Ryan
Court Jester
Wow, IDOT came out guns blazing. Thanks for sharing.
I suspect it was more of a "Here's a more convenient and/or interactive way of reading our stuff."That's a good read!
One question however, what is all this business with the iPads they talk about. Based solely off from the protest response is does sound like Siemens tried to bribe the officials with iPads.
peter
I got a good laugh out of that as well.The part I love is count the plastic section separators as pages
Niiiice. And pretty definitive, unless there's someone politically backing EMD in one of the official decision-making positions.Two things:
1; I don't recall seeing the formal IDOT response to the initial protest shared here, but my memory has been known to be shoddy at times. Anyway, here it is:
This isn't even enough to replace all the P32-8WHs.2; This will eventually warrant a separate thread, but for now I'll start it here, it seems like Amtrak is pursuing a separate contract for 15 tier IV compliant diesel locomotives, perhaps to replace P32-8WHs:
It should be noted that the RFI is to support Amtrak's application to the Carl Moyer Grant Program. Presumably the RFI is aimed at Siemens to provide prices and data to exercise options on 15 Charger locomotives, although EMD may decide to respond and propose F125s, if for no other reason than to get in Siemens way.The clue for where these will be allocated is that this is in association with the Carl Moyer Grant Program. This is a California-specific program, meaning that these locomotives would initially be used strictly or at least primarily in California. It is also intended for switchers, though it can be used for non-switch locos on a case by case basis.
The new RFI must be replacing some of the following:
- one of the older stored switchers (there is one new switcher at Oakland and one new switcher at LA)
- 5 P32-8s used occasionally for road duties, more often for switching, in California
- 15 Amtrak-owned F59PHIs used on the Surfliner;
- or possibly (unlikely) some of the California-owned locomotives (16 F59PHIs, 2 P32-8s)
The RFI is for sufficiently many locos that it has to be replacing some F59PHIs.
Since the contract is supposed to be for "15 locomotives and 1 switcher", I'm going to guess it will immediately replace all the F59PHIs on the Surfliner, and add a switcher at either LA or Oakland, though this is just a guess. I would expect the F59PHIs to be retained and cascaded to replace P32-8s, and probably the GP38H-3s used as standby power on the Downeaster. The F59PHIs are preferable to P32-8s for passenger service because of the separate HEP generator.
I also guess that with technlogy continually advancing the way it is, that what gets ordered then wont be identical to what's being ordered now, even if the platform and certain elements might ne the same. Think P40 vs P42.Good point Peter! I suppose we'll discuss that seriously when it is funded.These new locomotives aren't going to be replacing the P42's right?
Amtrak172Correct, However part of the order is the option for ordering long distance versions to replace the P42s used on the long distance trains. But that isn't going even really be discussed for a number of years.They will be displacing P42s on the Midwest and California Corridor trains. But those P42s will be deployed in other parts of the Amtrak network.
peter
Nowhere does it say 100% was being assumed. It just says that 90% is being rejected as a blanket figure. If Siemens can credibly prove they are offering a system with a consistently higher efficiency then i think its fair to use that higher figure in the calculations rather than the90% assumption.Coming from the other side, I do find it dubious that IDOT simply rejected EMD's use of the 90% transmission efficiency value from diesel alternator to wheel rim. Correct me if I'm wrong, but should that be common knowledge in the railroad industry that you're not going to get 100% of rated prime mover power to the wheels for tractive effort, even if there IS a separate HEP motor? It's not like its something new or ground breaking. And assuming 90% efficiency is actually pretty high, considering the average efficiency ratings are usually between 80%-90%. IDOT just dismissed it like nothing, which raises a flag for me. It seems like there's more going on behind the scenes from a political standpoint.
I'd also like to see the full documentation that was given to EMD via the FOIA act, since IDOT claims several times that EMD mis-interprets the information in those documents as part of their argument, yet never provides proof on their own part. If EMD's protest was shoddy, in IDOT's terms, then IDOT's initial response, from a technical perspective, is utter BS.
There's not that terribly many of them in my experience driving around SoCal and they're required to pass smog tests.I dunno why people spend so much time trying to replace older, dirtier, but still relatively clean Diesel engines. They'd be better off yanking some of the 1980s era clunkers I've seen around LA off the road then a bunch of relatively clean F59PHis.
What are you thinking of? There's a separate program to replace or repower the freight switcher locomotives.I dunno why people spend so much time trying to replace older, dirtier, but still relatively clean Diesel engines. They'd be better off yanking some of the 1980s era clunkers I've seen around LA off the road then a bunch of relatively clean F59PHis.
From facts maybe?I don't know where the public got the crazy idea that Diesel engines are dirty.
Already a state program.and assisting poor people acquiring newer cars than the garbage you frequently find running around on the west coast.
Oh, you meant ON-road vehicles. You wrote "1980s era clunkers I've seen around LA off the road" (note the word "off", which confused me). Sure. Separate program, and different politics because the politics of automobiles is weird and complicated.California would do much better restricting usage of classic gas cars, and assisting poor people acquiring newer cars than the garbage you frequently find running around on the west coast.
Second link on google as I recall and "major component of smog" is kinda one of the more important things as far as CA is concerned.Congratulations. You cherry picked one emissions component.
Enter your email address to join: