 cars on a regular basis.

 

[Paulus]

Extending platforms for Acela should be more than worth the expense however.

 

[jis]

But NEC can actually handle 12 to 14 car LD trains at the stations where LD trains stop in NEC south (NYP, NWK, TRE, PHL, WIL, BAL, WAS) , LD train schedules are set up such that baggage work can be done and loading/unloading does not require that every door be open to keep to schedule. I have heard from reliable sources that NEC would be able to handle 12 cars easily and 14 with ab it of effort without double spotting at any of the LD train stops. At some all cars will not platform, though the stations in question do have space to extend their platform should the need arise.

So, no. LD trains will not be stuck 2-4 spotting anywhere on the NEC, should such longer trains become the norm.

 

[blueman271]

I don't think platform length should restrict train length. Amtrak can do the same thing the commuter agencies do, simply announce that at stop X only the doors in the first seven cars or the last seven cars will open. It works well enough for NJT and the LIRR, I don't see why it wouldn't work for Amtrak.

 

[west point]

Longer ACELA-1s will have a fairly simple solution. At present the consist length is fixed due to a limited number of passenger cars. When Amtrak needs the odd ball geometry car added to an Acela train set it is fairly long process. Anyone know how much time ?

Once several of the Acela-2s begin to arrive the Acela-1s when surplus to the schedule at that time can be split up and added to existing Acela-1 train sets. Remember originally Amtrak was thinking of just buying more cars for each -1 train sets but found it too expensive..

Example --- 1 train set can add 2 cars to three train sets. That will result in a surplus of power cars but that is a small price to pay. The longer sets probably are needed NYP - BOS due to present limitations of number of trains on that route.

 

[MattW]

Longer ACELA-1s will have a fairly simple solution. At present the consist length is fixed due to a limited number of passenger cars. When Amtrak needs the odd ball geometry car added to an Acela train set it is fairly long process. Anyone know how much time ?

Once several of the Acela-2s begin to arrive the Acela-1s when surplus to the schedule at that time can be split up and added to existing Acela-1 train sets. Remember originally Amtrak was thinking of just buying more cars for each -1 train sets but found it too expensive..

Example --- 1 train set can add 2 cars to three train sets. That will result in a surplus of power cars but that is a small price to pay. The longer sets probably are needed NYP - BOS due to present limitations of number of trains on that route.

I don't think that will work since the current Acelas are 8-cars long, but only 6-passenger cars long. The new sets are likely going to be 8-passenger cars long since the end cars will be occupied unlike the current trainsets. If they lengthened the Acela-1s, they'd also have to lengthen the maintenance buildings.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

The FRA website has posted in their eLibrary section a request letter: Amtrak Buy America Waiver Request for eight (8) components of high speed rail trainsets. The link goes to the FRA webpage with the document link, not the document itself (which is a 10 page scanned PDF).

Since the letter, dated November 3, is scanned, I can't readily cut and paste, so here are the highlights:

1. There are 8 components in the waiver request: car body shells, integrated cab/CEM structure, 5 brake components, and paintwork (not because the paintwork can't be done in the US, but the car body shells need to be painted before shipping overseas to prevent corrosion).

2. The proposals that were submitted on October 1 were the Technical proposals only. The Financial proposals are pending depending on FRA's response to the waiver request.

3. The goal for initial operational service is 2019. Without the waiver, the offerors expect it wll take 2 years to build and setup a facility that can make the requested waiver components, will add at least $2 million to the cost of each trainset, and that the aluminium car body shell manufacturing facility would be built solely for this project and then disassembled.

4. The waiver request is also relevant to the possible RRIF loan because the RRIF loan program also has Buy America requirements. Amtrak submitted a draft application for RRIF financing on July 31, 2014 to start the process.

5. With the new trainsets and half hourly peak service, the number of Acela Express seats between WAS and NYP will increase by ~180% during the peak travel hours, ~40% during the remainder of the day, and ~40% between BOS and NYP.

This is a fairly substantial waiver request, so there could be political considerations.

There is a note that one builder who participated in earlier discussions did not submit a proposal in response to the RFP.

On balance I'm very glad to see this step. Clearly Amtrak

got enuff proposals to begin to narrow the field and move on

with the process.

I'm more worried about the FRA safety regulations. Maybe

that was settled and I was distracted so I missed the news.

But have the FRA safety traditionalists finally and fully moved

into the 20th century to allow lighter, faster, cheaper, safer trains

on the NEC? Is that going to require still another waiver, and

maybe a half-assed one at that? Or is that still under discussion?

 

[west point]

Have not seen anything about cancellation of the maintenance buildings being lengthened. That would IMHO be penny wise and pound foolish. The proposal for -2s are for what ? Is there going to be a control cab at end of each train set or are they going to be a straight EMU setup ?. Maybe married pairs ?

 

[afigg]

I don't think platform length should restrict train length. Amtrak can do the same thing the commuter agencies do, simply announce that at stop X only the doors in the first seven cars or the last seven cars will open. It works well enough for NJT and the LIRR, I don't see why it wouldn't work for Amtrak.

Amtrak does this on the NEC. For the Regionals stopping at Newark, DE, passengers board and disembark from the center of the train around the cafe car. New London high level platform is only 3 cars long, so for the Acelas that stop there, passengers have to use the center cars to board and disembark. However, unlike most NJT and LIRR passengers, most Amtrak passengers have luggage, so dragging several large suitcases through multiple cars on a crowded train to the exit can be cumbersome.

When Amtrak was looking at adding 2 coach cars to the Acelas, I doubt that there was much concern about high level platform length. The coach section would be 8 cars, so for a 9 car long HLP north of WAS, one locomotive or the other would be beyond the platform, but that is not a problem. At WAS, the HLPs are all on end tracks with a buffer space. An extended Acela might have part of the coach car on the lead end beyond the end of the platform, but that would not be much of a problem.

Amtrak dropped the plan to order 40 more coach cars from Bombardier for a number of reasons. Which, I'm pretty sure have been discussed several times in this thread.

 

[afigg]

Longer ACELA-1s will have a fairly simple solution. At present the consist length is fixed due to a limited number of passenger cars. When Amtrak needs the odd ball geometry car added to an Acela train set it is fairly long process. Anyone know how much time ?

Once several of the Acela-2s begin to arrive the Acela-1s when surplus to the schedule at that time can be split up and added to existing Acela-1 train sets. Remember originally Amtrak was thinking of just buying more cars for each -1 train sets but found it too expensive..

Example --- 1 train set can add 2 cars to three train sets. That will result in a surplus of power cars but that is a small price to pay. The longer sets probably are needed NYP - BOS due to present limitations of number of trains on that route.

The idea of lengthened Acelas has been discussed before. I have come to the conclusion that Amtrak is not going to do this. First of all, Amtrak is seeking to order 28 trainsets to replace the 20 Acela sets. The first batch of Acela IIs are likely to be used to expand peak period service with 1/2 hour departure intervals as that is where Amtrak is leaving a lot of revenue on the table. After 10 or more Acela IIs are delivered, then the new trainsets can begin to replace the Acela trainsets.

The delivery rate for the new trainsets might be 1 a month once production ramps up. If that it the case, the 20 new trainsets after the first 8 will take only 20 months to replace the 20 Acela Is sets. Because of the length constraint imposed by the maintenance facilities, why spend time and effort to combine Acela I trainsets if they are going to be retired in less than 20 months? The Acelas are expensive to maintain, the overhaul costs for the Acelas that show up the budget documents are pretty steep. No, I expect the plan will be to send the Acela Is to dead storage as the new trainsets come in and then return the units to the lease holder at either the end of the lease or during an early termination option.

 

[Anderson]

Longer ACELA-1s will have a fairly simple solution. At present the consist length is fixed due to a limited number of passenger cars. When Amtrak needs the odd ball geometry car added to an Acela train set it is fairly long process. Anyone know how much time ?

Once several of the Acela-2s begin to arrive the Acela-1s when surplus to the schedule at that time can be split up and added to existing Acela-1 train sets. Remember originally Amtrak was thinking of just buying more cars for each -1 train sets but found it too expensive..

Example --- 1 train set can add 2 cars to three train sets. That will result in a surplus of power cars but that is a small price to pay. The longer sets probably are needed NYP - BOS due to present limitations of number of trains on that route.

The idea of lengthened Acelas has been discussed before. I have come to the conclusion that Amtrak is not going to do this. First of all, Amtrak is seeking to order 28 trainsets to replace the 20 Acela sets. The first batch of Acela IIs are likely to be used to expand peak period service with 1/2 hour departure intervals as that is where Amtrak is leaving a lot of revenue on the table. After 10 or more Acela IIs are delivered, then the new trainsets can begin to replace the Acela trainsets.

The delivery rate for the new trainsets might be 1 a month once production ramps up. If that it the case, the 20 new trainsets after the first 8 will take only 20 months to replace the 20 Acela Is sets. Because of the length constraint imposed by the maintenance facilities, why spend time and effort to combine Acela I trainsets if they are going to be retired in less than 20 months? The Acelas are expensive to maintain, the overhaul costs for the Acelas that show up the budget documents are pretty steep. No, I expect the plan will be to send the Acela Is to dead storage as the new trainsets come in and then return the units to the lease holder at either the end of the lease or during an early termination option.

Are the leases/buybacks still out on the Acelas? I forget what the schedule was on those, but I know there's a lot of stuff that's been bought back from the sale/leasebacks with EBOs.

Edit: With that said, I believe Amtrak could probably justify financing most of the Acela IIs off of a revenue-secured loan. I forget the estimated cost for them ($2-3bn seems about right), but the added revenue from additional capacity at peak hours (and from running 8-car trains instead of 6-car trains) spread over 15-20 years should be able to pay that back with interest and have cash left over.

 

[neroden]

The Acela and HHP-8 lease terminations / EBOs are almost all 2015 or later.

 

[afigg]

Are the leases/buybacks still out on the Acelas? I forget what the schedule was on those, but I know there's a lot of stuff that's been bought back from the sale/leasebacks with EBOs.

Edit: With that said, I believe Amtrak could probably justify financing most of the Acela IIs off of a revenue-secured loan. I forget the estimated cost for them ($2-3bn seems about right), but the added revenue from additional capacity at peak hours (and from running 8-car trains instead of 6-car trains) spread over 15-20 years should be able to pay that back with interest and have cash left over.

The FY13 Five Year Financial Plan shows some Early Buyout options for HHP-8 and "HS Trainsets", aka the Acelas, coming up in FY16 and FY17. The Five year plan does not provide info on lease options beyond FY17. These are Early Buyouts, not end of lease purchase options. The Acelas were acquired in 1999 to 2000, so if they were purchased with 20 year leases, the leases presumably would end in 2019-2020; if 25 years, then in 2024-2025. If the leases end in circa 2020, that likely makes it easy for Amtrak by returning the Acelas to the lease holder rather than a close-out purchase payment, depending, of course, on terms and structure of the leases which we are not privy to.
I may be way off base on my cost estimate, but I think the contract award price tag for the 28 new HSR trainsets plus spares and training will be in the $1.5 to $1.8 billion range. A google search reveals that Turkey in 2013 placed an order for 7 Siemems Velaro trainsets along with a 7 year maintenance contract for 285 million Euros or ~40 million Euros a Velaro trainset. So $50 to $60 million US for a HSR trainset plus spares and technical support should be in the ballpark.

 

[Anderson]

$60m/set would come out to $1.68bn for 28 sets. I'm going to assume that costs spike somehow, be it due to odd US regulations or some other issue...but that should put the deal somewhere in the $2bn range.

I will say, with the speculation that Amtrak might opt to dump the Acelas somewhere around the 20-year mark it leaves a very open question as to whether it would make sense for Amtrak to buy out the leases or not.

With the caveat that it is all speculative, does anyone know how long it is likely to take for an Acela II order to be delivered once the order is actually placed? I suspect not as long as the CAF situation (since I don't think you'd need a new factory to start production), but beyond that I can't even guess.

 

[afigg]

$60m/set would come out to $1.68bn for 28 sets. I'm going to assume that costs spike somehow, be it due to odd US regulations or some other issue...but that should put the deal somewhere in the $2bn range.

I will say, with the speculation that Amtrak might opt to dump the Acelas somewhere around the 20-year mark it leaves a very open question as to whether it would make sense for Amtrak to buy out the leases or not.

With the caveat that it is all speculative, does anyone know how long it is likely to take for an Acela II order to be delivered once the order is actually placed? I suspect not as long as the CAF situation (since I don't think you'd need a new factory to start production), but beyond that I can't even guess.

The Amtrak waiver request to the FRA stated the goal for entry into service for the new trainsets is 2019. But the revenue service date is going to depend on whether the FRA grants the waiver request. Then Amtrak has to award the contract and not all the vendors may be able to deliver production trainsets by 2019.

 

[Anderson]

Gotcha. A 2019 in-service date would certainly line up with disposing of the initial Acelas in 2020/21...I do take it as a given that Amtrak will hit some hiccup with the new equipment (there's always something), so allowing about two years to cycle stuff seems about right.