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

[Steve4031]

Maybe Amtrak had to tone down their expectations. They are asking for too much imho in the original bid request.

 

[John Bredin]

Maybe Amtrak had to tone down their expectations. They are asking for too much imho in the original bid request.

What do you think was excessive? They're ordering cars for another half-century, probably. They're addressing accessibility to a degree the existing Superliners don't, and they're heeding critiques that there should be a sleeping accommodation between coach and the present roomettes.

 

[jis]

What do you think was excessive? They're ordering cars for another half-century, probably. They're addressing accessibility to a degree the existing Superliners don't, and they're heeding critiques that there should be a sleeping accommodation between coach and the present roomettes.

I think there may have been a mismatch between features requested and what they are willing to pay for it. Amtrak does not have an endless pot of riches for this.

 

[GDRRiley]

What do you think was excessive? They're ordering cars for another half-century, probably. They're addressing accessibility to a degree the existing Superliners don't, and they're heeding critiques that there should be a sleeping accommodation between coach and the present roomettes.

They are overly specific for an RFP. They designed the train they wanted and then asked who can build it, which is how you get taken to the cleaners.

 

[Tom C]

A certain amount of back and forth along with amendments was not surprising in my view. It should be noted that there is not an off the shelf design here and with custom equipment that doesn’t exist there was always going to be a process here. Even if less amendments had been required and they got to notice to proceed a few months sooner this was never going to go as quick as Airo which is based on an off the shelf design.

The bottom line is the process will be the process and is going to proceed in the manner in which these procurements do which is irrelevant to whatever is going on politically and getting the contract signed tomorrow doesn’t necessarily completely shield the program from cuts that people are concerned about. It would obligate some of the funding but the program isn’t paid for all up front and payments would be done over a period of several fiscal years as the equipment is built - so an attack on the funding two years in is just as much of a problem as if it was done now.

Worrying about dodging the political fireballs and protecting the funding is going to be the job of advocates and advocacy organizations. Political changes in power is something that happens in free countries such as ours and that’s when those of us that support these efforts will have to roll up our sleeves once again.

Another point is if you review Amtrak’s Fiscal year requests they do expect the LD order to cost more than the $7 billion that they plan to use from the IIJA advanced appropriations. The rest of the money would probably come from financing. The IIJA is already helping with that in that it has allowed Amtrak to pay for the ALC-42 locomotives and Airo trainsets (which both began before the IIJA was passed) with that money instead of taking on financing for those programs which means they have more breathing room if they need to take on debt for future procurements.

 

[TheMalahat]

Maybe Amtrak had to tone down their expectations. They are asking for too much imho in the original bid request.

As someone whose regularly involved in (Canadian) government procurement, I really really doubt that's the issue.

Amtrak's document was likely very specific, and would create deliverable milestones etc. These are all written in best case scenario, and often based on a generic template industry can't necessarily replicate.

Asking for time to adjust based on what's essentially feedback of feedback (Industry to Amtrak to Industry, in this case) is entirely normal and healthy.

Reading into this with the minimal information available isn't going to actually provide any context, positive or negative.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

As far as specifics, Trains says this RFP is more straight forward than Amtraks. Yes, it’s single level but appears to check all the boxes needed.

https://www.trains.com/trn/news-rev...rwow_aem_k-JOOI5m5kSmIekVMXzgUA#wait_approval

 

[Tom C]

I’m sure the sticking point and what is making this tricky and more complicated with Amtrak’s is the desire to have it be bilevel but also accessible throughout ther core amenities and the workability of that along with the features they want. VIA going single level automatically makes their process much more straightforward as far as accessibility and Canadian accessibility laws are more lenient. It should be noted though they are going with a “core accessible” train set on VIA also - in a similar manner to Amtrak’s initial single level concept before they decided to go bilevel where lounge and diner amenities and accessible seating and accommodations would be clustered in the center and non accessible cars added on to the ends.

As far as comparing the intentions of the two as far as who is doing the right thing - VIA basically has to stay single level for their own reasons - their answer to better sightseeing from an upper level is to have Dome cars. Not sure Domes would be workable with 2024 ADA requirements. Amtrak also has compelling reasons to go bilevel - both to provide a better vantage for sightseeing out west than a single level would give you as well as for the Auto Train which is really the most compelling reason.

 

[jis]

Maybe I am in the minority but I do think that Dome cars give a better 360 degree vantage for sightseeing than bilevel Sightseers like Amtrak has.

 

[Tom C]

Maybe I am in the minority but I do think that Dome cars give a better 360 degree vantage for sightseeing than bilevel Sightseers like Amtrak has.

I’m sure the 360 dome views can’t be beat (unfortunately never been in one myself) but other than a dome being in an upper level dining room, coach, or lounge is going to give you a better vantage point than a single level train without domes would. Domes on Amtrak would be great but the million dollar question is would they fly or be workable with ADA?

 

[MARC Rider]

Maybe I am in the minority but I do think that Dome cars give a better 360 degree vantage for sightseeing than bilevel Sightseers like Amtrak has.

I would agree, except that the full length domes don't provide a better view than the bi-level sightseer lounge, and the ceiling is lower, giving a more cramped feeling to those sitting inside. The shorty domes are great, but passenger capacity is less than a sightseeing lounge, so more are required, or some passengers will be shut out, or drill-sargeant Amtrak OBS will be gatekeeping who goes up in the dome.

 

[Tom C]

I would agree, except that the full length domes don't provide a better view than the bi-level sightseer lounge, and the ceiling is lower, giving a more cramped feeling to those sitting inside. The shorty domes are great, but passenger capacity is less than a sightseeing lounge, so more are required, or some passengers will be shut out, or drill-sargeant Amtrak OBS will be gatekeeping who goes up in the dome.

And if part of the design is bigger and better windows throughout the train then the current Superliners you’ll get a better vantage from all the upper level coach seating than you would from a single level coach car - also a better view when eating in the diner, etc. Of course there’s big advantages to single level too. The Auto Train situation I suspect is among the biggest reasons for the bilevel decision in that there are major advantages on that particular service since with the auto carriers consist length and fitting the passengers for the amount of vehicles you can carry becomes an issue.