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

[brianpmcdonnell17]

Assuming these cars eventually get delivered, does anybody know where the Horizon cars will go? Also, will the new cars have their own paint scheme like in California or will they be painted in standard Amtrak colors?

 

[CCC1007]

Assuming these cars eventually get delivered, does anybody know where the Horizon cars will go? Also, will the new cars have their own paint scheme like in California or will they be painted in standard Amtrak colors?

The horizon fleet could be used in many other areas, such as expanded service, the gulf coast train, extra capacity on the NEC, or any number of uses.

 

[Steve4031]

The draft minutes of a June 7 meeting of the NGEC Executive Board have been posted which have the following updates for the Bi-level contract:

The FAI for the manual door took place at the end of May.

The FAI for truck assembly is to take place on July 12th.

The section burn test will take place on June 22nd with the dynamic test taking place on June 27th.

With regard to the car shell re-design:

A number of items have been closed.

They are looking at weight reductions as a part of the re-design modifications.

Mock ups and design are taking place simultaneously.

It is anticipated that the manufacturer will have an updated schedule this week for the test/at risk model with testing planned for the Fall of 2016 – to be finalized in January, 2017.

The states (Caltrans and IDOT) and FRA are working on funding, and funding options, and solutions despite the expiration of ARRA funds. They have a commitment to have a complete project that fulfills the original intent – post ARRA funding.

The boldface on the last item is mine. So they are working on options to fund and complete the 130 car order despite the delay and the ARRA funding deadline. Whatever those "options" are. Anyway, appears that the current schedule has the first new bi-levels being delivered for testing in early 2017.

BTW, in the minutes it is stated that VIA Rail has contacted the NGEC to request authorization to use the PRIIA specs for their own future equipment order so they can have fully interoperable equipment between the US and Canada. However it is the single level equipment spec that VIA wants to use. VIA Rail will be invited to join the NGEC Technical Subcommittee as a non-voting member.

Thank you. Made my damn day which has been crappy up until reading this.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

The draft minutes of a June 7 meeting of the NGEC Executive Board have been posted which have the following updates for the Bi-level contract:

With regard to the car shell re-design:

...

They are looking at weight reductions as a part of the re-design modifications.

It is anticipated ... an updated schedule ... testing planned for the Fall of 2016 – to be finalized in January, 2017.

The states (Caltrans and IDOT) and FRA are working on funding, and funding options, and solutions despite the expiration of ARRA funds. They have a commitment to have a complete project that fulfills the original intent – post ARRA funding.

BTW, the minutes stated that VIA Rail has contacted the NGEC to request authorization to use the PRIIA specs for their own future equipment order so they can have fully interoperable equipment between the US and Canada. ... it is the single level specs that VIA wants to use. VIA Rail will be invited to join the NGEC Technical Subcommittee as a non-voting member.

The info in the minutes is what passes for good news on this front, so we're glad to get the update.

I love the VIA news as well. Inter-operable equipment could at a minimum help extend one-seat service NYC-Montreal-Ottawa and NYC-Montreal-Quebec City; CHI-DET-Windsor-Toronto; and CHI-St Paul-Fargo-Grand Forks-Winnipeg. Or one-seat service Montreal-D.C. for that matter.

Best of all, if VIA can become part of a joint bid, it should help make a minimum-sized launch order large enuff to be affordable without civil war in Congress. Or after a civil war in Congress, if we win it. LOL.

I could even dream of VIA buying extra single-level cars and leasing them to Amtrak. Their help could get around the problem that Congress appropriates very short term while renewing a fleet of hundreds of cars is very long term. Canada is known for its generous foreign aid program, and our decrepit passenger rail system should qualify alongside the needy Third World countries.

 

[MisterUptempo]

Assuming these cars eventually get delivered, does anybody know where the Horizon cars will go? Also, will the new cars have their own paint scheme like in California or will they be painted in standard Amtrak colors?

If what I found on a recent presentation given by IDOT is correct, then it appears that, yes, there will be a distinct paint scheme for the Midwest bi-levels, one that will match the scheme on the new Siemens Charger locomotives slated for delivery as well.

The presentation, which can be found at the following URL:

http://www.idothsr.org/pdf/2016 construction update local official briefing pontiac and joliet.pdf

contains a slide, highlighting equipment procurement, which has the following two renderings-

Please forgive the sub-par quality of the images; they were pulled from the .pdf version of the presentation and I had to enlarge them.

Looks like the design has a convenient empty spot on the middle of the locomotive and railcars that would accommodate an IDOT/MDOT/MoDOT logo quite nicely. Or, perhaps, they'll come up with a new logo/service mark, a "brand-within-a-brand", similar to Amtrak California. Amtrak Midwest, anyone?

 

[neroden]

BTW, in the minutes it is stated that VIA Rail has contacted the NGEC to request authorization to use the PRIIA specs for their own future equipment order so they can have fully interoperable equipment between the US and Canada. However it is the single level equipment spec that VIA wants to use. VIA Rail will be invited to join the NGEC Technical Subcommittee as a non-voting member.

This would be nice. I wonder whether VIA will change their HEP specification to match Amtrak?

The single-level spec has been just sort of sitting there. VIA is likely to make an order before anyone in the US does. They are likely to get decent funding from the Trudeau government, and replacing their rolling stock is quite urgent, probably more urgent than it is for Amtrak.

 

[jis]

VIA being VIA will probably place the order with Bombardier with some appropriate Canadian arrangement about pricing, discounts etc. etc. completely contained in Canada. Afterall one can expect a Make in Canada condition attached for a VIA order just like we in the US insist on our own.

 

[John Bredin]

I had to laugh at the first drawing in the post by MisterUptempo because it's horribly out-of-date (obviously, IDOT's "fault" not his). The paved area to the left of the tracks is now a nearly-complete riverside skyscraper. Yes, that means the tower visible in the background near the Lake Street L is long gone.

Of course, I can see why they'd use this picture because the old view makes it clear that this is the northern approach to Chicago Union Station while a more up-to-date view in the same spot would look like a generic, if rather wide, tunnel entrance. :giggle:

 

[9900]

Meh. Paint scheme could be worse. Kind of an abstract representation of the Great Lakes. I kind of dig it

 

[Steve4031]

I'll like riding decent equipment that keeps passengers warm in the winter and cool in the summer.

 

[TheMalahat]

VIA being VIA will probably place the order with Bombardier with some appropriate Canadian arrangement about pricing, discounts etc. etc. completely contained in Canada. Afterall one can expect a Make in Canada condition attached for a VIA order just like we in the US insist on our own.

The good news for the project is that Via probably won't require too much Canadian content as long as there is a justifiable reason to purchase out of Canada. For about the last decade or so the Government of Canada has really backed off buy in Canada if there is a public interest (saving money) in going elsewhere.

Given the benefits of a larger order of cars for the name of efficiency, and the fact that the American & Canadian timelines seem to be roughly on par this could be a really good thing for the rail passenger car market.

Via received a fairly large amount of money to study new cars in this year's federal budget. I suspect the capital procurement process will begin next year or perhaps 2018.

 

[trainviews]

VIA being VIA will probably place the order with Bombardier with some appropriate Canadian arrangement about pricing, discounts etc. etc. completely contained in Canada. Afterall one can expect a Make in Canada condition attached for a VIA order just like we in the US insist on our own.

The good news for the project is that Via probably won't require too much Canadian content as long as there is a justifiable reason to purchase out of Canada. For about the last decade or so the Government of Canada has really backed off buy in Canada if there is a public interest (saving money) in going elsewhere.

Given the benefits of a larger order of cars for the name of efficiency, and the fact that the American & Canadian timelines seem to be roughly on par this could be a really good thing for the rail passenger car market.

Via received a fairly large amount of money to study new cars in this year's federal budget. I suspect the capital procurement process will begin next year or perhaps 2018.

Many of at least the OECD countries have actually moved away from this kind of protectionist measures, as they tend to give higher prices and sometimes lower quality or delivery problems, especially in instances where the domestic production base is thin or have to be rebuilt entirely (Viewliners, bilevels anyone?)

But even though there's no buy Canadian clause I very much doubt VIA would tag on to any order with a buy American clause. That is like getting all the disadvantages without at least getting the jobs, and the political fallout would not be pretty.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

I had to laugh at the first drawing in the post by MisterUptempo because it's horribly out-of-date (obviously, IDOT's "fault" not his). The paved area to the left of the tracks is now a nearly-complete riverside skyscraper. Yes, that means the tower visible in the background near the Lake Street L is long gone.

Of course, I can see why they'd use this picture because the old view makes it clear that this is the northern approach to Chicago Union Station while a more up-to-date view in the same spot would look like a generic, if rather wide, tunnel entrance. :giggle:

Actually two buildings, one on each side of Lake Street (which is where the el is in the pictures) and a riverwalk. Both had to go through structural acrobatics to clear the tracks, as did the Boeing building to their south which hung part of the building so no columns needed to be built in the ROW. I'm assuming at least, that the Hiawatha will get bilevels so this scene, minus the new buildings, could actually happen. Was the also to have been the route to Rockford?

 

[CSXfoamer1997]

I wonder if Amtrak will buy any of the N-S bilevels for long-distance service?

 

[CCC1007]

I wonder if Amtrak will buy any of the N-S bilevels for long-distance service?

If they follow the fleet plan then not for a decent amount of time...

 

[StriderGDM]

I wonder if Amtrak will buy any of the N-S bilevels for long-distance service?

No money in the budget at this time, so no

And any money they did free up would probably be to extend the Viewliner II contract or start work on procuring Amfleet II replacements

 

[Northeastern292]

VIA being VIA will probably place the order with Bombardier with some appropriate Canadian arrangement about pricing, discounts etc. etc. completely contained in Canada. Afterall one can expect a Make in Canada condition attached for a VIA order just like we in the US insist on our own.

The good news for the project is that Via probably won't require too much Canadian content as long as there is a justifiable reason to purchase out of Canada. For about the last decade or so the Government of Canada has really backed off buy in Canada if there is a public interest (saving money) in going elsewhere.

Given the benefits of a larger order of cars for the name of efficiency, and the fact that the American & Canadian timelines seem to be roughly on par this could be a really good thing for the rail passenger car market.

Via received a fairly large amount of money to study new cars in this year's federal budget. I suspect the capital procurement process will begin next year or perhaps 2018.

Even to have VIA onboard, even if they go to Bombardier while Amtrak goes to Siemes/Alstom is good as it does provide more horsepower for the deal. Also, makes it easier to be off-the-shelf.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

VIA being VIA will probably place the order with Bombardier with some appropriate Canadian arrangement about pricing, discounts etc. etc. completely contained in Canada. After all one can expect a Make in Canada condition attached for a VIA order just like we in the US insist on our own.

The good news ... is that Via probably won't require too much Canadian content as long as there is a justifiable reason to purchase out of Canada. ... the Government has really backed off buy in Canada if there is a public interest (saving money) in going elsewhere.

Even to have VIA onboard ... makes it easier to be off-the-shelf.

I don't understand how the North American Free Trade Agreement doesn't override the "100% Make in America" requirement.

Relaxing that rigidity to, say, only "90% Make in America" could be enuff to solve most sourcing problems reported by the car builders. And haven't they all complained? Talgo, CAF, Nippon Sharyo ... not sure Siemens has been out loud about it. Nobody worries about sourcing 10,000 seats in the U.S., that's easy. But there's some stuff that just isn't made in USA, is cheap to import, and very costly to custom-build for an Amtrak order.

So zero-tolerance for "Make in America" exceptions is about as big a failure as zero tolerance for sharing a Tylenol in the classroom or leaving a pocketknife in your pickup in the school parking lot. LOL. The authoritarians need to lighten up on all this stuff.

 

[PVD]

Because it doesn't tell the government what it has to buy, or pay for, it eliminates tariffs on products. Companies complain about everything if they think someone might listen. That certainly doesn't mean it is true.

 

[Northeastern292]

VIA being VIA will probably place the order with Bombardier with some appropriate Canadian arrangement about pricing, discounts etc. etc. completely contained in Canada. After all one can expect a Make in Canada condition attached for a VIA order just like we in the US insist on our own.

The good news ... is that Via probably won't require too much Canadian content as long as there is a justifiable reason to purchase out of Canada. ... the Government has really backed off buy in Canada if there is a public interest (saving money) in going elsewhere.

Even to have VIA onboard ... makes it easier to be off-the-shelf.

I don't understand how the North American Free Trade Agreement doesn't override the "100% Make in America" requirement.

Relaxing that rigidity to, say, only "90% Make in America" could be enuff to solve most sourcing problems reported by the car builders. And haven't they all complained? Talgo, CAF, Nippon Sharyo ... not sure Siemens has been out loud about it. Nobody worries about sourcing 10,000 seats in the U.S., that's easy. But there's some stuff that just isn't made in USA, is cheap to import, and very costly to custom-build for an Amtrak order.

So zero-tolerance for "Make in America" exceptions is about as big a failure as zero tolerance for sharing a Tylenol in the classroom or leaving a pocketknife in your pickup in the school parking lot. LOL. The authoritarians need to lighten up on all this stuff.

Agreed. While I am highly supportive of American manufacturing, it's more important that we expand the passenger rail system in any way possible, and if that means a temporary relaxation on Buy America laws, so be it. I believe in the long run the benefits will be worth it.

 

[CCC1007]

VIA being VIA will probably place the order with Bombardier with some appropriate Canadian arrangement about pricing, discounts etc. etc. completely contained in Canada. After all one can expect a Make in Canada condition attached for a VIA order just like we in the US insist on our own.

The good news ... is that Via probably won't require too much Canadian content as long as there is a justifiable reason to purchase out of Canada. ... the Government has really backed off buy in Canada if there is a public interest (saving money) in going elsewhere.

Even to have VIA onboard ... makes it easier to be off-the-shelf.

I don't understand how the North American Free Trade Agreement doesn't override the "100% Make in America" requirement.
Relaxing that rigidity to, say, only "90% Make in America" could be enuff to solve most sourcing problems reported by the car builders. And haven't they all complained? Talgo, CAF, Nippon Sharyo ... not sure Siemens has been out loud about it. Nobody worries about sourcing 10,000 seats in the U.S., that's easy. But there's some stuff that just isn't made in USA, is cheap to import, and very costly to custom-build for an Amtrak order.

So zero-tolerance for "Make in America" exceptions is about as big a failure as zero tolerance for sharing a Tylenol in the classroom or leaving a pocketknife in your pickup in the school parking lot. LOL. The authoritarians need to lighten up on all this stuff.

Agreed. While I am highly supportive of American manufacturing, it's more important that we expand the passenger rail system in any way possible, and if that means a temporary relaxation on Buy America laws, so be it. I believe in the long run the benefits will be worth it.

Does the buy American law apply to leased cars that Amtrak will never own, just return to the lessor at the end of the terms?

 

[frequentflyer]

How did VIA get involved in this conversation? Is somewhere speculating that VIA will want the same bilevel corridor cars?

 

[Northeastern292]

How did VIA get involved in this conversation? Is somewhere speculating that VIA will want the same bilevel corridor cars?

Sort of. In the last Section 305 Committee meeting it was in the minutes that VIA wanted to join as a non-voting interested party. Trudeau's win last October has been a move towards improving VIA, including funding for new equipment.

 

[TheMalahat]

Via is actually signed as a non-voting member onto the single level portion aren't they?

A large fleet of Via's stainless steal cars used in corridor service are starting down mandatory retirement sometime in the medium future, I cannot remember the exact date.

 

[afigg]

How did VIA get involved in this conversation? Is somewhere speculating that VIA will want the same bilevel corridor cars?

Back in post #450 I wrote about the June 7 NGEC minutes updates on the N-S bilevel status, I mentioned as a side item from the minutes that VIA was seeking permission to use the single-level car specification for their own expected future order and as a result, the executive committee was planning to invite VIA to join the NGEC Technical Subcommittee as a non-voting member. So VIA is only interested in ordering single level corridor cars and I could see them asking permission to use (for a fee) and modify the diesel locomotive specification as well to save VIA the cost of writing specs for RFPs from scratch.

My bad on mentioning VIA as a side item as much of the above posts are meandering off-topic as a VIA equipment order would very likely go to Bombardier who would build their own design in Canada (or a licensed variation of an existing single level design). Common specifications may facilitate cross-border operations, but specifications are not rolling stock designs; the potential manufacturers are going to build different equipment with different parts. That said, all this has little to do with the current N-S contract and schedule for the 130 bi-level car order.