RFP released for 35 Next Gen Locomotives

[jis]

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 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.

And not to mention they will also be of Finnish/Russian Broad Gauge, not Standard Gauge.

 

[Fan Railer]

Remember that the HEP setup for a single prime mover configuration no longer uses an HEP alternator, but an Inverter setup, so RPM does vary between a certain range.

 

[Fan Railer]

Embedding image.

 

[Karl1459]

The Siemans bid does seem a little low-ball, however if they were able to design the ACS-64 running gear and carbody for the Cummins deisel they may have been able to be very competitive by having most of the engineering and production line costs already paid for.

As to railfans arguing about styling, remember some are still arguing whether steam locomotive should be 4-4-0's or 4-8-4's! and who wants diesels? Personally, while a retro look would be nice the ACS-64/Vectron style is a great improvement over the P40/42.

 

[Fan Railer]

The Siemans bid does seem a little low-ball, however if they were able to design the ACS-64 running gear and carbody for the Cummins deisel they may have been able to be very competitive by having most of the engineering and production line costs already paid for.

As to railfans arguing about styling, remember some are still arguing whether steam locomotive should be 4-4-0's or 4-8-4's! and who wants diesels? Personally, while a retro look would be nice the ACS-64/Vectron style is a great improvement over the P40/42.

I personally would have liked to see a little more power, considering the setup is going to be HEP being drawn from one prime mover, but if they decided that 4200 horses is still sufficient, then so be it. Remember that Cummins has plans for a QSK120 (V20) expansion off of the QSK95 (V16) which is to be capable of ~5400 hp.

 

[jis]

Fan Railer, you are exactly right. My guess is that for corridor service they really plan to use two units per train for the high speed ones, one at each end, so the base 4200 HP (same as P42) is more than adequate. And for the regular speed ones they just replace a P42 one for one. I suspect that for the LD engine the QSK120 would be a candidate prime mover that will be considered. The modular architecture of the design make is relatively easy to slip in a more powerful prime mover, subject to of course finding or making the physical space for it in the carbody. But even if they don't, since most LD trains run with two units anyway, it will not be a huge problem. Again replacing P42s one for one.

 

[Paulus]

Between the cars and these new locomotives, HSPIR contracts are $230 million under budget.

 

[jis]

Which, except for the 2017 deadline, does open up some interesting possibilities, doesn't it?

 

[Guest]

What do you think are the odds of Amtrak keeping the double ended cab? Would make train turns easier.

 

[afigg]

Which, except for the 2017 deadline, does open up some interesting possibilities, doesn't it?

The deadline is still 3 years 9 months away which is a fair amount of time. About the length of time for a 4 year college degree. The FRA may be holding some of the funds back to cover cost overruns or increases due to underestimates on other projects. But some projects, at least those wrapping up construction, may come in under budget, in which case there should be leftover funds that also could be reallocated.

If the FRA is going to re-distribute stimulus funds at this point, they would want to award it to projects where there is confidence that the funds can be spent by Sept, 2017. Which I think means projects where all the agreements are signed, does not need a lengthy EIS process, and/or the tracks are owned by Amtrak or the state. So the NEC, Keystone East, and NHV-SPG corridor could be candidates for spare stimulus funds for projects that are ready or near ready to go. Could there be some behind the scenes discussions on partially funding the Portal bridge replacement or the pre-construction work?

 

[Paulus]

Which, except for the 2017 deadline, does open up some interesting possibilities, doesn't it?

The deadline is still 3 years 9 months away which is a fair amount of time. About the length of time for a 4 year college degree. The FRA may be holding some of the funds back to cover cost overruns or increases due to underestimates on other projects. But some projects, at least those wrapping up construction, may come in under budget, in which case there should be leftover funds that also could be reallocated.
If the FRA is going to re-distribute stimulus funds at this point, they would want to award it to projects where there is confidence that the funds can be spent by Sept, 2017. Which I think means projects where all the agreements are signed, does not need a lengthy EIS process, and/or the tracks are owned by Amtrak or the state. So the NEC, Keystone East, and NHV-SPG corridor could be candidates for spare stimulus funds for projects that are ready or near ready to go. Could there be some behind the scenes discussions on partially funding the Portal bridge replacement or the pre-construction work?

They could also use it to purchase more equipment as well, completely replacing all California equipment for instance.

 

[Fan Railer]

What do you think are the odds of Amtrak keeping the double ended cab? Would make train turns easier.

I can't remember if ANY US diesel has ever had a double cab setup. Either way, it won't affect train turning for corridor services since they will be operated with cab cars and push-pull. As for the LD services, their turn around times range from several hours, to maybe half a day, so a double ended locomotive wouldn't really be beneficial in that case either.

Remember, a double ended locomotive is more expensive than a single ended one. So why pay for something you don't need? In addition, the extra space that a second cab would have taken up could be used for something else (expanded prime mover, if they so choose), or could just remain extra space, in which you would have weight savings, a huge plus in this kind of locomotive.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Which, except for the 2017 deadline, does open up some interesting possibilities, doesn't it?

The deadline is still 3 years 9 months away which is a fair amount of time. About the length of time for a 4 year college degree. The FRA may be holding some of the funds back to cover cost overruns or increases due to underestimates on other projects. But some projects, at least those wrapping up construction, may come in under budget, in which case there should be leftover funds that also could be reallocated.
If the FRA is going to re-distribute stimulus funds at this point, they would want to award it to projects where there is confidence that the funds can be spent by Sept, 2017.

They could also use it to purchase more equipment as well . . .

Yes, more equipment! Like exercising the option for

more Viewliner II diners, sleepers, bag/dorms, and

baggage cars. Maybe even Viewliner II coaches ...

 

[cirdan]

The Siemans bid does seem a little low-ball, however if they were able to design the ACS-64 running gear and carbody for the Cummins deisel they may have been able to be very competitive by having most of the engineering and production line costs already paid for.

.

And it's a strategic move to break into a market in which they're currently an outsider. Siemens has a track record for following long term strategies. So they're probably quite happy to merely cover their costs without seeking profit in the short term, if it opens new markets in the long term.

 

[SubwayNut]

What do you think are the odds of Amtrak keeping the double ended cab? Would make train turns easier.

I can't remember if ANY US diesel has ever had a double cab setup. Either way, it won't affect train turning for corridor services since they will be operated with cab cars and push-pull. As for the LD services, their turn around times range from several hours, to maybe half a day, so a double ended locomotive wouldn't really be beneficial in that case either.

Remember, a double ended locomotive is more expensive than a single ended one. So why pay for something you don't need? In addition, the extra space that a second cab would have taken up could be used for something else (expanded prime mover, if they so choose), or could just remain extra space, in which you would have weight savings, a huge plus in this kind of locomotive.

The one main turn I can think of where having a double ended diesel locomotive what be handy and save a lot of time is for the locomotive for the Portland Section of the Empire Builder. I know in flusher times (in terms of locomotive availability) 28/27 between SPK and PDX ran with two locomotives back to back so the locomotive(s) that makes the middle of the night switch in Spokane from pulling 28 from Portland and then returning the same night pulling 27 down the George to Portland. Today the stub train section runs with just one locomotive normally but if 7/27 is on time (such a rarity these days I know) and 28 is a little late, 27 can be stuck waiting in the station while Amtrak runs the single locomotive somewhere (I don't know the exact location) to wherever the nearest wye is far away from the station to wye the P42.

 

[afigg]

EMD is protesting the contract award to Siemens. Lengthy Railway Age article with specifics on EMD's argument that the Siemens' proposed loco won't meet the 125 mph speed requirement: EMD protests locomotive contract award. Don't know enough to determine how much merit EMD's protest has, but a lengthy dispute could delay the contract award to where the September, 2017 funding deadline becomes a serious issue.

Excerpt of the first 2 paragraphs:

Electro-Motive Diesel has filed a formal protest with the Illinois Department of Transportation over the Multi-State Locomotive Procurement contract for up to 35 125-mph diesel-electric locomotives, for which Siemens Industry received a Notice of Intent to Award on Dec. 18, 2013. IDOT, in conjunction with the California Department of Transportation and the Washington Department of Transportation, issued the procurement and formed the joint purchasing entities (JPEs).

The 19-page protest letter, addressed to IDOT’s Chief Procurement Officer and State Purchasing Officer, Bill Grunloh and Gretchen Tucka, respectively, and signed by EMD Vice President Passenger Locomotive Sales Gary Eelman, says that the proposed award to Siemens “does not meet the Illinois Procurement Code requirement that ‘[a]wards shall be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined in writing to be the most advantageous to the State, taking into consideration price and the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals.’ In short, Siemens is not a ‘responsible offeror’ and its offer is not ‘responsive’ with respect to the Procurement. EMD is confident that after IDOT reviews the facts presented in this protest, an award to Siemens will be deemed to be contrary to Illinois law, in addition to being inconsistent with the interests of the taxpaying public and the JPEs. . . Pursuant to Illinois General Assembly [law], any award for this Procurement must be stayed until this protest is resolved.”

 

[Blackwolf]

Oh boy, let the games begin!

Though, reading through the rest of the article, I have to wonder if Siemens really did play dirty and knowingly lie about their product's abilities as has been claimed by EMD.

 

[Karl1459]

I say, let each of them build a prototype on their own dime and let the best diesel win!

 

[Karl1459]

What do you think are the odds of Amtrak keeping the double ended cab? Would make train turns easier.

I can't remember if ANY US diesel has ever had a double cab setup. Either way, it won't affect train turning for corridor services since they will be operated with cab cars and push-pull. As for the LD services, their turn around times range from several hours, to maybe half a day, so a double ended locomotive wouldn't really be beneficial in that case either.

Remember, a double ended locomotive is more expensive than a single ended one. So why pay for something you don't need? In addition, the extra space that a second cab would have taken up could be used for something else (expanded prime mover, if they so choose), or could just remain extra space, in which you would have weight savings, a huge plus in this kind of locomotive.

New Jersey Central had some double cab Baldwin "babyface" units.

 

[Fan Railer]

EMD is protesting the contract award to Siemens. Lengthy Railway Age article with specifics on EMD's argument that the Siemens' proposed loco won't meet the 125 mph speed requirement: EMD protests locomotive contract award. Don't know enough to determine how much merit EMD's protest has, but a lengthy dispute could delay the contract award to where the September, 2017 funding deadline becomes a serious issue.

Excerpt of the first 2 paragraphs:

Electro-Motive Diesel has filed a formal protest with the Illinois Department of Transportation over the Multi-State Locomotive Procurement contract for up to 35 125-mph diesel-electric locomotives, for which Siemens Industry received a Notice of Intent to Award on Dec. 18, 2013. IDOT, in conjunction with the California Department of Transportation and the Washington Department of Transportation, issued the procurement and formed the joint purchasing entities (JPEs).

The 19-page protest letter, addressed to IDOT’s Chief Procurement Officer and State Purchasing Officer, Bill Grunloh and Gretchen Tucka, respectively, and signed by EMD Vice President Passenger Locomotive Sales Gary Eelman, says that the proposed award to Siemens “does not meet the Illinois Procurement Code requirement that ‘[a]wards shall be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined in writing to be the most advantageous to the State, taking into consideration price and the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals.’ In short, Siemens is not a ‘responsible offeror’ and its offer is not ‘responsive’ with respect to the Procurement. EMD is confident that after IDOT reviews the facts presented in this protest, an award to Siemens will be deemed to be contrary to Illinois law, in addition to being inconsistent with the interests of the taxpaying public and the JPEs. . . Pursuant to Illinois General Assembly [law], any award for this Procurement must be stayed until this protest is resolved.”

Once again, the "lack of HP" of the Siemens locomotive necessary to sustain 125 mph operations (according to EMD) can be easily solved by specifying a 5400 hp QSK120.

 

[Fan Railer]

Oh boy, let the games begin!

Though, reading through the rest of the article, I have to wonder if Siemens really did play dirty and knowingly lie about their product's abilities as has been claimed by EMD.

This can be easily figured out with the knowledge of some simple formulas and references to existing graphs. The general formula for tractive effort, given constant power, is kilo Newtons (kN) = Power (in kW) * 3.6 (constant) / Velocity (km/h). (http://ocw.swjtu.edu.cn/download/resource/143/dean_1367037686790.pdf) Looking at this graph in the ACS-64 specification sheet (http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/SiteCollectionDocuments/en/rail-solutions/locomotives/customspecific-solutions/DB-Amtrak-EN.pdf) shows a train resistance of ~88 kN @ 125 mph (201 km/h) for an 18 car Amfleet train on level track. For the sake of our calculations here, I will assume a consist of 8 Amfleet cars, which should about cut the resistance to a more conservative 50 kN @ 201 km/h on level track (I don't have all the variables for the Davis Equation, so I'm throwing out a conservative estimate; the actual resistance may or may not be a little bit lower; perhaps someone may have a better estimate). Now, for HEP load, I will assume a nominal draw of 65 kW per Amfleet, which works out to 520 kW of HEP.

Given those parameters, let's look now at the two diesel engines being used:

The EMD CAT C175-20 engine puts out 4700 hp (3507 kW). We will assume a transmission efficiency (alternator to traction motors) of 90%. Factoring in HEP and locomotive parasitic load of ~650 kW, we end up with a traction power of ~2860 kW. Plug that into the formula for TE: 2860*3.6 / 201 = 51.224 kN of tractive effort. This means that, with a consist of 8 Amfleets, the EMD F125 would just barely generate enough tractive effort at 125 mph to overcome the resistance effort that I estimated earlier.

The Cummins QSK95 engine puts out 4400 hp (3284 kW). Assuming the same transmission efficiency and factoring in the same HEP and locomotive parasitic loads, we end up with traction power of ~2635 kW. Plug that into the formula for TE: 2635*3.6 / 201 = 47.2 kN of tractive effort. As logic would dictate, this is not enough to meet the estimated resistive force of 50 kN at 125 mph.

Interestingly enough, if you use the formula given and plug in a TE of 50 kN and solve for speed given the parameters of the Cummins engine, (50 = 2635*3.6 / V) V = 189.72 km/h, or ~118 mph, which is 3 mph lower than the estimated balancing speed of the Siemens locomotive provided by EMD. Mind you, now, resistance is lower at 118 mph than it is at 125 mph, so that difference would theoretically balance out to 121 mph (the balancing speed of the Siemens loco given by EMD), which makes my estimate of 50 kN resistive force in the ballpark of realism.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

EMD is protesting the contract award to Siemens.

Lengthy Railway Age article . . . Don't know enough

to determine how much merit EMD's protest has,

but a lengthy dispute could delay the contract award

to where the September, 2017 funding deadline

becomes a serious issue.

Electro-Motive Diesel has filed a formal protest . . .

over the Multi-State Locomotive Procurement contract

for up to 35 125-mph diesel-electric locomotives. . .

Once again, the "lack of HP" of the Siemens locomotive

necessary to sustain 125 mph operations (according to EMD)

can be easily solved by specifying a 5400 hp QSK120.

First concern is that this could develop into a Stimulus

program for underemployed lawyers in Chicago. EMD

has lawyers, Siemens has lawyers, State of Illinois

has lawyers. Specialists in this type of litigation will

be retained.

Say the Illinois DOT refuses the complaint. Next step

file lawsuit (s). Meanwhile there will be an injunction or

stay order. IDOT can't sign any contract with Siemens.

Tick tock tick tock.

Judge will not be hungry to choose between EMD and

Siemens, and maybe best case is he orders a do-over.

Tick tock tick tock.

Both EMD and Siemens not-lawyers will be working on

improvements to the locomotive that they bid before.

Maybe Siemens puts in bigger, heavier, more powerful

engine. Maybe EMD finds a way to sweat out another

couple of tons of locomotive weight. Tick tock tick tock.

But EMD is gonna demand the the proper procurement

procedures be followed this time. How many months

will that take? Tick tock tick tock.

Got to get the job done by Sept 2017 or the damn thing

turns into a big ugly pumpkin when the money disappears.

Tick tock tick tock.

And, this corridor model diesel was supposed to be

the base of the long distance diesel, maybe only adding

larger fuel tanks. Well, it isn't the same clock ticking

for when long distance diesels get ordered; there's

no plan yet for how to pay for them.

But, don't we want to get that train out of the station

before a new President/VP/Secretary of Transportation/

Amtrak President take office on or about January 20,

2017? Anybody think passenger rail will be better off

without "Amtrak Joe" and the present team? Even with

Hillary? For Amtrak's multi-part fleet replacement plan,

too much delay could mean death.

 

[Paulus]

Oh boy, let the games begin!

Though, reading through the rest of the article, I have to wonder if Siemens really did play dirty and knowingly lie about their product's abilities as has been claimed by EMD.

This can be easily figured out with the knowledge of some simple formulas and references to existing graphs. The general formula for tractive effort, given constant power, is kilo Newtons (kN) = Power (in kW) * 3.6 (constant) / Velocity (km/h). (http://ocw.swjtu.edu.cn/download/resource/143/dean_1367037686790.pdf)Looking at this graph in the ACS-64 specification sheet (http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/SiteCollectionDocuments/en/rail-solutions/locomotives/customspecific-solutions/DB-Amtrak-EN.pdf) shows a train resistance of ~88 kN @ 125 mph (201 km/h) for an 18 car Amfleet train on level track. For the sake of our calculations here, I will assume a consist of 8 Amfleet cars, which should about cut the resistance to a more conservative 50 kN @ 201 km/h on level track (I don't have all the variables for the Davis Equation, so I'm throwing out a conservative estimate; the actual resistance may or may not be a little bit lower; perhaps someone may have a better estimate). Now, for HEP load, I will assume a nominal draw of 65 kW per Amfleet, which works out to 520 kW of HEP.

Given those parameters, let's look now at the two diesel engines being used:

The EMD CAT C175-20 engine puts out 4700 hp (3507 kW). We will assume a transmission efficiency (alternator to traction motors) of 90%. Factoring in HEP and locomotive parasitic load of ~650 kW, we end up with a traction power of ~2860 kW. Plug that into the formula for TE: 2860*3.6 / 201 = 51.224 kN of tractive effort. This means that, with a consist of 8 Amfleets, the EMD F125 would just barely generate enough tractive effort at 125 mph to overcome the resistance effort that I estimated earlier.

The Cummins QSK95 engine puts out 4400 hp (3284 kW). Assuming the same transmission efficiency and factoring in the same HEP and locomotive parasitic loads, we end up with traction power of ~2635 kW. Plug that into the formula for TE: 2635*3.6 / 201 = 47.2 kN of tractive effort. As logic would dictate, this is not enough to meet the estimated resistive force of 50 kN at 125 mph.

Interestingly enough, if you use the formula given and plug in a TE of 50 kN and solve for speed given the parameters of the Cummins engine, (50 = 2635*3.6 / V) V = 189.72 km/h, or ~118 mph, which is 3 mph lower than the estimated balancing speed of the Siemens locomotive provided by EMD. Mind you, now, resistance is lower at 118 mph than it is at 125 mph, so that difference would theoretically balance out to 121 mph (the balancing speed of the Siemens loco given by EMD), which makes my estimate of 50 kN resistive force in the ballpark of realism.

Here's the technical specs for the RFP.

The Contractor shall provide a complete and comprehensive description of the proposed locomotive to be built, including its past performance and experience. At the minimum the Contractor shall also provide plots, charts or tables for the following as part of the bid proposal:

• Locomotive Rail Horsepower 0 - Max Speed

• Dynamic Braking Effort 0 - Max Speed

• Traction Motor Characteristics

• Acceleration with the trailing cars weighing no more than an average of 170,000 lbs (average cab car and coach car):

• 1 locomotive + 680,000 lbs of trailing load (3 cars + 1 cab)

• 1 locomotive + 850,000 lbs of trailing load (4 cars + 1 cab)

• 2 locomotives + 1,360,000 lbs of trailing load (8 cars)

For simulations, train resistance calculations will be based on the Davis equation utilizing the following requirements:

• Coefficient ‘A’ = 1.3

• Coefficient ‘B’ = 29

• Coefficient ‘C’ = 0.03

• Coefficient ‘D’ = 0.0024

• Coefficient for trailing locomotive = 0.0012

• Base-line surface area for lead locomotive = 141 sf (average)

• Assumed air resistance coefficient for bi-level car = 0.00044 (average)

• Assumed surface area for bi-level car = 145 sf (average)

• 600 kW HEP load for the trainset

• Pneumatic service and emergency braking characteristics from 30, 45, 80, 100, 110 mph and 125 mph

• Blended service and emergency braking characteristics from 30, 45, 80, 100, 110 and 125 mph when applicable

• Route performance calculations based on Customer-specified routes

 

[afigg]

The list of specs that the bidders had to supply are pretty detailed. I can't see Siemens cheating or fudging on the bid since there were engineers quite capable of analyzing the data on the technical review team. The EMD protest appears to be about the rated horsepower numbers for the Siemens locomotive, when what really matters is the force put to the wheels over the speed curve. The Siemens loco design may be a little more efficient in getting the power to the wheels than the EMD design. Since the EMD protest is a public document, I expect we will see a letter from Siemens with counter technical arguments.

Hope this is settled without going to court.

 

[Paulus]

Is there a link to the full letter and not just the summarized version of it?