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
1149 replies to this topic

#1141 jrud

jrud

    Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 20 August 2018 - 05:19 AM

700 car potential and night Siemens Viaggio passenger cars. Even smaller European countries use a lot of passenger cars. This includes an interesting render of the inside of a sleeping car. http://railcolornews...es-for-austria/

I saw and heard this a couple places, but might have missed it here. The end of the bi-level saga. http://www.chicagotr...0818-story.html

Edited by jrud, 20 August 2018 - 05:45 AM.


#1142 Just-Thinking-51

Just-Thinking-51

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,510 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:USA

Posted 20 August 2018 - 06:52 AM

Interesting the new OOB couchettes have individual doors. A four pod type of setup.

#1143 PerRock

PerRock

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,734 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ann Arbor, MI
  • Interests:Passenger Rail, Auran Trainz, Traveling, Graphic Design

Posted 20 August 2018 - 02:33 PM

Interesting the new OOB couchettes have individual doors. A four pod type of setup.


Most European trains offer a mix of services; both compartment coach (little rooms with 4-6 seats in them) or open coach (like what we have in the states). The compartments are nice as if you're traveling in a small group (say a family, or a couple coworkers) you can reserve the entire compartment.

peter

Edited by PerRock, 20 August 2018 - 02:34 PM.

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

#1144 Just-Thinking-51

Just-Thinking-51

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,510 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:USA

Posted 20 August 2018 - 03:05 PM

Interesting the new OOB couchettes have individual doors. A four pod type of setup.

Most European trains offer a mix of services; both compartment coach (little rooms with 4-6 seats in them) or open coach (like what we have in the states). The compartments are nice as if you're traveling in a small group (say a family, or a couple coworkers) you can reserve the entire compartment.

peter

Old style have 4-6 compartment, that can be converted to seats for 6.
New style are 4 Pods with a central climb/locker zone. Each pod has a door. No place to sit other than the bed.

I like the design. Did not know it had doors on each pod into yesterday.

#1145 jrud

jrud

    Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 86 posts

Posted 05 October 2018 - 05:41 AM

They continue to make progress with building the car shells and in design. http://www.highspeed...ly 9-30-18.docx

#1146 Ziv

Ziv

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 475 posts

Posted 05 October 2018 - 06:46 AM

I have to admit that in my lack of knowledge of the industry this looks more like a jobs program than an effort to choose new designs for rail cars and locomotives. Why not do an RFP for a single level car done to existing designs and be done with it? It would be a lot cheaper and there are so many existing designs out there that getting one railcar maker to build a couple hundred cars would seem to be fairly straightforward. Or has Amtrak poisoned the well with the Nippon Sharyo disaster and the CAF disappointments?

We already saw what happens when AMTRAK tries to call for a brand new design for a bi-level and made the deal with Nippon Sharyo. They made design requirements that were apparently impossible to deliver at the agreed price point and had to retreat to a single level design, but now it looks like they are calling for changes in Cab Car floor height transition and car length over coupler distance. Or so my reading of the doc would indicate. Like I said, this isn't my industry, but are they doing the same thing again, demanding nickle and dime changes and then wondering why the time line is moved back by a year?


Edited by Ziv, 05 October 2018 - 07:14 AM.


#1147 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,718 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 05 October 2018 - 07:27 AM

Amtrak did not make any deal with Nippon Sharyo. The corridor bi-levels order had nothing to do with Amtrak. It was a state(s) run project, and the resulting single level order is also a state run project. It helps to first get the facts right before trying to use them in an argument. ;)


  • Trogdor, seat38a, PVD and 2 others like this

#1148 Ziv

Ziv

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 475 posts

Posted 05 October 2018 - 07:36 AM

Like I said, this isn't my industry. But this is the thread following the Nippon Sharyo Bi-level debacle that ended up going to Sumitomo/Siemens w/single level cars. Whether it is Amtrak directly or not, was NGEC the lead group on the Nippon Sharyo design requirements? All I know is that Wikipedia said that they were the ones that helped design the Next Generation Bi-Level cars that were such a disaster. And that Amtrak was going to be the operator of those cars on most routes. I don't come here because I know everything about how these agencies work together, I come here because I don't understand it. And in this case, it seems to an outsider that NGEC is doing some of the same things that led to the Bi-Level disaster.

On edit: And I still don't understand what this means... " On 9-14-18 the modification to the Grant Agreement, including a 12 month no cost performance period extension (through 9-30-2010) and an approval of the revised SOW, was fully executed. "

Did that move the delivery date to the right by up to a year? What is a performance period extension and how will it impact deliver? Sorry for the newby questions but it is something that jumped out at me.

And to Jis's point about my getting Amtraks role wrong, was it the NGEC (or was it CalTrans?) that made the design requirements with the high buff test juxtaposed to a lower car weight requirement which worked at cross purposes to each other? Given the seemingly incredible complexity of the NGEC structure and the fact that the original PRIIA was Amtrak Specification #962, I assumed Amtrak was the lead dog. An incorrect assumption, obviously. My apologies for muddying the waters, so to speak. It is just that after seeing one acronym group/agency/watchdog/citizens group after another, I know less about this process now than I did a year ago. Or so it seems.

NGEC members linked to below.

http://www.highspeed...ved 10-25-6.pdf

How do you get that many groups to agree on anything if Amtrak doesn't take a lead role? Or is CalTrans the one that kind of leads the pack?

Again, sorry for basic questions, but this doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.


Edited by Ziv, 05 October 2018 - 08:21 AM.

  • jis and cpotisch like this

#1149 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,718 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 05 October 2018 - 08:20 AM

The Grant Agreement is between ASHTO and NGEC as far as I can tell. Apparently the FRA funding for NGEC's work flow through ASHTO as far as I can tell. NGEC was chartered to meet the PRIIA requirement to develop specifications for standard US engines, passenger cars etc. which could be viewed by some as a jobs project US style. But such standards have a role. In other countries typically the industry is allowed to lead such. In the US since there is no passenger car industry to speak of, something else had to be done.
 
The contract for delivering the cars is between CalDOT (acting on behalf of all the states involved) and Siemens via the prime contractor Sumitomo. AFAIK the existence or lack thereof of NGEC will have no impact on the ongoing purchase contracts, or for that matter, future ones.
 
After the bi-level fiasco, the NGEC has basically accepted all proposed changes to the single level specification that Siemens submitted in order to make the Siemens car compliant with the specification. Now they are in the process of essentially doing the same thing with the cab car specification. AFAICT Siemens is leading that and NGEC is basically taking the spec changes submitted by Siemens and more or less rubber stamping them, making sure that they meet the existing relevant CFRs. Again AFAICT the request for changing the length of the "locomotive" to 85’ is to allow power cars built into standard passenger car shells to be compliant with the locomotive specification. That is my guess.
 
Meanwhile MTA has developed a specification for dual mode (third rail) as has Amtrak based on the diesel specification, with modifications to the same. MTA is close to placing an order and Amtrak is working on reconciling differences between the MTA and Amtrak specs and submitting the common changes to the NGEC for incorporation in the NGEC specs. It looks like MTA, while making some effort to get NGEC compliance, is not particularly worried if their engine deviates some, since apparently they do not depend on federal funds for that particular purchase. This is similar to NJT not worrying about federal "Made in America" restrictions on their locomotive acquisitions funded entirely by NJDOT.
 
CalDOT, Amtrak, etc. just report current status of acquisition projects to NGEC, in addition to of course submitting change requests to the spec based on what they manufacturers are willing to deliver, after having learned that doing anything else leads to lack of acquisition, again as far as I can tell. Maybe someone has a more detailed clearer picture of the setup.

Edited by jis, 07 October 2018 - 07:40 AM.

  • Trogdor, Ziv and Pere Flyer like this

#1150 Ziv

Ziv

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 475 posts

Posted 05 October 2018 - 12:26 PM

Thanks for the detailed response! I need to go do some reading about AASHTO. I just ran into a document about the SCORT part of AASHTO so I am working my way into the acronym soup...

 

Your third paragraph is the answer I was hoping to hear. I was afraid from my tyro reading of some of the document that NGEC might be doing more micro-managing, but it sounds like I was wrong about that too. Which in this case is a good thing.

Thanks!


  • jis likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users