RFP released for 35 Next Gen Locomotives

[ALC Rail Writer]

Form follows function for a reason, while a retro look would be nice things like impact ratings and power-to-weight ratios come first.

I'm sort of content that GE didn't put in a bid, I'm not fond of the P42s.

 

[afigg]

Thinking about the politics of the Siemens bid getting selected. Its a German company, but the engines will be built in Indiana and the locomotives assembled in Sacramento CA. If Amtrak decides the Siemens diesel is suitable after the first batch enter service to replace the P-42s and wants funds from Congress to buy 150 to 200 locomotives in series of orders, it improves the odds if Amtrak can get robust support from the (large) CA Congressional delegation and IN delegation. Although IN and CA may have a few House members who won't help at all because choo-choo trains are socialist.

Actually, assuming Siemens gets the contract, there is a good geographical spread of the plants: CA and IN for the diesels, upper NY state for the Viewliners, and IL for the corridor bi-levels.

 

[Fan Railer]

Thinking about the politics of the Siemens bid getting selected. Its a German company, but the engines will be built in Indiana and the locomotives assembled in Sacramento CA. If Amtrak decides the Siemens diesel is suitable after the first batch enter service to replace the P-42s and wants funds from Congress to buy 150 to 200 locomotives in series of orders, it improves the odds if Amtrak can get robust support from the (large) CA Congressional delegation and IN delegation. Although IN and CA may have a few House members who won't help at all because choo-choo trains are socialist.

Actually, assuming Siemens gets the contract, there is a good geographical spread of the plants: CA and IN for the diesels, upper NY state for the Viewliners, and IL for the corridor bi-levels.

There is a good chance that Siemens WILL get the contract:

http://www2.illinois.gov/cpo/dot/Documents/Letter%20of%20Recommendation%20-%20Locomotive%20Procurement.pdf

 

[Nathanael]

And the Next Gen diesel contract goes to... Siemens-Cummins. It is not the official contract award, but the committee and the IDOT Chief Procurement Officer have recommended the Siemens bid. See the IDOT CPO letter.

The 4 page evaluation report with the scores for the bids.

Worth noting from that report:

"The procurement includes options for 225 additional locomotives, including a long-distance variant of the base locomotive."

Amtrak is almost certain to use these as its main diesel fleet. (As long as they work, and as long as Amtrak can find the money to replace locomotives.) Though I'd expect the miscellaneous P32-8s, P40 rebuilds and F59PHIs to be retired first.

I look forward to the dual-mode version for the Empire Corridor.... actually, Amtrak might be wise to buy quite a few dual-modes and save on engine switching at DC.

 

[afigg]

There is a good chance that Siemens WILL get the contract:

http://www2.illinois.gov/cpo/dot/Documents/Letter%20of%20Recommendation%20-%20Locomotive%20Procurement.pdf

Yes, I know. I'm the one who posted the news and link above. I would expect that Siemens will get the contract, but there is always the possibility that the other offerors will file a protest or problems come up in the bid audit and negotiations. But Siemens won on points in all categories, so a protest is not likely to get traction if the offer is aboveboard.
If the contract is awarded, then the Siemens facility in Sacramento will have 28 months after Notice to Proceed (NTP) to have a pilot locomotive complete testing at the manufacturing facility and then it is turned over for independent testing. It appears that the plant will be building diesels as the production of the ACS-64s winds down. The 35 locomotives are to be delivered by no later than 42 months after NTP or June 30, 2017 for IDOT and CalTrans. The schedule is in the appendix documents.

With the 2017 deadline, I expect the state agencies and board will move quickly on the negotiations, contract award, and issuing the NTP.

 

[jis]

This is a bit of somewhat educated speculation.....

Since the Siemens bid is so low, and given the exceedingly short time to delivery, I bet it is based on off the shelf availability of everything, though manufactured in the US. That would indicate that it is based on the Vectron DE Diesel. Unlike the European version which uses an MTU prime mover, the US version will use a Cummins QSK95 4200HP prime mover. The drive electronics from DC link to wheels is shared with the Vectron electrics, which is what a ACS-64 essentially is. Indeed that may be the very reason how Siemens is able to come in with such a low price, since the Vectron base is as close as you get to mass produced locomotive in this day and age. The other one is Bombardier Traxx which is the base for the ALP-46As and the ALP45-DP.

Here is what a Vectron DE Diesel looks like, so get used to it It is likely that everything will start looking like the ACS-64.

 

[MattW]

is it too early to know yet if the HEP will run off a separate engine, or will it be pulled off the prime mover somehow?

 

[printman2000]

This is a bit of somewhat educated speculation.....

Since the Siemens bid is so low, and given the exceedingly short time to delivery, I bet it is based on off the shelf availability of everything, though manufactured in the US. That would indicate that it is based on the Vectron DE Diesel, using MTU prime mover. The drive electronics from DC link to wheels is shared with the Vectron electrics, which is what a ACS-64 essentially is. Indeed that may be the very reason how Siemens is able to come in with such a low price, since the Vectron base is as close as you get to mass produced locomotive in this day and age. The other one is Bombarider Traxx which is the base for the ALP-46As and the ALP45-DP.

Here is what a Vectron DE Diesel looks like, so get used to it It is likely that everything will start looking like the ACS-64.

So is that a diesel with cabs on both ends? When you think about it, that would be a good idea. No more turning locos. However, I don't like the look.

 

[jis]

If what Bombardier did in TRAXX based ALP-45DP is any indication of trends then HEP will just be another inverter pack hanging off of the same DC bus. And indeed it will probably be swappable in use with one of the drive alternators pack in case of failure, That would also make the electricals completely common with the ACS-64.

I would be somewhat surprised if they would put in an additional engine just for HEP, specially if the prime mover is not short of power. Considering that the prime mover is 4200HP basically equivalent to a P42, I think it is highly unlikely that there will be a separate engine for HEP.

As for whether it will have cabs at each end that may or may not be the case. But, if they are able to pull off a diesel with cab at both ends that would indicate that there is at least somewhere to go to find the room for the gear needed to create an OHE dual mode if such is requested in the future.

 

[MattW]

That would make sense to share the electrical infrastructure of the ACS-64, but I'm a little concerned about over-the-road failures particularly if this becomes the basis for Amtrak's long distance diesel fleet. At least with a separate HEP engine, isn't there a chance that while the rest of the train might be dead as a doornail, the HEP could still work and thus avoid the "train from hell" stories that occasionally occur during the heatwaves and cold spells?

 

[jis]

Today's Amtrak LD engines do not have a separate HEP engine. It is unlikely that will change. Heck even the F40s did not have a separate HEP engine in their Amtrak incarnation.

 

[Blackwolf]

I suspect that a US-version of the Vectron DE will be rather heavily modified from its European parents. Systems-wise it may well be off-the-shelf components, and I suspect that cross-sharing of those components with other locomotives (like the ACS-64's) is part of the selling point, but I think that when it comes to looks and weight there will be some significant changes.

The 94-ton Vectron noticably lighter than the 98-ton ACS-64. In the case of the ACS-64, significant structural changes to the design had to be made for compliance with crashworthiness requirements, such as adding crumple zones, structural strengthening of the cab and anti-climbing features. This resulted in a heavier locomotive than European Eurosprinter and Vectron models.

Of course, both locomotives are massively lighter than any US OTR diesel out there right now. A quick look at the GE P-42's puts them at around 134 tons. I think the Cummins engine being used here is a great deal heavier than the European MTU EU III-B engine, so that should increase the locomotive weight. Add in the FRA crash standards that an OTR diesel passenger locomotive interfacing with freight traffic will need to meet, and I have to wonder if we'll be seeing Mater showing up again with a "nose" of sorts. I can't imagine locomotive crews being very comfortable with the idea that they would be nearly four feet lower to the ground, with an essentially flat-faced glass front end, as they plow into the semi-truck trailer still straddling the tracks at a grade crossing.

 

[afigg]

Here is what a Vectron DE Diesel looks like, so get used to it It is likely that everything will start looking like the ACS-64.

Assuming the contract is awarded to Siemens and the platform is indeed a Vectron DE with a Cummins engine, Amtrak could reach in 8-10 years, a high degree of parts and design commonality not only in the electric locomotive fleet, but also shared with the primary diesel fleet. When Amtrak ordered 70 ACS-64s to replace the AEM-7DCs, AEM-7ACs, and HHP-8s, that was a fairly bold step to consolidate the electric locomotives, given that at 1 time the plan was to order 20 electrics to only replace the AEM-7DCs. Now P-42s, P-40s, and quite possibly the P-32s, could all get replaced with a common modular design shared with the ACS-64 platform. Did Boardman and other Amtrak managers take a trip to Europe or read the Vectron brochures a few years back, crank the maintenance and cost numbers, and decided they really liked the modular concept?

I'm sure some railfans will complain about how boring a uniform common locomotive fleet looks. And will argue incesstantly about the paint scheme. But if the end result is a more efficient, reliable, and yes, bland fleet with lower operating and maintenance costs that improves cost recovery, and thus enhances the prospects of expansion of passenger rail service, I hope most railfans would agree more passenger trains to more places is a worthy goal, more so than "we need cool looking locomotives".

 

[jis]

I am sure the nose design will change and at the end it might come out looking something like P42s. But I doubt there will be any bigger nose than that. There is a lot of crash energy management that you can stuff into such a nose, specially if the cab cage is set a little further back.

Of course the US version will look somewhat different externally. For one thing it will use the carbody of the ACS-64 with some additional modifications.

I don't know the basis of a belief that the Cummins engine will be heavier by a lot compared to a corresponding MTU engine. Both are light high speed engines, as opposed to the heavier medium speed engines traditionally used in the US.

Considering that in going from EU model to US model the ACS-64 gained some 4 to 5 tons. I expect that to be the FRA crash-worthiness cost in weight (basically using an ACS-64 carbody which is FRA crash-worthy with some added bells and whistles with perhaps a higher set back cab to do better in battle against tractor trailers on railroad crossings). I would not expect the engine weight to add more than another 10 or so tons at most. So I would not expect to be any heavier than the P42 and possibly somewhat lighter, perhaps significantly so.

But as usual, one never knows for sure until the proverbial fat lady sings. But as a general approach this seems to be a win win for Amtrak if they go with Siemens.

BTW, I just got positive verification about much of my speculation in the earlier post from someone who has some inside knowledge about what Siemens is actually going to do about delivering on this, should they get the contract.

 

[Mysotype]

GE did bid with MPI as with the MBTA deal. Siemens will lose their ass on this initial order. But it's a good gamble for the Amtrak long distance options.

 

[Fan Railer]

Today's Amtrak LD engines do not have a separate HEP engine. It is unlikely that will change. Heck even the F40s did not have a separate HEP engine in their Amtrak incarnation.

Still too early to tell. We'll have to wait for things to be finalized. Until then, anything could change.

 

[battalion51]

It seems like the RFP documents did not spec for a separate HEP package, but rather for an auxiliary alternator similar to the configuration of the P-42, P-32-8, P-32 AC-DM, and original F40PH/F40PHR. In the era of fuel conservation though I don't see why this continues to be the primary configuration choice for intercity. In areas where idle time, low notch time, or heavy dynamic braking is used running HEP off the prime mover is burning fuel unnecessarily.

 

[frequentflyer]

What the locomotives may look like.....

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/siemens-selected-for-200-kmh-us-passenger-locomotive-order.html

 

[bgiaquin]

What the locomotives may look like.....

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/siemens-selected-for-200-kmh-us-passenger-locomotive-order.html

Nice expect they should redesign the front windshield for better visibility.

 

[bgiaquin]

It seems like the RFP documents did not spec for a separate HEP package, but rather for an auxiliary alternator similar to the configuration of the P-42, P-32-8, P-32 AC-DM, and original F40PH/F40PHR. In the era of fuel conservation though I don't see why this continues to be the primary configuration choice for intercity. In areas where idle time, low notch time, or heavy dynamic braking is used running HEP off the prime mover is burning fuel unnecessarily.

As always, you hit the nail on the head.

 

[jis]

It seems like the RFP documents did not spec for a separate HEP package, but rather for an auxiliary alternator similar to the configuration of the P-42, P-32-8, P-32 AC-DM, and original F40PH/F40PHR. In the era of fuel conservation though I don't see why this continues to be the primary configuration choice for intercity. In areas where idle time, low notch time, or heavy dynamic braking is used running HEP off the prime mover is burning fuel unnecessarily.

A modern modular architecture locomotive would be expected to feed regenerated power into HEP before burning it off in dynamic grids. So I don't quite see things working the way you see it. The HEP does not directly run off the prime mover in these architectures. HEP is fed from an additional inverter sitting on the DC bus, which is fed the power from the primer mover as well as from dynamic braking. While braking additional power is burned off in the dynamic grid, that is after HEP load has been accounted for. Prime mover is throttled based on the total power demand on the common bus, so it would not be running at higher speed than is necessary to supply the basic load placed upon the bus.

Architecturally, this is very different from the classic arrangement of adding an auxiliary alternator to the prime mover for HEP. My suspicion is that Siemens will use this setup, since both Vectron by Siemens (Vectron DE) and Traxx by Bombardier (ALP45-DP) uses this arrangement when used in a diesel situation.

 

[cirdan]

A modern modular architecture locomotive would be expected to feed regenerated power into HEP before burning it off in dynamic grids. So I don't quite see things working the way you see it. The HEP does not directly run off the prime mover in these architectures. HEP is fed from an additional inverter sitting on the DC bus, which is fed the power from the primer mover as well as from dynamic braking. While braking additional power is burned off in the dynamic grid, that is after HEP load has been accounted for. Prime mover is throttled based on the total power demand on the common bus, so it would not be running at higher speed than is necessary to supply the basic load placed upon the bus.

My understanding of modern diesels is they don't generally throttle rpms when running without or with partial load, but instead the amount of fuel injected per cycle is throttled meaning they are burning less fuel while maintaining the same rpm. This means the DC link voltage is also regulated and a high fuel efficiency is provided independently of the load.

 

[benroethig]

If it is the Vectron or a close realative there of, is it tall enough for the bi-level coaches?

 

[jis]

A modern modular architecture locomotive would be expected to feed regenerated power into HEP before burning it off in dynamic grids. So I don't quite see things working the way you see it. The HEP does not directly run off the prime mover in these architectures. HEP is fed from an additional inverter sitting on the DC bus, which is fed the power from the primer mover as well as from dynamic braking. While braking additional power is burned off in the dynamic grid, that is after HEP load has been accounted for. Prime mover is throttled based on the total power demand on the common bus, so it would not be running at higher speed than is necessary to supply the basic load placed upon the bus.

My understanding of modern diesels is they don't generally throttle rpms when running without or with partial load, but instead the amount of fuel injected per cycle is throttled meaning they are burning less fuel while maintaining the same rpm. This means the DC link voltage is also regulated and a high fuel efficiency is provided independently of the load.

That is exactly right. I did not go into the details of how the regulated DC voltage on the bus is used to regulate the diesel prime mover. But what you say is indeed the mechanism used.
As I said, anyone trying to evaluate these engines based on classic diesel-electric architecture would be missing some of the most important innovations towards fuel efficiency and emissions control.

If it is the Vectron or a close realative there of, is it tall enough for the bi-level coaches?

I believe the PRIIA and hence the RFP requirement is that the locomotive must have a monococque body fitting within the 14'6" height envelope as specified by what is called Amtrak diagram A as far as I recall. I am sure someone who has more recently read the spec will correct me if I am wrong. So no, they will not be as tall as the bilevels. They will most likely be just as tall as the ACS-64s, or the current P42s.

 

[afigg]

What the locomotives may look like.....

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/siemens-selected-for-200-kmh-us-passenger-locomotive-order.html

Good week for Siemens' locomotive business. The Railway Gazette news page also has a report on the Finland VR Group placing an order for 80 Siemens Vectron electric locomotives for passenger and freight operations. The Finland Vectrons will "be equipped with two diesel engines for 'last mile' operation on unelectrified industrial lines, at docks and in yards", although this sounds as it would be for lower speed operation only. Also, "The Finnish locomotives will be customised with modified air intakes for use in snow and ice at temperatures down to -40°C, rather than the -25°C Siemens normally designs for.." -40 degrees C? Brrr.