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.

 

[west point]

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

However, the specs have the trucks rated to Class 8 track. 150 MPH.

 

[Tom C]

They are definitely deferring more to the carbuilders for layout and design than the earlier versions were. They also dropped the first class only lounge and coach seating in the cafe. There is now some standing eating areas in the cafe along with some tables. It’s looking like the lounge and cafe could also now end up in the same car. They also are including options for individual sleepers with couplers on both ends that can be added more easily and are interoperable with existing equipment. Also did away with the “Prestige” style sleeper. It appears the most numerous accommodation type will be the solo suites - I do like the concept of those. Skylight windows have been scaled back. The only car that will definitely have them now is the lounge - they will also be an option for the premium coaches. The premium coach seats look quite nice and will be la-z boy style,

 

[Harmon Shay]

But really? 1312 pages? I'm not a professional in this, but it seems like these are still far too complicated. I would think it would take any manufacturer at least a couple of years just to go through these, much less be able to put a proposed order together. And I didn't see any real change in what I thought were overly-complicated designs with too much space devoted to ADA. I also didn't notice anything about getting out of the unrealistic fixed-consist idea that Amtrak really needs to get away from. Just my opinions.

 

[west point]

If the funds keep coming Amtrak needs to purchase enough new Superliner type cars to meet whatever trains are running during a scheduled production run. 2 - 4 years before that time or earlier Amtrak should consider building a taller Superliner type car. The only station that kind of car cannot operate at this time is CHI Union Station. Maybe not thru 1st street tunnel for WASH terminations? So, the present routes the taller cars can operate are Starlight, Sunset, Auto train.

For 10 car trains + 20 AT that is 140 cars + 20% spares = 168 cars. 15 CAR = ~~220 cars. Not a bad fleet at all. Then Non-CHI trains could add an unknown number of trains in the future. These taller cars would solve many of the present Superliner height problems.

A change of heights at CHI will be needed if HSR service is to transit the station. At present even 12.5 kV CAT cannot even clear present Superliners. Even the Statler EMUs at 15'10-1/2 inches would have clearance problems with a modern pantograph. CAT at 6.25 kV most likely not and 3.125 kV maybe - likely. Any of these off voltages will need step down transformers for the probable 25 kV national standard that is already in use for the New Haven - BOS, NJ Transit 60 hZ installations, and now CalTrain. Also, the future CA HSR and Brightline west.

 

[GDRRiley]

However, the specs have the trucks rated to Class 8 track. 150 MPH.

They need to be able to run on class 1-8 not run at class 8 speeds.

A change of heights at CHI will be needed if HSR service is to transit the station. At present even 12.5 kV CAT cannot even clear present Superliners. Even the Statler EMUs at 15'10-1/2 inches would have clearance problems with a modern pantograph. CAT at 6.25 kV most likely not and 3.125 kV maybe - likely. Any of these off voltages will need step down transformers for the probable 25 kV national standard that is already in use for the New Haven - BOS, NJ Transit 60 hZ installations, and now CalTrain. Also, the future CA HSR and Brightline west.

I don't think your factoring in the voltage controlled clearance the UK has developed.

 

[Amtrak25]

I don't think they should make cars any taller than Superliners. As it is, Superliners are too top heavy and flip over far to readily in derailments. I don't think a Santa Fe hi level car ever flipped over, or maybe just once.

Bi-level cars mean elevators. We know perfectly well what Amtrak "maintenance" is and they won't work reliably Get a universal single level fleet for nationwide use and flexibility. The whole system need not be compatible with Autotrain. Rebuild a suffient number of Superliner-II's for that service to run another 20 years. Autotrain, as private and as Amtrak, also ran for 2 decades with single level cars.

I think management has deliberately made this whole thing too complicated and stringent (150 MPH trucks - really now) so as to slow walk the whole thing awaiting hostile executive (hello OMB) and legislative branches to kill the whole thing, and we may be just about there - goal achieved.