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

[Train_Freak]

Whattathey need a mini high for?

Gallery Cars are essentially a regular single level car with a extra reduced height floor added, with a single middle entrance.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[PerRock]

Whattathey need a mini high for?

Gallery Cars are essentially a regular single level car with a extra reduced height floor added, with a single middle entrance.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

The doors on Gallery cars are also the traps. You have to climb up stairs inside to get to the car floor. This picture should illustrate:

 

[CSXfoamer1997]

Why would Siemens not want to build bi-levels? Bi-levels would mean more seating capacity per train. Plus, trains wouldn't have to be as long.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

... because nobody has bi-levels that meet NGECs absurd requirements.

The advantage to these single level Viaggio Comforts is we will get them fast with no engineering or horsepockey required.

 

[PVD]

If you can't meet the terms of a contract, don't sign it. Bidders knew what the specs were.

 

[PerRock]

If you can't meet the terms of a contract, don't sign it. Bidders knew what the specs were.

NS-S thought they could... Almost all the other manufacturers, didn't think it was possible.

peter

 

[Green Maned Lion]

NS apparently made the mistake of assuming that when the NGEC turned out those specs, they had ensured they were feasible. Anyway, that is water under the bridge. This is the best we are gonna get. Frankly, some of you people are completely unreasonable in your expectations and desires for outcomes from this schonda.

New equipment will be coming as quickly as possible. Take the win already. I was convinced they were going to declare bankruptcy and walk away from our fustercluck of a market like a sane company, with no cars at all, and no remunerations.

 

[jis]

Why would Siemens not want to build bi-levels? Bi-levels would mean more seating capacity per train. Plus, trains wouldn't have to be as long.

Being a company that has a good financial track record, and not one to satisfy all whims of clueless customers at any cost, they would tend to stay away from wishful thinking projects with low to negative financial returns for them. that is why.

And BTW, just in case someone insists on double decker, there is a twin double-decker in the Viaggio family. But that won't happen in a timely fashion.

 

[neroden]

http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/pr/2017/prs/17pr117.html

It would appear that single level cars will happen....

They're going to have to start raising platforms.
The ADA requirements don't magically go away because of manufacturing issues, and nothing the state or federal government does can avoid the private lawsuits. They can put portable lifts everywhere, but they'll have to schedule good long station dwells for them, and there are already serious questions about whether they're actually nondiscriminatory...

Maybe Caltrans can do a swap with Caltrain or something, since Caltrain is *already* planning to raise their platforms. Or put the bilevels on the Surfliner route and move all the single-levels to the northern routes on freight-owned track where they can't raise the platforms due to freight operator interference.

The Midwest is stuck: they will simply have to raise their platforms. It would make the most sense to start with Michigan where the line has no freight.

I believe stations that have Superliner trains can continue without high level platforms. All of the Illinois stations with the exception of two on the Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg at least have Superliner trains operating through them, so if they begin stopping at those stations a high-level platform could be avoided. The same could be said for Wisconsin if the EB began stopping at Milwaukee Airport and Sturtevant. However, the Michigan Services and Missouri River Runner (with the exception of St. Louis and Kansas City) do not have LD trains operating through their stations. As of now, the Pere Marquette is the only of these trains to regularly use Superliners. I wouldn't be surprised if Amtrak found a way to use more Superliners in the Midwest (especially with the delay in the Gulf Coast service) and allocated the current Pere Marquette set strategically. For example, two sets could be used to cover a train on the Wolverine and Missouri River Runner with only the Pere Marquette and Blue Water east of Battle Creek stations requiring high-level platforms.
Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app

You're basically correct. But it's not like Amtrak has a ready supply of Superliners. In addition, this looks like evasion of the intent of the law, which is never good, and retains all the boarding delays associated with stairs and manual lifts.

Perhaps most likely is that we'll see widespread deployment of the "Ann Arbor" retractable high level platform. Which is OK, for now. I personally think high-level platforms are advisable everywhere east of Chicago for compatibility anyway. (Chicago itself can manage to have some high-level and some low-level platforms.) Who knows, California may standardize on high-level platforms too; there seems to be a curious trend in that direction.

 

[jis]

I agree with neroden. Ideally one would eat the additional cost and put in high level platforms using separate loops or where space is restricted, gauntelet track in the eastern region.

As for what will happen in California, who knows? Specially if Caltrain decides to go with standard European EMUs with 55cm high platforms, that will throw an interesting additional twist into the mix. Also what floor height does CalHSR plan to use? So many choices and so many ways to screw the pooch!

 

[PRR 60]

There is a seemingly knowledgeable post at Trainorders that says the Viaggio USA design permits a car to have a low-level seating area located between the trucks with a door in this section for accessible boarding from low-level platforms. According to that report, one car of each trainset will have this design. If true, this car will provide the same level of accessibility as the lower level of a bi-level car without the need for any special lifts or mini-high-level platforms.

 

[Ryan]

That sounds like the "Viaggio Light" cars depicted in this PDF:

https://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/SiteCollectionDocuments/en/rail-solutions/passenger-coaches/viaggio-imagebroschuere-en.pdf

It claims that it can accommodate platform heights of 350-1060mm.

 

[jis]

Good catch!

This indeed provides a neat means for mixing and matching boarding requirements with a mix of high platform and low platform cars.

Needless to say, there is no NGEC Specification that this car would comply with, unless they can do some rapid footwork to copy stuff from Siemens specs into the NGEC Spec

If all this works out, the case for using Viaggio derivatives for future Amfleet replacement becomes even more persuasive, specially in terms of ability to deliver quickly and within budget.

 

[bretton88]

Good catch!

This indeed provides a neat means for mixing and matching boarding requirements with a mix of high platform and low platform cars.

Needless to say, there is no NGEC Specification that this car would comply with, unless they can do some rapid footwork to copy stuff from Siemens specs into the NGEC Spec [emoji14]

If all this works out, the case for using Viaggio derivatives for future Amfleet replacement becomes even more persuasive, specially in rems of ability to deliver quickly and within budget.

At this point I'm not even sure if the NGEC spec even matters, they'll just get it close and get a variance so it complies with the spec. The focus now is to get cars off the assembly line.
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[jis]

Good catch!

This indeed provides a neat means for mixing and matching boarding requirements with a mix of high platform and low platform cars.

Needless to say, there is no NGEC Specification that this car would comply with, unless they can do some rapid footwork to copy stuff from Siemens specs into the NGEC Spec [emoji14]

If all this works out, the case for using Viaggio derivatives for future Amfleet replacement becomes even more persuasive, specially in rems of ability to deliver quickly and within budget.

At this point I'm not even sure if the NGEC spec even matters, they'll just get it close and get a variance so it complies with the spec. The focus now is to get cars off the assembly line.
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Theoretically I suppose it matters since the original RFP said something about NGEC compliance, though that was to a different NGEC spec. I was just parroting something that PRR60 said a few posts back regarding the quick weight specification change thing that was made to the single level spec.

Of course I agree that the most important thing is get cars that pass the relevant FRA standards get delivered ASAP and at reasonable price.

 

[frequentflyer]

That sounds like the "Viaggio Light" cars depicted in this PDF:

https://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/SiteCollectionDocuments/en/rail-solutions/passenger-coaches/viaggio-imagebroschuere-en.pdf

It claims that it can accommodate platform heights of 350-1060mm.

Screen Shot 2017-11-10 at 1.01.20 PM.png

This car makes no sense, why dip down the middle if there is no upper level? All of this just for ADA? And the Siemens Bilevel is not a inter city car but a commuter car, not designed for the work the states and Amtrak are going to use them for.

 

[jis]

That sounds like the "Viaggio Light" cars depicted in this PDF:

https://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/SiteCollectionDocuments/en/rail-solutions/passenger-coaches/viaggio-imagebroschuere-en.pdf

It claims that it can accommodate platform heights of 350-1060mm.

Screen Shot 2017-11-10 at 1.01.20 PM.png

This car makes no sense, why dip down the middle if there is no upper level? All of this just for ADA? And the Siemens Bilevel is not a inter city car but a commuter car, not designed for the work the states and Amtrak are going to use them for.

For operation in low platform environment. They are targeted primarily towards branch line operations and in configurations like tram-trains. They appear to make a lot of sense to those that have the money to shell out to buy them, and I suspect that is mostly what matters in Siemens' decision making, and not what a few of us might think at AU.

Siemens' bi-levels are not being considered for anything at all, so they are irrelevant at present. However, what furnishing one puts in a basic bi-level shell would be the thing that determines what they are suitable to use for rather than just the shape of the shell, I should think.

Meanwhile, the Midwest High Speed Rail Association has come out strongly in favor of single level cars for the Midwest:

https://www.midwesthsr.org/new-midwest-trains-will-be-modern-single-level-siemens-design

 

[Ryan]

Given that they operate outside the USA, the answer to "all of this just for ADA" would be a resounding "No".

The car makes perfect sense for people that care about level boarding at low platforms, for which there seems to be a decent market given the conversation upthread.

 

[frequentflyer]

That sounds like the "Viaggio Light" cars depicted in this PDF:

https://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/SiteCollectionDocuments/en/rail-solutions/passenger-coaches/viaggio-imagebroschuere-en.pdf

It claims that it can accommodate platform heights of 350-1060mm.

Screen Shot 2017-11-10 at 1.01.20 PM.png

This car makes no sense, why dip down the middle if there is no upper level? All of this just for ADA? And the Siemens Bilevel is not a inter city car but a commuter car, not designed for the work the states and Amtrak are going to use them for.

For operation in low platform environment. They are targeted primarily towards branch line operations and in configurations like tram-trains. They appear to make a lot of sense to those that have the money to shell out to buy them, and I suspect that is mostly what matters in Siemens' decision making, and not what a few of us might think at AU.

Siemens' bi-levels are not being considered for anything at all, so they are irrelevant at present. However, what furnishing one puts in a basic bi-level shell would be the thing that determines what they are suitable to use for rather than just the shape of the shell, I should think.

Meanwhile, the Midwest High Speed Rail Association has come out strongly in favor of single level cars for the Midwest:

https://www.midwesthsr.org/new-midwest-trains-will-be-modern-single-level-siemens-design

I read that blog and from a financial point of view it makes sense which is scary. Yes, a Superliner moves more people per car than say a Viewliner. But which car is in production now and which one is not? Which car would have a lower cost per unit? I love Superliners love the quiet ride on the top level, but Amtrak has a numbers guy as a CEO, and Senator Chuck Schumer would love a 5-8 year production run (read Jobs) of Viewliners in upstate New York. Yes, it just a blog, and one person's opinion but from the numbers side it makes sense.

 

[jis]

He is not talking of acquiring Schumer's Viewliners. He is talking of acquiring California's Brightliner, mostly.

Notice that there is no mention of Viewliner anywhere. Only mention of Siemens and Brightline.

As I mentioned in a post above, furnishing of the interior can be done whichever way one wants.

Siemens has already delivered Sleepers based on this shell to the Russians.

A classic 10-6 in this shell would not be too bad actually, IMHO.

 

[Blackwolf]

He is not talking of acquiring Schumer's Viewliners. He is talking of acquiring California's Brightliner, mostly.

Notice that there is no mention of Viewliner anywhere. Only mention of Siemens and Brightline.

As I mentioned in a post above, furnishing of the interior can be done whichever way one wants.

Siemens has already delivered Sleepers based on this shell to the Russians.

A classic 10-6 in this shell would not be too bad actually, IMHO.

This.

 

[Steve4031]

Most people would like a sightseer lounge type car. I️f seimans cars and viewliner cars could run together a viewliner lounge might be workable.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[jis]

I am almost certain that the cars delivered as part of the California contract will not have the spacious wide gangways with level floor that the Brightline cars have. Their gangways will be degraded to be compatible with regular Amtrak and Commuter cars, so that they will work seamlessly with older stuff.

 

[CraigDK]

Nothing new in the written portion of this article in IRJ.

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/north-america/siemens-in-nippon-sharyo-out-for-multi-state-coach-order.html?channel=535

But check out the rendition of an apparent cab car that looks like they grafted a Charger cab onto a coach....

 

[frequentflyer]

He is not talking of acquiring Schumer's Viewliners. He is talking of acquiring California's Brightliner, mostly.

Notice that there is no mention of Viewliner anywhere. Only mention of Siemens and Brightline.

As I mentioned in a post above, furnishing of the interior can be done whichever way one wants.

Siemens has already delivered Sleepers based on this shell to the Russians.

A classic 10-6 in this shell would not be too bad actually, IMHO.

I was referring to the assumption of replacing Superliners with single level cars. The only other Amtrak car designed to its specs in production right now is the Viewliner. Designed for eastern LD trains could, it could be used on western LD trains. Not saying its going to happen but its a possibility. Unless one thinks a Siemens Viaggario shell fitted with coach, sleeper, baggage and dinner configuration is a cheaper alternative.