Siemens Caltrans/IDOT Venture design, engineering, testing and delivery (2012-1Q 2024)

[jis]

One manufacturer looking at a spec and saying it can't meet it so it won't bid it that way does not help someone who looked at a spec and agreed to build it. It is a contracts case, either the groups reach an agreement, or the lawyers and courts will.What NS and the consortium agreed to in writing will determine how this goes. It is why companies pay lawyers to draft contracts, and you pay them to review them before you sign them. In most RFP based acquisitions, if you don't specifically exclude or indicate you can't meet a provision or term of an RFP, you own it.

Siemens AFAIK was never involved in the bilevel spec or its evaluation. Their comment was regarding the single level spec in the context of "what would it take to build a version of the Brightline Car but compliant with the spec in all respects". They basically gave a laundry list of changes that would be required before they could do something like that. Their position may simply be because they do not see a business case for the cost involved in meeting those requirements that in their opinion adds neither to safety nor to comfort. We don't know for sure. In any case, we are really talking about two different specs possibly put together by two entirely different group of individuals. So it is not that cut and dried.

However, the problem remains that there was apparently no vetting of the design in the form of a proof concept validation or even a model based validation of the buildability of either of those two specs. IMHO if all that is true then it was remarkably irresponsible of whoever that put those as mandatory, non-negotiable requirements in an RFP, and they should be found liable.

I hasten to add, that neither I, nor I suspect anyone else on this board in a position to disclose any details without breaking confidentiality agreements, knows what has actually transpired. We just know bits and pieces of information and are trying to connect the dots. So a pinch of salt is appropriate about conclusions that come out of such speculation.

The core issue remains, that for most car builders the US market at present is not large enough to bother bending over backwards to meet requirements et by groups that are apparently considered to be somewhat amateurish by the industry. Notice that none of the really large orders from the huge commuter agencies say anything about these paper specs. They bypass the entire thing when they place orders of many hundred cars.

The likes of Siemens and Alstom e.g. are dealing with multi-thousand cars per year orders manufactured in house or under license by others world-wide. A few hundred cars here and there is worthwhile only if their is prospect of getting to a thousand plus car market. Until US gets really serious about passenger rail, that is an unlikely eventuality, and everyone knows it. It becomes even less attractive when that requires meeting onerous, hard to justify technical requirements.

 

[frequentflyer]

So what are saying here? That the 2020 date is just arbitrary? Its not known if NS will attempt or complete the order?

 

[Ryan]

We're saying here that the answers to that question aren't public knowledge, nor are they likely to be until some public action (we start seeing cars, public announcement of cancellation, etc) is finally taken.

 

[Steve4031]

The explanation about why we don't know more is helpful to me. I was wondering about that too.

 

[PVD]

It is usually the responsibility of the party responding to an RFP to determine the feasibility of whether or not they can achieve a requested level of performance and either ask for an exception, or decline to respond. No one forces a company to respond/bid, and a well written RFP and contract document shifts molst of the burden to the respondent. That is one reason why so many large projects require performance bonds.

 

[A Voice]

Per discussion on another board, it looks like there is something behind the rumors of the states switching to a single-level design:

https://www.illinois.gov/cpo/dot/Documents/Bi-level%20Railcar%20Procurement.pdf

This would also fit the reports of delivery by 2020 (24-34 months). Of course, there are indeed both logistical and potential legal hurdles over a switch to single-level cars built by Siemens.

 

[Steve4031]

Interesting. They will have to modify the design of the single level cars to include traps.

 

[jis]

Interesting. They will have to modify the design of the single level cars to include traps.

Indeed. That though will be the least of the headaches IMHO. Putting in traps is trivial since these are Tier I cars with continuous center sill, and do not require the extra strength that was originally specified for Tier II cars that required continuous side sills, as in the Acela sets. I don't believe even the Tier III specs actually state the requirement of continuous side sills, and does allow collision energy management structures instead.

This is indeed a very significant find. Thanks for digging it up Voice!

So now there will be an ADA issue at all stations! The requirement for continuous high level platform to the exclusion of a wheelchair lift based solution was always a bit over the top for low density routes anyway IMHO. Also Siemens has the auto-deployed bridge plate technology. With a bridge plate that is a foot longer they could do set back high level platforms (or at least mini highs, so that Superliner/Surfliners can be accommodated at the same platforms. I have no idea if it is even possible to have traps and auto deployed bridge plates at the same door either. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

 

[stappend]

Per discussion on another board, it looks like there is something behind the rumors of the states switching to a single-level design:

https://www.illinois.gov/cpo/dot/Documents/Bi-level%20Railcar%20Procurement.pdf

This would also fit the reports of delivery by 2020 (24-34 months). Of course, there are indeed both logistical and potential legal hurdles over a switch to single-level cars built by Siemens.

Digging into the document, it seems real. It was created on May 30th, 2017 by Etemadi, Sannaz the who is the Assistant Chief Counsel for IDOT.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

Two questions:

1. Wasn't the crush test on the N-S bilevels only like 50 lbs off spec? (in other words fifty pounds below spec out of several thousand)

2. I thought that the Brightline base model was already available with traps?

 

[MisterUptempo]

Two questions:

1. Wasn't the crush test on the N-S bilevels only like 50 lbs off spec? (in other words fifty pounds below spec out of several thousand)

During the 800,000 lb. crush test, the N-S design failed at the 798,000 lb. point.

So, the question is...Was the N-S design 99.75% successful or a 100% failure? Apparently, the powers that be decided it was the latter.

 

[frequentflyer]

Scary when government entities actually made a decision grounded in common sense. The same Siemens factory that is delivering locomotives on time can also make pax car too? Decision a no-brainer.

 

[jis]

Scary when government entities actually made a decision grounded in common sense. The same Siemens factory that is delivering locomotives on time can also make pax car too? Decision a no-brainer.

It is already making passenger cars for Brightline, in case someone did not notice.

 

[frequentflyer]

The Viaggio-Twin looks to fit the bill if the single levels causes too much legal red tape.

 

[Scuba_Steve]

California will need cab cars as well.

 

[jis]

California will need cab cars as well.

The Viaggio stable has one of those ready to roll with a bit of US style spiffying up with more robust collision posts and such, I am sure.

 

[bretton88]

Interesting, I notice that the notice calls for the exact same quantity of single level cars as bi-levels. That seems like a bad capacity reduction. Having said that, if they are switching to the brightline cars, that is a really good move. Siemens can probably get a slightly modified design of those cars rolling with fairly low lead time.

One interesting note that might be overlooked, Sumitayo (I think that's how you spell it) is still the prime contractor. They have just agreed to subcontract Siemens to build the cars. In this way there's no need to void and re-bid the existing contract. It's essentially a change order and hiring Siemens as a sub.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

Do we actually know what "they" are doing yet? Is it at all possible that N-S has resolved the design and is going with that or there was an exemption or settlement or...?

 

[jis]

Apparently they came up with an estimate of 60 months for redesign and delivery, as hinted in the letter.

Of course a more recent document would be even more useful. But the notifications appears to be pretty firm about modifying the contract and the parameters of such. I am almost certain that we would hear about a safety exemption if one were to take place. I doubt it will. What the document alludes to in effect is the shape of a settlement between the prime contractor, Sumitomo and the lead purchaser CalDOT, to go ahead and fulfill the (modified) order on a modified schedule.

 

[MisterUptempo]

Interesting, I notice that the notice calls for the exact same quantity of single level cars as bi-levels. That seems like a bad capacity reduction. Having said that, if they are switching to the brightline cars, that is a really good move. Siemens can probably get a slightly modified design of those cars rolling with fairly low lead time.

One interesting note that might be overlooked, Sumitayo (I think that's how you spell it) is still the prime contractor. They have just agreed to subcontract Siemens to build the cars. In this way there's no need to void and re-bid the existing contract. It's essentially a change order and hiring Siemens as a sub.

But isn't it a little more complicated than that? As was discussed on "another board" (and let's just mention it was railroad.net), the original procurement process for the order required bi-level railcars that adhered to PRIIA Section 305/NGEC specs. If I recall (and I'm kicking myself for not saving the document), some manufacturers were dismissed out of hand because they presented bids for product that did not comply with Sec. 305.

And now Caltrans/IDOT plan to just allow Sumitomo to contract with Siemens, to build a single-level railcar that likely won't adhere to Sec. 305 single-level standards, much less bi-level?

I question Siemens' ability to meet Sec. 305 because, as was pointed out at the other board, Siemens has already prepared a presentation explaining why the Brightline Viaggio Comforts don't follow Sec. 305 in some areas. You'll find that presentation here- http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/brightline-Coach-Siemens-2.pdf

The original RFP was awfully specific. Isn't it possible (likely, perhaps) that there would need to be a new RFP process, as Sumitomo is looking to deliver a product that is nothing like what was asked for? Short of doing that, I foresee legal teams from all the railcar manufacturers not named Siemens or Sumitomo/N-S lining up to file suit.

ETA - Another question - I remember that some of the losing bidders complained that N-S was lowballing their bid to get the contract. If this substitution is allowed to continue, and the costs of the Siemens single-level are greater than the original N-S bi-level costs, who pays the difference?

 

[jis]

It is indeed time to settle down with some Popcorn and Beer.

Of course meanwhile, the US passenger rail service will sink deeper and deeper into disrepair, except for those who stayed clear of the 305 crap and just went ahead and pragmatically ordered whatever they could get off the shelf.

Meanwhile, I wonder how difficult it would be to substitute the more expensive to maintain toilet and water system and GSC or Pioneer trucks, and fit it out with slim lightweight airline Coach style seats to meet weight requirements to force it to be compliant with 305, but have an inferior product. That would be the ultimate victory of bureaucracy over pragmatism at the cost of the customers' experience.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

If this is a firm settlement, it would be one of expedience. Other manufacturers certainly couldn't meet the time being of the essence, and would therefore be irrelevant. Who besides Seimans has a ready to go intercity rail car for American use?

 

[neroden]

The ADA issue is severe.

California is already running a mixed single-level / bilevel fleet, so they'll just have to deal with the slower boarding time on the single-level trains. (I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they come up with something convoluted like swapping the single-levels to Caltrain in exchange for Caltrain's bilevels while Caltrain raises its platforms, since Caltrain is planning to raise its platforms.)

The Midwest, however, has larger issues. Unless they somehow manage to schedule one Superliner train on each route (har har) they're actually going to have to start raising the platforms. It's now not legal to have all the trains board higher than the platform.

Perhaps the most likely solution is the modular retractable high-level platform tested at Ann Arbor; I suppose they could put this all along the Michigan line, for example.

 

[Steve4031]

They could raise a portion of each platform with ramp access. Then there would be level boarding for some cars. The specs show that the brightline cars have retractable bridge plates.

 

[west point]

Comments. Correct about ADA. Have any of you seen the ADA requirements for restrooms ? It will blow your mind. That is a reason so many builders and designers of bathrooms especially male get it wrong. How may have urinals do you se that defy attempts to prevent spilling on floor ?

It may be that this subbing of Brightline type cars mirrors the desperate need for more rolling stock that many agencies expect ?