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

[jis]

I am almost certain that a Viaggio derivative would be cheaper than one shot order for a special manufacturing line.

But either way even if such an order is placed with Schumer's outfit, it will be the 22nd century before we will see the whole thing delivered., at the rate they are going.

maybe Shcumer's Alstom may have better luck, and besides Alstom and Siemens will be the same outfit in a little bit anyway. I would not hold my breath for CAF getting another order.

 

[frequentflyer]

I am almost certain that a Viaggio derivative would be cheaper than one shot order for a special manufacturing line.

But either way even if such an order is placed with Schumer's outfit, it will be the 22nd century before we will see the whole thing delivered., at the rate they are going.

maybe Shcumer's Alstom may have better luck, and besides Alstom and Siemens will be the same outfit in a little bit anyway. I would not hold my breath for CAF getting another order.

True, so true.

 

[west point]

The mention of using the old Superliner -1 or 2s design brings up the question ----Would either of those designs meet the 800,000 # gorilla ?

 

[Steve4031]

I’ve seen some gorilla sized passengers.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[jis]

The mention of using the old Superliner -1 or 2s design brings up the question ----Would either of those designs meet the 800,000 # gorilla ?

The 800,000lb standard predates the time when they were built. They have already passed the test.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[CCC1007]

The mention of using the old Superliner -1 or 2s design brings up the question ----Would either of those designs meet the 800,000 # gorilla ?

The 800,000lb standard predates the time when they were built. They have already passed the test.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

One could argue that they passed with flying colors on multiple occasions throughout the years.

 

[CCC1007]

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....

My guess is that the fra will request that cab cars be for crew and baggage only.

 

[Train_Freak]

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....

My guess is that the fra will request that cab cars be for crew and baggage only.

I sincerely doubt that, as there are cab cars already in service at 125 m.p.h. in the northeast that do not have the baggage compartment between the passengers and the cab, as well being around 50 years old too.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[CCC1007]

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....

My guess is that the fra will request that cab cars be for crew and baggage only.

I sincerely doubt that, as there are cab cars already in service at 125 m.p.h. in the northeast that do not have the baggage compartment between the passengers and the cab, as well being around 50 years old too.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

Well, that is exactly what the FRA told Amtrak when the Acela was supposed to be set up as a push pull set with a single power car and on the other end was supposed to be a cab coach. Since then, the only cab coaches that have entered Amtrak service have been the bilevels used in California service.

 

[Train_Freak]

Acela Express trainsets are Tier II complaint for a top speed of 150/160 M.P.H., while these cars are only designed to be Tier I complaint at a top speed of 125 M.P.H. So these two trains are in totally different safety classes. The RFP for the Acela replacements were also supposed to be EMUs so I believe that whatever problems that the FRA might of had are no longer valid.

 

[jis]

The RFP for Acela II was not as specific about the train configuration as you appear to believe.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[Dutchrailnut]

FRA rules do prohibit tier II to have occupied (passenger) capability on either front and rear of train.

It also prohibits a break in side sill of cars so step's /traps are not possible.

But non of cars ordered for these states are planned to be run above 125 mph.

 

[jis]

The Acela II order though is required to be compliant with Tier III. No one will ever build another piece of equipment based on the Tier II spec. The RFP asked the responders to propose train configuration. Alstom chose to propose the well tried and tested classic TGV configuration with a Pendolino derived tilt system added.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[Anderson]

Agreed on the 10-6 (or a 14-2-1 ;-)).

I am wondering if Amtrak might not work with some states to coordinate further orders. I know the Amfleet Is are stretched a bit thin and some medium-term plans probably won't happen without at least some additional capacity (notably those in Vermont, Virginia, and North Carolina). In the meantime, if I want to daydream I could point out that in the next decade or so there will probably be at least two, possibly 3-4, maintenance locations for these cars in Florida which would make "de-rationalizing" some of the Silver Service operations a lot easier.

 

[jis]

As some seem to be going on and on about cab cars based on artist’s rendering which appears to be merely applying a hypothetical Caltrans livery on a RailJet, has anyone seen anything official on car type mix? Or are we just off in our usual la-la land based on very little concrete information? A citation to an official missive on car mix anyone?

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[CSXfoamer1997]

So... most likely will the single level cars replace the old Comet's on the San Joaquin route, am I correct?

 

[Steve4031]

Yes.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[west point]

The point is that the designs for SL-1s & 2s may not be able to meet the 800,000 # gorilla for additional cars built on their designs. Believe SL-1s & -2s did not have to meet the gorilla ? + the crumple zones are changed.

 

[jis]

The point is that the designs for SL-1s & 2s may not be able to meet the 800,000 # gorilla for additional cars built on their designs. Believe SL-1s & -2s did not have to meet the gorilla ?

They did. That is the point we have to now somehow get through your skull [emoji12]

The 800,000lb buff strength requirement was put in place around 1945. So since then all interchangeable passenger rolling stock has passed that test before they were allowed to carry passengers, except a few that were allowed to do so under specific waivers. The Superliners did not have any waiver.

+ the crumple zones are changed.

The new crumple zone specifications are specific to cars that use the new Collision Energy Management specifications. The Superliner 1s and 2s don't use those specifications so they are of no relevance to them. Essentially the CEM stuff has been layered on the existing spec without invalidating the existing spec. Instead of applying the non-deformation requirement to the entire car, in case of those that use the CEM part of the spec, the non-deformation requirement applies to the designated passenger carrying capsule in the car. It does not say that a car built to the older spec of non-deformation for the entire car is not allowed.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[Blackwolf]

The point is that the designs for SL-1s & 2s may not be able to meet the 800,000 # gorilla for additional cars built on their designs. Believe SL-1s & -2s did not have to meet the gorilla ? + the crumple zones are changed.

The Superliners were tested to the 800,000 lb standard. They passed. There is no "may not" in the equation, they didn't have any issue. This is true for the original Pullman cars, as well as the later Alstrom cars The N-S prototype that failed was not a Superliner; it was a double-level car that looked like a Superliner, but that's where the similarities ended.

There are no questions on the capabilities of the Superliners.

 

[jamess]

Can someone remind me, for California, how many of these care are intended to replace older stock, versus adding new capacity?

Also, how many train sets does the San Joaquin use?

I wonder if part of the reasoning here is that the high level trains are intended to operate on the new High Speed Rail alignment "temporarily" (for 10 years).

The San Joaquins people are planning on moving the Madera station (again), to be adjacent to the new HSR tracks. I think it is very likely that the new trains will service Bakersfield, Fresno, and Madera on the new high level tracks, and then enter the existing freight tracks on their way north. This would reduce the time penalty of using high floor trains on low floor track, because two of the busiest stations would be at the right platform height.

This would also allow the Pacific Line to remain all low-floor.

 

[neroden]

For California nearly all of the cars are intended as new capacity. The exception is that the existing Amfleet and Horizon consists were going to be replaced. But that was partly because replacing them with bilevels would speed boarding. :-( So at this point it's quite possible they will all be new capacity.

By contrast, the Midwest order is mostly replacement of existing cars leased from Amtrak, with expansion for a couple of planned service expansions (Moline, increased service on a couple of other lines).

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

For California nearly all of the cars are intended as new capacity. The exception is that the existing Amfleet and Horizon consists were going to be replaced. But that was partly because replacing them with bilevels would speed boarding. :-( So at this point it's quite possible they will all be new capacity.

By contrast, the Midwest order is mostly replacement of existing cars leased from Amtrak, with expansion for a couple of planned service expansions (Moline, increased service on a couple of other lines).

Is it known which other lines will see increased service? I believe the Pere Marquette and Blue Water should be prioritized, as such short routes with only one daily frequency on each severely hinders ridership.
Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app

 

[neroden]

For California nearly all of the cars are intended as new capacity. The exception is that the existing Amfleet and Horizon consists were going to be replaced. But that was partly because replacing them with bilevels would speed boarding. :-( So at this point it's quite possible they will all be new capacity.

By contrast, the Midwest order is mostly replacement of existing cars leased from Amtrak, with expansion for a couple of planned service expansions (Moline, increased service on a couple of other lines).

Is it known which other lines will see increased service? I believe the Pere Marquette and Blue Water should be prioritized, as such short routes with only one daily frequency on each severely hinders ridership.
Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app

IIRC, Chicago-St Louis for sure because they have promised and funded another frequency. Unfortunately all the others are dependent on uncertain state funding so, no nobody knows which other lines will see increased service -- probably none of them in the short term. :-( Really depends who wins the legislative and gubernatorial elections in Michigan, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Illinois.

 

[A Voice]

Apparently questions over funding for this little debacle remain (from Trains News Wire):

"Since the ARRA funding deadline has passed FRA is unable to confirm the funding sources each state intends to use to complete the passenger car procurement," the FRA representative wrote in an email.

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/11/09-siemens-midwest