Bi-level Long Distance (LD) fleet replacement RFP discussion H2 2024 - 2025

[Paniolo Man]

But they haven't received any quotes yet on pricing have they? I think the cost per car is going to be astronomical for what they've requested, and it's going to be back to the drawing board. We'll see.

Unless they extended the deadline for the third or fourth time, bids should be in.

 

[Anderson]

I will add as a note - I realize that the Superliners do need replacing, but if Amtrak isn't going to go with a "single fleet" model then there's another option - the Cap, CONO, and Eagle/Sunset (in particular) could be made to "swing" between single level and bilevel on a long(er)-term basis (i.e. 5-10 year cycles) so that each order would explicitly open up capacity for either the NYP-bound single-level-locked trains or the big Western LD trains. This would, unfortunately for Amtrak's planning, recommend a single-level order first (to allow those trains' equipment to be cascaded westwards) - ideally you'd have done this with a 300-400 car order at Viewliner II time, but that's in the past - with those sleepers (plus anything they can shake out of Beech Grove) being used to add capacity in the west, then with a Superliner replacement order coming on the heels of that (which would allow full replacement of the Superliners as well as reverting some trains back to bilevel).

I still think that going all-single-level is the correct answer, but this would probably be the second-best option. Naturally, of course, Amtrak has managed to go with a really bad option instead.

As to the bids...I'm wondering how this goes if they either get no bids or just one bid.

 

[west point]

Why do our posters keep talking about replacing the present Superliners. Unless Amtrak can order at least 500 SLs then some SLs will have to remain. This is not a prediction but since delivers of new cars may not finish until 2032 - 2034 not one of us can predict the riders and any new SL trains.

 

[jis]

Why do our posters keep talking about replacing the present Superliners. Unless Amtrak can order at least 500 SLs then some SLs will have to remain. This is not a prediction but since delivers of new cars may not finish until 2032 - 2034 not one of us can predict the riders and any new SL trains.

Because the RFP which is the subject of the thread is for replacing the present Superliners. I thought that ought to be pretty obvious if one is paying attention.

 

[Siegmund]

Anyhow...my view is that the costs associated with overhauling train station platforms (and I'll admit that this is likely a cost of $5-10m/each) and the associated hassle are the lesser of the two evils here.

That's not chicken feed when there are something like 300 stations with low-level platforms out there, at least a few dozen of which need to maintain compatibility with Sounder, Metra, Metrolink, etc or be completely reconfigured.

Meanwhile we have an appropriation to spend several billion on equipment and no appropriation to spend several billion on platforms, so it seems that serving existing platforms -- whether you do it with a Superliner-height door + inside elevators to reach the upper level or a Viewliner-height door + external elevators to reach the platform.

 

[jis]

That's not chicken feed when there are something like 300 stations with low-level platforms out there, at least a few dozen of which need to maintain compatibility with Sounder, Metra, Metrolink, etc or be completely reconfigured.

Meanwhile we have an appropriation to spend several billion on equipment and no appropriation to spend several billion on platforms, so it seems that serving existing platforms -- whether you do it with a Superliner-height door + inside elevators to reach the upper level or a Viewliner-height door + external elevators to reach the platform.

Actually, the new generation single level cars come with an electric lift that is deployable from inside the car at select doors. This is a well established and certified technology available off the shelf. The interior elevators that Amtrak is asking for in the proposed bi-level design is not necessarily available off the shelf and will involve some doing to get certified and all that. Nothing that cannot be done, given enough money and time. The argument is about how much money and how much time.

 

[Anderson]

That's not chicken feed when there are something like 300 stations with low-level platforms out there, at least a few dozen of which need to maintain compatibility with Sounder, Metra, Metrolink, etc or be completely reconfigured.

Meanwhile we have an appropriation to spend several billion on equipment and no appropriation to spend several billion on platforms, so it seems that serving existing platforms -- whether you do it with a Superliner-height door + inside elevators to reach the upper level or a Viewliner-height door + external elevators to reach the platform.

Actually, the new generation single level cars come with an electric lift that is deployable from inside the car at select doors. This is a well established and certified technology available off the shelf. The interior elevators that Amtrak is asking for in the proposed bi-level design is not necessarily available off the shelf and will involve some doing to get certified and all that. Nothing that cannot be done, given enough money and time. The argument is about how much money and how much time.

I mean, there's been a slow parade of ADA improvements, and as @jis noted the newer trains have a workaround. So you'd probably want a high-level platform at SPUD, Denver, Salt Lake City, etc., but outside of high-volume stations (more than a few of which may well ultimately acquire corridor trains - SPUD will probably need a high-level platform anyway because of the Aurora service given the epic fail that was the N-S order) and have authorities just piling on to the Airo order) the train lifts should suffice. If anything, I wouldn't be too shocked to see a situation where there's pressure to put in high-level platforms at some stations between Milwaukee and St. Paul (forecasting down the line, 3-4x Borealis trains feel more easily foreseeable than 3-4x LD trains on that route) and issues arising about where to keep the low-level platform for the LD train(s).

Also, in the context of any corridor proposal, a few million bucks per station is chicken feed. It shouldn't be, but it is. This complaint about project costs has been brought to you by the letter Q.

 

[Mailliw]

Is there any news as to what changes were made to the RFP or who submitted bids?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Is there any news as to what changes were made to the RFP or who submitted bids?

I assure you that as soon as somebody who knows something along those lines and is at liberty to discuss that knowledge, they will post it.

 

[turtlypo]

I went through the FOIA process again and was given the most recent revision (Rev 5) of the RFP document @Paniolo Man requested. It's attached.

I haven't had time to comb through the content, but the changelog near the top is really helpful. The chapter 1 conceptual car arrangement figures are gone, and more clarification was made on accessibility in upper and lower levels. Most of the room types (premium, accessible premium, accessible twin, accessible double) and a lot of amenity details (skylight, first class bar) were also removed. Maybe giving more freedom to the builders will help.

 

[danasgoodstuff]

Lots to ponder there!

 

[west point]

Attachments​

• Exhibit D Amtrak Long Distance Bi Level Fleet Replacement Technical Specification #1132 Rev 5.pdf
  14.6 MB

Since Amtrak has been experiencing many freeze up this winter though I would look at water system specifications. One tank size for all cars except diners with a 3-day capacity (changed from 6 day). A full type car with the highest 3-day demand specifies the same tank for all cars. Diners also 3 days but could not tell if spec same tank(s) that would require how many tanks installed.

Potable water system to be designed so whole system can be gravity drained with an automatic drainage happening to prevent freeze ups. A thought. Is that design just for a level car not one on a sloped hill such as Raton. Also, car parked on a superelevation curve.

 

[Mailliw]

I went through the FOIA process again and was given the most recent revision (Rev 5) of the RFP document @Paniolo Man requested. It's attached.

I haven't had time to comb through the content, but the changelog near the top is really helpful. The chapter 1 conceptual car arrangement figures are gone, and more clarification was made on accessibility in upper and lower levels. Most of the room types (premium, accessible premium, accessible twin, accessible double) and a lot of amenity details (skylight, first class bar) were also removed. Maybe giving more freedom to the builders will help.

Thanks. I don't think it's necessary to have accessible facilities on the lower level as well as the upper level.

 

[GDRRiley]

looks like they lowered the top speed target from 125mph+ to 110mph which makes sense.