Jump to content




Help Support AmtrakTrains.com by donating using the link above or becoming a Supporting Member.

Photo

Sumitomo/Siemens Contract for 137 Cars (former bi-levels)


  • Please log in to reply
954 replies to this topic

#941 CSXfoamer1997

CSXfoamer1997

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 478 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 November 2017 - 12:51 PM

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



#942 Steve4031

Steve4031

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,208 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago
  • Interests:Riding Trains Often!!

Posted 12 November 2017 - 01:34 PM

Yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

#943 west point

west point

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,240 posts

Posted 12 November 2017 - 05:24 PM

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.


Edited by west point, 12 November 2017 - 05:28 PM.


#944 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,190 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 12 November 2017 - 05:32 PM

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
 
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


Edited by jis, 13 November 2017 - 12:24 PM.


#945 Blackwolf

Blackwolf

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,388 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CIC
  • Interests:Public Safety, passenger rail, travel, hunting, fishing

Posted 12 November 2017 - 05:33 PM

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. 


Amtrak
Capitol Corridor (too many times to count!); Coast Starlight (x21); California Zephyr (x7); Empire Builder (x2); Lake Shore Limited (x4); Maple Leaf (x1); Adirondack (x2); Cascades (x1); Pacific Surfliner (x6); San Joaquin (x8); Capitol Limited (x1); Cardinal (x2); Acela (x1)
VIA Rail
Ocean (x4); Windsor Corridor (x2); The Canadian (x1)


#946 jamess

jamess

    Train Attendant

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 13 November 2017 - 11:26 AM

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.



#947 neroden

neroden

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,215 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Ithaca, NY
  • Interests:Please feel free to moderate my posts

Posted 13 November 2017 - 02:18 PM

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).


--Nathanael--

Please feel free to moderate my posts.

#948 brianpmcdonnell17

brianpmcdonnell17

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 691 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 November 2017 - 02:33 PM

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
Routes Travelled: CL WAS-CHI, Card. CHI-WAS, Caro. CLT-RGH, CS SJC-LAX, Cre. BAL-ATL, EB MSP-CHI, ES NYG/NYP-NFL, LSL BOS-ALB, ML ALB-NYP, NER FBG-RVR+WAS-BOS, PS LAX-ANA, Pen. NYP-PGH, Pie. RGH-DNC, SM ORL-NYP, SS FTL-WAS
New Routes: LSL NYP-CHI, CZ CHI-RIC, CS SJC-SEA, EB SEA-MSP

#949 neroden

neroden

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,215 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Ithaca, NY
  • Interests:Please feel free to moderate my posts

Posted 13 November 2017 - 03:07 PM

 

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.


Edited by neroden, 13 November 2017 - 03:08 PM.

--Nathanael--

Please feel free to moderate my posts.

#950 A Voice

A Voice

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 759 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 November 2017 - 03:19 PM

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.co...siemens-midwest


Edited by A Voice, 13 November 2017 - 03:20 PM.


#951 brianpmcdonnell17

brianpmcdonnell17

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 691 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 November 2017 - 03:48 PM

 

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.
Yeah, politics is obviously an issue. I am hopeful, however, as little significant progress has been made by the new administration so I would be surprised if most states didn't make at least somewhat of a turn back in the other direction in 2018. Besides the operational funding, how much start-up funding and time would likely be required before a second Pere Marquette (or another similar route) could be implemented?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app
Routes Travelled: CL WAS-CHI, Card. CHI-WAS, Caro. CLT-RGH, CS SJC-LAX, Cre. BAL-ATL, EB MSP-CHI, ES NYG/NYP-NFL, LSL BOS-ALB, ML ALB-NYP, NER FBG-RVR+WAS-BOS, PS LAX-ANA, Pen. NYP-PGH, Pie. RGH-DNC, SM ORL-NYP, SS FTL-WAS
New Routes: LSL NYP-CHI, CZ CHI-RIC, CS SJC-SEA, EB SEA-MSP

#952 PerRock

PerRock

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,660 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ann Arbor, MI
  • Interests:Passenger Rail, Auran Trainz, Traveling, Graphic Design

Posted 13 November 2017 - 04:02 PM

 

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

 

 

None of the Michigan Service trains will see any increase in the frequency of trains until Indiana gets sorted out. Currently there isn't any more space on the Norfolk Southern tracks across Indiana. There are some projects in the works to ease the congestion there. 

 

Amtrak's holiday trains on that section essentially take the relief spot on the tracks, so any problem that happens when those trains are running means some train gets cancelled (could be an NS train, could be an Amtrak train).

 

MDOT does want to increase the frequency of the Wolverine (at least). So once the line is improved you should see an added trip on that line.

 

peter


Given the choice; I fly Amtrak.
 
http://www.amtraktrainz.com

#953 amtrakpass

amtrakpass

    Train Attendant

  • Training
  • Pip
  • 49 posts

Posted 13 November 2017 - 05:07 PM

I would guess the hold-up on additional Michigan frequencies is the state of Michigan not wanting to pay what Amtrak is asking or not having the funding. If they are willing and have funding,then perhaps NS is just stonewalling. The Indiana projects with new interlockings and 3rd main track are complete and in-service. In fact, PTC is in effect between Elkhart and Chicago at least for a few trains in a testing phase. I know people like to talk about big delays between Chicago and Porter but I have not seen anything major as far as Amtrak delays on the NS Chicago Line since the auto-router meltdown which has been several years ago now. Of course Amtrak might take a hit on occassion like the stuck draw-bridge the other day or delays on the day you happen to take the train but there is plenty of capacity for more Amtrak on this line on a day to day basis right now. Hoping for a daytime service to and from Cleveland or Pittsburgh myself in addition to more Michigan service. Hoping these nice new Siemens cars will be a harbinger of increased midwestern service!

#954 neroden

neroden

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,215 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Ithaca, NY
  • Interests:Please feel free to moderate my posts

Posted 14 November 2017 - 05:59 PM

MDOT is, last I checked, blaming the FRA for the lack of progress on "South of the Lake".  But bluntly I expect MDOT to do nothing much for increased service unless a friendly *state* administration is elected.


--Nathanael--

Please feel free to moderate my posts.

#955 WoodyinNYC

WoodyinNYC

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,453 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NYC

Posted 14 November 2017 - 07:29 PM

MDOT is, last I checked, blaming the FRA for the lack of progress on "South of the Lake".

The website for the "South of the Lake" project went dark. I had it bookmarked, but I should have saved the content ... anyway.

 

Now some "volunteer" has set up housekeeping at the old site. Michigan didn't even renew the domain name. LOL.

 

The imposter has done a pretty good job imitating the officialese style with his site -- except for lacking maps, figures, dates and timelines, or other useful info.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users