RFP issued for Amfleet I replacement

[sitzplatz17]

It seems to be that the easiest and most "off the shelf" solution for the WAS issue would be to procure new Viaggo cars from Siemens with a cab car on one end.
In this situation you could simply do the following:
1. A southbound NER to VA could operate from BOS/NYP with the cab car leading and being pushed by an ACS64.
2. Arriving at WAS have the diesel loco sitting on the requisite platform ready to go and drive the train right up to and then couple up with the new loco.
4. Allow passengers to (dis)embark.
5. Uncouple the ACS64 on your way south.

On the way back, just do the same in reverse.
Thoughts? I'm sure I'm missing something here.

 

[jiml]

It seems to be that the easiest and most "off the shelf" solution for the WAS issue would be to procure new Viaggo cars from Siemens with a cab car on one end.
In this situation you could simply do the following:
1. A southbound NER to VA could operate from BOS/NYP with the cab car leading and being pushed by an ACS64.
2. Arriving at WAS have the diesel loco sitting on the requisite platform ready to go and drive the train right up to and then couple up with the new loco.
4. Allow passengers to (dis)embark.
5. Uncouple the ACS64 on your way south.

On the way back, just do the same in reverse.
Thoughts? I'm sure I'm missing something here.

That's way too simple and practical.

 

[Andrew]

When they talk about number of trainsets, my educated guess is they are counting a trainset as anything that has capacity equivalent to 8 85 footers like the current typical NEC Regional consists with a similar mix of Coach, Upper Class and Food Service. It is somewhat wishy washy, but in the ballpark I think. I have not seen a precise definition. The vendors have a lot of leeway in proposing solutions that meet the end to end run time and capacity requirements specified in the document shared with vendors, but not with the likes of me - a non-vendor curious person.

Given that it is a relatively hide bound bureaucracy we are dealing with, at the end of the day I think all that will be acceptable will be 8 Venture-like cars bracketed between top and tail power heads. I would be positively surprised if it turns out to be anything else.

I agree that electric and diesel dual mode is unlikely to be used on LD trains traveling beyond Virginia. What would be used on Virginia trains may be partly determined by what Virginia wants to see happen.

Personally I think money would be better spent in fixing the process for loco change in Washington Union Station so such can be done in 15 mins, instead of creating yet another subfleet of engines.

Corridor trains with relatively frequent stops are more efficiently operated with distributed power sets, and that is the trend everywhere in the world. In many places this is achieved using a mix of trailer and power cars, with cab cars at each end, all cars carrying passengers. Quite often the cab cars may not be the power cars, but that is not a critical issue.

NJTransit has opted for this route to convert a substantial subset of its multi-level fleet into what in effect will be distributed power sets, by adding a bunch of Multilevel Power Cars to their fleet. Last time I looked they plan to have a power car in groups of three cars, thus a 12 car train will have 4 power cars. The contract is for a joint procurement between NJT and SEPTA.

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/commuterregional/for-njt-another-rolling-stock-innovation/
From this article:
View attachment 20993

There is nothing in this that is proprietary to Bombardier (Alstom). Siemens is perfectly capable of crafting such a configuration together using the Viaggio platform. It does not require trains to be fixed length. The lengths can be varied as one desires. The cab at each end is something that Amtrak has expressed a desire for, in order to eliminate the need to for turning trains in a loop or a Wye, allowing them to be "turned" in platform.

But given that Amtrak has a large stash of very capable electric engines, and a need for part of the fleet to run off electrified territory, they may go for the push pull configuration with cab car at one end instead (the RailJet configuration or configuration 2 in the Railway Age article referenced above). But again, it is not hard to mix and match as needed. So we'll see.

And suppose Virginia asks for EDMU trains instead of dual-mode Chargers?

 

[jiml]

And suppose Virginia asks for EDMU trains instead of dual-mode Chargers?

What would be their objective?

 

[Andrew]

Maybe they think the acceleration would better...

Also, if Amtrak does order EDMU trains from Siemens, where do you folks think the diesel engines would be located?

 

[SubwayNut]

No. Them would not fit through the tunnels into Penn Station. But there have been P32ACDMs substituted by straight P42s into Penn Station from time to time pinch hitting for a P32ACDM that did not make it..

https://subwaynut.com/mnr/crotonharmon/crotonharmon22.jpg
I have a photo of a P42 leading the Lake Shore into Croton-Harmon back in 2004 I believe what happened is that an AEM7 or HHP8 waited at the end of electrification on the Empire Connection (which has both third rail and catenary) in the electrified portion of the connection and pulled the P42 and Lake Shore into the station and its deadhead to Sunnyside Yard.

 

[Seaboard92]

It seems to be that the easiest and most "off the shelf" solution for the WAS issue would be to procure new Viaggo cars from Siemens with a cab car on one end.
In this situation you could simply do the following:
1. A southbound NER to VA could operate from BOS/NYP with the cab car leading and being pushed by an ACS64.
2. Arriving at WAS have the diesel loco sitting on the requisite platform ready to go and drive the train right up to and then couple up with the new loco.
4. Allow passengers to (dis)embark.
5. Uncouple the ACS64 on your way south.

On the way back, just do the same in reverse.
Thoughts? I'm sure I'm missing something here.

Yeah thats not practical you see the Washington Terminal is not good at change. They can barely get the trains they are supposed to get out and over the road on time. Whats to say they are going to be any better with the new system.

 

[jis]

https://subwaynut.com/mnr/crotonharmon/crotonharmon22.jpg
I have a photo of a P42 leading the Lake Shore into Croton-Harmon back in 2004 I believe what happened is that an AEM7 or HHP8 waited at the end of electrification on the Empire Connection (which has both third rail and catenary) in the electrified portion of the connection and pulled the P42 and Lake Shore into the station and its deadhead to Sunnyside Yard.

I have arrived in Penn Station on LSL pulled by a P42. No electric assist. All that they need apparently is a special permission from someone at Amtrak to get the exception approved to operate a P42 through Penn Station. Has happened many many times, contrary to the strongly held belief among railfans of how it is illegal to do so.

 

[MARC Rider]

I have arrived in Penn Station on LSL pulled by a P42. No electric assist. All that they need apparently is a special permission from someone at Amtrak to get the exception approved to operate a P42 through Penn Station. Has happened many many times, contrary to the strongly held belief among railfans of how it is illegal to do so.

I wonder whether it would be safe to just just give blanket exemptions for Tier 4 diesels, and allow them to operate in the tunnels? (I know the P42's aren't tier 4, but they are on the verge of being replaced, so this idea is looking forward to the future. Not that I want to encourage dieselization of electrical operations, I'm just thinking about special circumstances.)

 

[jis]

I wonder whether it would be safe to just just give blanket exemptions for Tier 4 diesels, and allow them to operate in the tunnels? (I know the P42's aren't tier 4, but they are on the verge of being replaced, so this idea is looking forward to the future. Not that I want to encourage dieselization of electrical operations, I'm just thinking about special circumstances.)

I suspect the notification is to make sure that the exhaust fans are running full tilt when fumes are expected to be exuded in the station, or some such. I understand that there is something slightly different that is done when diesels are expected in the station. They do not use diesels routinely. That is what the ACDMs and their eventual dual mode Chargers are for.

 

[railiner]

Recall that in the waning Penn Central era, the FL-9's which were supposed to bring their trains into GCT under third rail power, were in such poor shape, they never shut down the diesel's. You could smell and see the exhaust almost as soon as you entered the station concourse from the waiting room...

 

[Andrew]

Would a dual-mode Charger locomotive likely have as much horsepower in electric mode as a Sprinter locomotive?

 

[jis]

Would a dual-mode Charger locomotive likely have as much horsepower in electric mode as a Sprinter locomotive?

It will be a third rail electric, and the electric mode mostly for use in station, yard, Park Avenue Tunnel and East River Tunnel. So most likely not.

 

[Andrew]

It will be a third rail electric, and the electric mode mostly for use in station, yard, Park Avenue Tunnel and East River Tunnel. So most likely not.

I thought Amtrak was also looking at buying a diesel-catenary locomotive.

 

[PVD]

The Amtrak iteration would be a horse of a different color

 

[jis]

The Amtrak iteration would be a horse of a different color

Who says there will be any Amtrak iteration of dual mode other than the ones funded by NYSDOT for the Empire Corridor?

 

[Andrew]

Who says there will be any Amtrak iteration of dual mode other than the ones funded by NYSDOT for the Empire Corridor?

Amtrak has stated in the past that they are looking at diesel-catenary trains for Regional service that operates south of DC and to Springfield, etc.

Amtrak has specifically mentioned the Bombardier DP Locomotive and the Hitachi Class 802.

I would think Amtrak ordering diesel-catenary Charger locomotives or Stadler Flirt trains for dual-mode Regional trains would be more likely.

 

[PVD]

No, i wasn't trying to say there would be, I was just saying if it did come to pass, it would be something very different in its requirements.

 

[nullptr]

This can be interpreted in several ways, as already noted in this thread. but in response to the AmeriStarRail proposal, an amtrak spokesperson said

a procurement for new trains is underway to eliminate the need for engine changes in Washington for trains operating from NEC points to Virginia and the South

Its unclear to me how up to date a spokesperson would be on the details of a procurement negotiation, or if they are just describing the original intent of the RFP.

https://www.progressiverailroading....comments-on-NEC-privatization-proposal--62889

 

[jis]

This can be interpreted in several ways, as already noted in this thread. but in response to the AmeriStarRail proposal, an amtrak spokesperson said


Its unclear to me how up to date a spokesperson would be on the details of a procurement negotiation, or if they are just describing the original intent of the RFP.

https://www.progressiverailroading....comments-on-NEC-privatization-proposal--62889

That at least is interesting additional information. Although I am getting a bit impatient. Come on Amtrak! Get this done already and let the rest of us know what is it that you intend to do!

 

[nullptr]

A somewhat rescent NGEC meeting minutes had the following line in it

Bids are in and are being reviewed in the two evaluation committees with the goal of completing the review in time for the January or March Amtrak Board Meetings.

The thing is, that was the DEC 2019 Meeting, and was referring to January or March of 2020. Covid obviously didn't help, but yeah, I'm getting pretty tired of waiting. I wonder if the open-endedness of the RFP caused the evaluation of the proposals to take more time as well.

 

[Pipp]

I know many people aren't a fan of the amfleets and often refer to them as amcans. But I like their tubular design, it makes the stand out. I wish we could get some amfleet III's, but I know that isn't going happen. I also like the look of these cars trucks too, how it exposes almost all of the wheel.

 

[west point]

Our complaint about Amfleets are they do not have the room inside that Viewliners have.

 

[Steve4031]

The windows are too small for most people on Amfleet 1s. The windows are bigger on Amfleet II coaches. I think once we get to ride in the new Siemens coaches we will be hoping for those to be chosen for the single level long distance cars.

I looked at this video about the Stadler train sets.


These are designed to couple and uncouple with ease without all the connections that have to be currently made on Amtrak. These are feasible IMHO on the NEC. It would be possible to to run two connected trains from New York to Washington, unhitch one set, and send the other set further south. Or you could run the two trains to Richmond, and have the split there with one going to New Port News and the other going to Norfolk.

 

[jiml]

The windows are too small for most people on Amfleet 1s. The windows are bigger on Amfleet II coaches. I think once we get to ride in the new Siemens coaches we will be hoping for those to be chosen for the single level long distance cars.

I miss the Rohr turbos for this exact reason. Best windows on Amtrak ever.

These are designed to couple and uncouple with ease without all the connections that have to be currently made on Amtrak. These are feasible IMHO on the NEC. It would be possible to to run two connected trains from New York to Washington, unhitch one set, and send the other set further south. Or you could run the two trains to Richmond, and have the split there with one going to New Port News and the other going to Norfolk.

That's pretty much the British pattern with MU trainsets.