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.

 

[nferr]

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.

If that's the case, the crew would probably save all the dome space for themselves.

 

[railiner]

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?

To solve the ADA issue, couldn’t they pair an accessible panorama type observation lounge car with a true dome car? That way those in wheelchairs could also enjoy the observation aspect?

 

[Palmland]

Trains’ Newswire had a story today on the Inspector General Report and assessments of the procurement process for the new bi-level LD fleet. Sounds like another Amtrak bungled project.

“The company plans to use up to $7 billion it received through the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act for this first phase. Early challenges in developing design requirements for the trainsets, however, have delayed the schedule. Moreover, the complexity of the program itself poses an innate risk of cost increases and additional delays. Given the program’s significant size, any such increases or delays could have cascading impacts on the company’s ability to accomplish other major capital projects and maintain its existing long distance service.”

 

[Tom C]

I read the report pretty much cover to cover. I think Johnston is kind of trying to make it sound worse than it really is. This is by nature a complex project as the OIG pointed out. There are certainly some concerns or areas that require vigilance to monitor I did not find anything hugely surprising or hugely damning.

Amtrak was trying to test the limits and possibilities to try to provide as premium and accessible a product as possible. Things have changed over the last few decades and I don’t think the new cars should be Superliner 3.0. I don’t think this goal is without merit. Obviously reality has required some things needing to be scaled back or declared “nice to haves” which has led to some delays. There are no off the shelf designs so whatever they do is going to be complex.

The report certainly identifies areas where Amtrak and its OIG needs to be vigilant and recommends some areas to improve risk management and clarify lines of authority (which management largely agreed with) but it also notes where Amtrak has improved their processes for identifying lessons learned and incorporated several lessons learned from the Avelia and Airo procurements. The bottom line of the report is OIG and management need to remain vigilant due to the money at risk.

There were some interesting additional details about the phasing. Amtrak is using $7 billion from the IIJA to cover the “phase 1” award which provides the equipment to cover the western LD trains that use Superliner 1s. Phase 2 (which would be via an option) includes options to re equip the Auto Train. Phase 3 would be exercising options for service growth and expansion and any new LD routes. Phase 4 is the eventual procurement of single level equipment.

 

[ST Saint]

I read the report pretty much cover to cover. I think Johnston is kind of trying to make it sound worse than it really is. This is by nature a complex project as the OIG pointed out. There are certainly some concerns or areas that require vigilance to monitor I did not find anything hugely surprising or hugely damning.

Amtrak was trying to test the limits and possibilities to try to provide as premium and accessible a product as possible. Things have changed over the last few decades and I don’t think the new cars should be Superliner 3.0. I don’t think this goal is without merit. Obviously reality has required some things needing to be scaled back or declared “nice to haves” which has led to some delays. There are no off the shelf designs so whatever they do is going to be complex.

The report certainly identifies areas where Amtrak and its OIG needs to be vigilant and recommends some areas to improve risk management and clarify lines of authority (which management largely agreed with) but it also notes where Amtrak has improved their processes for identifying lessons learned and incorporated several lessons learned from the Avelia and Airo procurements. The bottom line of the report is OIG and management need to remain vigilant due to the money at risk.

There were some interesting additional details about the phasing. Amtrak is using $7 billion from the IIJA to cover the “phase 1” award which provides the equipment to cover the western LD trains that use Superliner 1s. Phase 2 (which would be via an option) includes options to re equip the Auto Train. Phase 3 would be exercising options for service growth and expansion and any new LD routes. Phase 4 is the eventual procurement of single level equipment.

This was my take as well. I am not surprised there was this initial delay so far after having discussions with the manufacturers over a very complicated and long term procurement. There are always areas to improve, but thus far, this is not the Acela II rollout..

I also thought the phasing is an interesting new piece of information.

 

[Palmland]

While I do like the idea of new bi-level cars, I think, given Amtrak's struggles with any kind of procurement project (and this is certainly a complex one), it would be better to just piggyback on the VIA single level order. That would be a design that could be used nationwide which would reduce maintenance costs and make it easy to move the fleet around (transfer cars from the west in the winter to Florida service and the reverse). No doubt it would speed up delivery significantly. Perhaps they could even get an ADA waiver to provide dome car access by one of those stair lifts for the disabled. After all, the Super Chief and Florida Special were single level trains and they were pretty nice!

 

[user535733]

Sounds like another Amtrak bungled project.

Problems are exactly where we want them to be, and that's a good thing: Discovered and resolved on nice, cheap paper before any orders are made.

The alternative is to discover problems on expensive factory floors or in embarrassing test failures.

The OIG report made three rather modest recommendations typical for many complex projects.
Were this project truly "bungled," the OIG recommendations would be quite different.

Perhaps they could even get an ADA waiver....

That seems like a great way to get Amtrak dragged into court (yet again) for ADA non-compliance. That's a big, expensive risk.

One of the reasons for the new LD design is ADA compliance with a minimum of waivers and other legal risk.

 

[Tom C]

Bilevel is pretty compelling for the Auto Train. I think piggybacking on VIA’s order is a good backup plan and also a good idea for single level fleet, but I’d rather see them try to make bilevel workable. It provides a better viewing experience for the more of the train and there are major advantages on the Auto Train.

 

[Cal]

\

Phase 3 would be exercising options for service growth and expansion and any new LD routes.

Kind of annoyed that this is Phase 3 and not the original phase. They need more equipment than they have now, even if it's just to increase capacity and protect equipment for current routes.

 

[Tom C]

\
Kind of annoyed that this is Phase 3 and not the original phase. They need more equipment than they have now, even if it's just to increase capacity and protect equipment for current routes.

The funding only covers state of good repair / which would imply existing services. Im all for more equipment to increase service but that’s going to need funding through some of these new route proposals. But the options will be there.

 

[west point]

More 2 level cars are desperately needed to cover the eventual of another serious incident taking more cars out of service. That applies to single level LD routes as well especially sleepers for both levels of cars.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The funding only covers state of good repair / which would imply existing services. Im all for more equipment to increase service but that’s going to need funding through some of these new route proposals. But the options will be there.

Much like the Viewliner II options?

 

[toddinde]

There are a host of reasons for bilevels including station platform length. The most egregious issue is the lack of a coach lounge. That has to be remedied. We also need to keep a close watch on seat design because the Ventures are bad. Yes, I know that should be self evident in a long distance car, but we’ve learned to take nothing for granted. The limited coach lounge space is, on its face, unacceptable.