RFP issued for Amfleet I replacement

[railiner]

Let’s hope those changes are “positive”...

 

[jiml]

What was news to me is that “many changes that have taken place at Amtrak” so much so that no progress was made on looking at TSSSA’s and that by September “things are just getting settled at Amtrak.”

With more to come presumably?

 

[Andrew]

How likely is it for Stadler to receive the contract for new Amfleet coaches?

 

[rickycourtney]

How likely is it for Stadler to receive the contract for new Amfleet coaches?

They have a chance. I’m not willing to put any odds on one manufacturer over another.

Siemens is the favorite because they have a proven product and an established production line.

But I want to make this point super clear...

I expect nearly every passenger equipment manufacturer that has a US operation (and maybe some that don’t) has made a proposal. That includes Stadler.

This is a very lucrative contract that could keep a factory humming for years.

Another way to see this is that Siemens has the least to lose here. Between the CA/Midwest order, the VIA order, the future Brightline order... the Venture production line will be busy for years to come. Siemens also has very busy LRV and Charger production lines.

For another manufacturer... this contract could be the difference between being a player in the US marketplace for a few more years or closing up a factory.

 

[Andrew]

I understand that Siemens maybe the favorite but I was not too sure if they were too busy to manufacture new Amfleet coaches?

 

[NSC1109]

How likely is it for Stadler to receive the contract for new Amfleet coaches?

It (likely) will not happen.

When choosing a supplier, your best option is the one with the proven product. I don’t believe Stadler has mass-produced a US heavy-rail order as of yet (if this is incorrect someone tell me) and not everyone can do it (see Nippon Sharyo).

Siemens had a proven product, the ability to ramp manufacturing, and a good working relationship with the states and Amtrak reps. In the interests of fleet commonality, they are they way to go.

 

[rickycourtney]

I don’t believe Stadler has mass-produced a US heavy-rail order as of yet (if this is incorrect someone tell me) and not everyone can do it (see Nippon Sharyo).

Stadler has the FLIRT DMU heavy-rail trainset and the KISS EMU trainset.

The company has built eight 4-car FLIRT trainsets for the TEXRail line in Fort Worth, TX, is building four 2-car FLIRT trainsets for the Arrow line in Redlands, CA, and is also building 19 7-car KISS sets for Caltrain in San Jose, CA.

I'll let you decide if a total production of 173 cars is "mass-production."

I don't really understand where that equipment stands with meeting FRA standards. To be honest, I don't have my head fully wrapped around the new FRA rules and waivers.

However, I have heard that Caltrain needs to have PTC up and running to fulfill the requirements the FRA set in its waiver allowing the EMUs to share tracks with freight trains... so with all lines forced to have PTC soon there may be a way to use Stadler's equipment nationwide... but there may also be more hoops to jump through.

Stadler has also made locomotive-hauled railcars for the US market -- but -- it was a 10-car order of bespoke bi-level glass-domed coaches for Rocky Mountaineer. They took around three years to build the tiny order... so that's not exactly a pressure test.

Stadler would probably be a great choice if Amtrak decides to go the EMU/DMU route... but I don't think they will because it means disposing of the 5-year-old ACS-64 locomotives.

I understand that Siemens maybe the favorite but I was not too sure if they were too busy to manufacture new Amfleet coaches?

I'm not too sure if most companies are ever too busy to say no to a big order.

 

[jiml]

Stadler has the FLIRT DMU heavy-rail trainset and the KISS EMU trainset.

The company has built eight 4-car FLIRT trainsets for the TEXRail line in Fort Worth, TX

 

[nullptr]

I forgot the new passenger cars for the Cascades service was lumped into this as well. WSDOT gave a very brief update on Monday to the Washington House Transportation Committee. Only thing new information as far as I can tell is that they expected delivery in 2025. The fact that the Cascades have brand new Chargers also makes me skeptical they would go purely with a DMU option.

https://www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID...11019&startStreamAt=5931&autoStartStream=true

 

[nullptr]

There are potentially three customers of a dual mode of any sort.:

1. MNRR: They need a third rail dual mode. They are not particularly interested in catenary dual modes because Grand Central will never get catenary, and that is what they need to access mainly for their outer zone push/pulls. Those are not hard to build and they have been working diligently on such a thing.

2. LIRR: They would like a dual mode too for their outer zone push/pulls to access NY Penn Station. They can live with third rail dual modes, and will probably just do an add-on order with MNRR, whatever they get.

3. Amtrak: For NY State service, funded by NY State they can live with third rail dual mode, and there is an argument to be made in favor of such since it leaves open the possibility of doing emergency diversions to Grand Central, which becomes impossible with centenary dual mode, unless they happen to be triple mode with both catenary and third rail capabilities. Extra cost, extra complexity, extra weight.

As has been mentioned in this thread, Amtrak could use a catenary dual mode for its non-electrified service extensions from the electrified NEC spine, within reason. But I suspect Amtrak will have to bear the entire cost for the development of such a beast, since MTA will most likely not bother with it, and NY State may chose not to partake either. On the brighter side, in a rational world it could be a joint project funded by Amtrak, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut and Massachusetts.

This might be better posted in a different, or its own, thread, but it looks like the MTA is going with Siemens for its MNRR dual-mode locomotives, with options for an LIRR configuration (66 total) and options for the Empire Service (26) and CDOT (20).

https://new.mta.info/document/25251#page=132
The order of 27 locomotives for $334 million means that it comes out to over $12 million apiece, which seems pretty steep (Some of the cost of the order is for parts and service but still).

From the staff report, both Bombardier and MPI submitted proposals to phase 1 of the RFP, but pulled out from phase 2 because of the small size of the base order.

 

[sttom]

$12 million isn't really that bad of a cost. The Chargers going to the States and Amtrak cost around $11 million per engine. Considering the design would need to be modified for third rail operations and the document says they are buying more parts, what I'm guessing is an extended warranty and a simulator, an extra million per engine doesn't seem like a horrible deal compared to what Amtrak orders are coming in as.

 

[nullptr]

Yeah, fair point. Looks like I was misremembering what the Chargers went for. The long-distance order was $850 million for 75, which is $11 per, as you said.

 

[rickycourtney]

I wonder how useful the electric-powered side of the Charger will be.

As discussed on this thread (or maybe another) the Genesis P32-DM's are basically designed as diesel locomotives that can "limp" using the third-rail. In other words, pure electric is limited to slow-speed operations and as soon as the train is out of the tunnels the diesel prime mover is fired up and takes over.

If the Charger could operate at full track speeds with the diesel prime mover shut down... that would be awesome.

I was reading in another article that the companies who bid on this contract were asked to be ready to build several dual-mode varients if asked:

• A diesel and DC third rail dual mode with a top speed of 110 mi/hr or 125 mi/hr (instead of 90 mi/hr)
• A diesel and AC overhead wire locomotive with a top speed of 110 mi/hr or 125 mi/hr (similar to NJTransit's ALP-45DP locomotives)
• A DC third rail and AC overhead wire motor (no diesel) that can run on 25 c/s 12.5 kV, 60 c/s 12.5 kV, and 60 c/s 25kV overhead wire

Presumably, Siemens feels comfortable that they can build all three. That could be another reason for Amtrak to not consider Dual Mode MU trainsets.

 

[jis]

What does consideration of EMU trainset have to do with dual mode locomotive availability beats me. They seem to be orthogonal issues to me. One has to do with superior performance and the other with being able to operate outside wired territory. Generally locomotive hauled train have inferior performance compared to properly engineered E/DMUs. The rest of the world discovered this a few decades or more back. In US we used to know this, but somehow now we struggle with this simple concept. Fortunately knowledgeable regional operators with truly heavy traffic do understand this, and some are coming around to it again after having been lost in the push-pul wilderness for a while (e.g. NJTransit). The Brits are way ahead of us in the use of EDMUs though.

 

[west point]

For some reason that i am not familiar 3rd rail reasonable top speeds are somewhere around 90 -100 MPH. That has been posted in other thread s. Hope someone can clarify ? If that is true then we may know why MNRR has not increased the track MAS higher for the Amtrak trains on the Hudson line?

 

[jis]

For some reason that i am not familiar 3rd rail reasonable top speeds are somewhere around 90 -100 MPH. That has been posted in other thread s. Hope someone can clarify ? If that is true then we may know why MNRR has not increased the track MAS higher for the Amtrak trains on the Hudson line?

Generally 100mph has been about the highest commercial that has operated with third rail electrification. There are two issues that arise with third rail. One is that it is hard to design collecting shoes that operate without arcing at higher speeds. And the other is typically higher speed requires higher power, which means hugely larger current draw at low voltages that third rails are limited to.

Since neither Amtrak, nor Metro North uses third rail outside the tunnels on their dual mode engines, what is or is not possible with third rail regarding speed is a on-issue at present. MNRR has no incentive to increase maintenance costs for supporting higher speed limits just for Amtrak unless Amtrak pays to make it so. MNRR itself has little to gain running at 90 instead of 70-75. And Hudson Line is not exactly a straight race track in the MNRR territory anyway.

 

[Andrew]

What does consideration of EMU trainset have to do with dual mode locomotive availability beats me. They seem to be orthogonal issues to me. One has to do with superior performance and the other with being able to operate outside wired territory. Generally locomotive hauled train have inferior performance compared to properly engineered E/DMUs. The rest of the world discovered this a few decades or more back. In US we used to know this, but somehow now we struggle with this simple concept. Fortunately knowledgeable regional operators with truly heavy traffic do understand this, and some are coming around to it again after having been lost in the push-pul wilderness for a while (e.g. NJTransit). The Brits are way ahead of us in the use of EDMUs though.

Does Metro North ordering locomotives from Siemens make it more likely for Amtrak to order Venture coaches to replace their Amfleets?

Would it make sense for Amtrak to order EMU trains to replace the Amfleets, and then Amtrak could sell their Sprinter Locomotives to both NJ Transit and SEPTA?

 

[NSC1109]

Does Metro North ordering locomotives from Siemens make it more likely for Amtrak to order Venture coaches to replace their Amfleets?

Would it make sense for Amtrak to order EMU trains to replace the Amfleets, and then Amtrak could sell their Sprinter Locomotives to both NJ Transit and SEPTA?

M-N’s order will have little basis for Amtrak’s procurement choices.

Personally, and this just my opinion without any available hard costs to associate with it, buying EMUs and selling the Sprinters would be a mistake. You still have to replace most of the single-level fleet where EMUs don’t work. That’s adding in a whole new fleet type that you’re gonna need to stand up a maintenance operation for with a TSSSA and training. Buying the EMU and selling the ACS-64 would result in the net number of fleet types staying the same, but one would have increased short term costs with the standing up of the operation and one wouldnt. Just replace the coaches and be done with it.

 

[jis]

M-N’s order will have little basis for Amtrak’s procurement choices.

In general that is true.

But since the DMs will be for exclusive use of NYSDOT funded Empire Corridor and might indeed be actually owned by NYSDOT though operated under contract by Amtrak, since Amtrak would have no use for them anywhere else, they might have a little more to do with MNRR's choice of DMs since potentially NYSDOT could reduce their overall cost by having them maintained at the Croton shops. I don't know that this will happen, but it is not completely out of the question.

 

[NSC1109]

In general that is true.

But since the DMs will be for exclusive use of NYSDOT funded Empire Corridor and might indeed be actually owned by NYSDOT though operated under contract by Amtrak, since Amtrak would have no use for them anywhere else, they might have a little more to do with MNRR's choice of DMs since potentially NYSDOT could reduce their overall cost by having them maintained at the Croton shops. I don't know that this will happen, but it is not completely out of the question.

I am not totally well-versed in NYS operations (as the Midwest is my home), but I agree that if NYSDOT were to purchase a set of DMs then I would expect a portion of those to be contracted to Amtrak, and I wouldn’t be surprised if a follow-up order of Venture coaches for NYS/Empire popped up somewhere down the line.

 

[Andrew]

Would it make sense for Amtrak to go with a combination of locomotive hauled Venture coaches for the Regionals and multiple unit trainsets for the Keystones?

 

[railiner]

For pure utility, having just one type (locomotive hauled) would probably make more sense. I don't know economically what the difference would be...it would be hard to figure. If Amtrak did decided to acquire new MU's, they would be smart to try to 'piggy-back' the order with one or more commuter railroads, and make minimal customization for Amtrak's requirements....

 

[Andrew]

For pure utility, having just one type (locomotive hauled) would probably make more sense. I don't know economically what the difference would be...it would be hard to figure. If Amtrak did decided to acquire new MU's, they would be smart to try to 'piggy-back' the order with one or more commuter railroads, and make minimal customization for Amtrak's requirements....

OK and if it was up to you, would you have Amtrak choose Alstom, Siemens or Stadler for the new Amfleet coaches, and why?

 

[Mailliw]

I would choose Siemens since they already have an FRA approved passenger coach in production and are delivering the CA/Midwest cars on time without major issues.

 

[railiner]

OK and if it was up to you, would you have Amtrak choose Alstom, Siemens or Stadler for the new Amfleet coaches, and why?

I haven't studied them to have a meaningful opinion. My consideration's would be which one could deliver the best product in the shortest time, at the least cost. Not asking for much, eh?