Funds Obligated for 120 bi-level coach car buy

[afigg]

Some good news in the midst of the budget and debt ceiling battles. US DOT has announced that $336.2 million of the re-allocated stimulus funds has been obligated towards a combined total purchase of 120 bi-level coach cars and 25 diesel locomotives. US DOT press release at http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2011/fra1611.html . This means the funding for the bi-level is locked in and the House Republicans can not simply rescind it. I wonder if the threat of further rescissions motivated the state DOTs and Amtrak to hurry up?

Selected paragraphs:

"U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced that California, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Missouri will receive $336.2 million to purchase next-generation, American-made trains that will run on rail corridors in those states. Previously awarded rail dollars bring the amount received by these five states and Washington State to $782 million for the purchase of 33 quick-acceleration locomotives and 120 bi-level passenger cars.

...

"

California and Illinois reached cooperative agreements with the Federal Railroad Administration to begin a multi-state procurement of equipment for passenger rail corridors in California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Oregon and Washington State. Through a joint procurement process states will leverage these federal investments, along with state matching dollars, ensuring taxpayers receive the best possible deal while creating the necessary momentum to encourage manufacturers to build equipment in U.S. plants with American workers and suppliers."

"Trains will be designed to travel more than 110 mph along intercity passenger corridors, and meet standards developed by the state-led, Next Generation Equipment Committee. This will provide manufacturers with consistent specifications for all passenger trains in the United States, reducing costs for manufacturers and customers, while providing a boost to the railcar manufacturing industry. The state partners will now begin a joint procurement process, first issuing a request for information (RFI) and then a request for proposal (RFP) to allow for an open and competitive process. The RFI is expected to be issued in late summer 2011."

Since there is a fixed amount of money available, if the bi-level bids per unit come in lower due to price competition, one would hope that the states and Amtrak would get as many additional bi-levels as they can as they could put the additional cars to use.

Now, who would be likely to bid on the bi-levels, given the US manufacturing requirement?

Also, how many Superliner coach cars and Amfleets are in service in California and the mid-West routes? Depending on the terms of the deal with California, figure Amtrak would like to move the Superliner coaches to the LD fleet. And any extra Amfleet Is back to the east for extra capacity. And the Horizons get freed up for where ever Amtrak can put them to use.

 

[Anderson]

More capacity. Good...this is definitely what is needed.

An interesting dog that didn't bark is in there, too: Iowa is listed as one of the beneficiary states (unlike Indiana and a few other states). Very interesting.

 

[Steve4031]

This made my dang day. The horizons have held the fort. But we need something better.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Great news! More! More!!(Wonder if the Governors of Wisconson,Ohio and Florida are having second thoughts?? )

 

[MattW]

Will these 120 cars be able to completely replace the Midwestern fleet even after the Hiawaths have gone Talgo?

 

[Steve4031]

The 120 will cover california as well as Illinois.

 

[Anderson]

I think these are mainly going to end up being supplementary (that is, increasing capacity more than replacing cars). Ridership on most routes has skyrocketed over the last few years; on most of the MW corridors, I'm showing increases of 100%+ since 2003. So what we're looking at is an increase in system capacity more than cycling out cars, however much Amtrak management may not like that.

 

[afigg]

Will these 120 cars be able to completely replace the Midwestern fleet even after the Hiawaths have gone Talgo?

The 120 bi-levels are split between California and the Midwest. CA, which is also contributing state funding, is to get 42 bi-levels. The Mid-west 78. With plans for service expansion in the Midwest, if the delivery is 78 bi-levels cars, the answer is likely no. I would expect that the Chicago to St. Louis and Chicago to Detroit corridors will get first dibs on the bi-levels as they will be the premium upgraded to 110 mph speed corridors. The rest may get put on some corridors while others stay with Horizons.

It should be noted that Wisconsin is not mentioned in the list of states. WI ordered only 2 Talgos before Walker became governor. It is going to be operationally awkward for Amtrak to have unique equipment with two fixed capacity consist trainsets running on 1 corridor mixed in with Horizons and bi-levels. If there are no more Talgo trainsets being built at the WI facility, odds are that the logical thing to do will be to eventually sell them to WA state for Cascades service.

This is also not necessarily the last word on bi-level orders for the next decade. One major purpose of the standard spec and Amtrak's fleet strategy is to provide for an sustained industrial base to build cars to order. If there is more federal funding available in 2013, then IL and the mid-west states could add more bi-levels to the end of the order.

The tough question is what does Amtrak do over the next few years on their need to start replacing the Superliner Is? (And the Amfleet IIs?) The good news is that there will be an active bi-level passenger car production facility for the next 4-5? years, so Amtrak has a window to start placing Superliner 3 orders with modest configuration changes from the corridor bi-levels.

 

[afigg]

More capacity. Good...this is definitely what is needed.

An interesting dog that didn't bark is in there, too: Iowa is listed as one of the beneficiary states (unlike Indiana and a few other states). Very interesting.

Indiana is mentioned elsewhere in the press release, because of the Michigan trains that stop in IN. Wisconsin is the notable exception.

As for Iowa, the last I heard was the state legislature left the initial funding in place, enough to get started on the FY10 award, but that the Iowa City service expansion was in the hands of the Governor. There have been a number of smaller projects obligated very recently, one of which was $17.3 million to Iowa for the Ottumwa Sub Crossover which will benefit the California Zephyr, so that track improvement project is moving ahead.

 

[NE933]

More good news! We need this to continue.

 

[Anderson]

More capacity. Good...this is definitely what is needed.

An interesting dog that didn't bark is in there, too: Iowa is listed as one of the beneficiary states (unlike Indiana and a few other states). Very interesting.

Indiana is mentioned elsewhere in the press release, because of the Michigan trains that stop in IN. Wisconsin is the notable exception.

As for Iowa, the last I heard was the state legislature left the initial funding in place, enough to get started on the FY10 award, but that the Iowa City service expansion was in the hands of the Governor. There have been a number of smaller projects obligated very recently, one of which was $17.3 million to Iowa for the Ottumwa Sub Crossover which will benefit the California Zephyr, so that track improvement project is moving ahead.

I saw the others listed, but it was interesting seeing IA on the list for locomotives and/or coaches, since I don't think there are currently any corridors in operation in IA proper (most of the current lines, not to mention the plans actively being pursued, run from CHI to the IL border).

 

[NE933]

On another train site, they are discussing this in terms of interoperability with the existing Superliner fleet. So how similar and/or different are these next generation bi-levels going to be from the Superliners? Will CAF be a likely winner of any long distance version for this procurement contract, so that Amtrak can nurse their learning curves further along, to revive an industry supplier?

 

[Blackshirt Husker]

More capacity. Good...this is definitely what is needed.

An interesting dog that didn't bark is in there, too: Iowa is listed as one of the beneficiary states (unlike Indiana and a few other states). Very interesting.

Indiana is mentioned elsewhere in the press release, because of the Michigan trains that stop in IN. Wisconsin is the notable exception.

As for Iowa, the last I heard was the state legislature left the initial funding in place, enough to get started on the FY10 award, but that the Iowa City service expansion was in the hands of the Governor. There have been a number of smaller projects obligated very recently, one of which was $17.3 million to Iowa for the Ottumwa Sub Crossover which will benefit the California Zephyr, so that track improvement project is moving ahead.

Iowa's governor is not exactly pro-rail. I'm worried about the future of this project.

 

[Railroad Bill]

Unfortunately, the Governor of Ohio is a "traditionalist" and just didnt want those new fangled High Speed Trains running up there to Cleveland. :lol:

"Columbus doesn't need all those city slickers from CLE and CIN coming here stirring things up."

:lol: :lol:

So I will just hitch up my wagon and head out to CLE next week to catch the LSL to BOS

It would really be funny if it werent so sad we lost all that money-jobs-etc to other states.

 

[afigg]

On another train site, they are discussing this in terms of interoperability with the existing Superliner fleet. So how similar and/or different are these next generation bi-levels going to be from the Superliners? Will CAF be a likely winner of any long distance version for this procurement contract, so that Amtrak can nurse their learning curves further along, to revive an industry supplier?

There are discussions on the bi-level corridor and long distance cars in the Amtrak Fleet Strategy V2 plan. Amtrak is clearly planning to use the bi-level corridor cars as the base for the LD fleet with configuration and specification changes. Some selected extracts from the V2 plan:

"Despite the secular growth scenario anticipated for Long Distance service, the fact that this existing fleet of both single level and bi-level equipment is scheduled for replacement with a new generation of conventional rolling stock creates an opportunity to advance a fleet acquisition strategy for conventional corridor equipment for both states and the NEC. The next generation of single and bi-level passenger coaches and café cars is being designed to meet the needs of corridors and Long Distance service, so that a significant and ongoing volume of equipment orders will be available to stimulate the supplier base needed to support passenger rail expansion. In effect, the well defined Long Distance fleet replacement need reflected in this plan presents an economy of scale sufficient to attract a supplier base and provide equipment on which to “piggy-back” initial corridor equipment orders."

...

"Implementation of an ongoing program of acquisition of bi-level cars at an average annual rate of 35 cars per year. The equipment will be delivered in both long distance and corridor configurations, with breakdown determined on an as-needed basis. The first cars will be delivered in 2014."

...

"The implementation of an acquisition program for bi-level corridor cars does not change the demand for bi-level long distance cars. The process for defining a specification for such cars is underway. The goal is to use as much of the specification for the corridor cars as practical in a car optimized for long distance service.

The timeframes for creation of the specification mean an acquisition program is likely to start later in 2011. The first deliveries will therefore slip into 2015. The main program has been adjusted to reflect this program change. This need will have to be balanced with the core bi-level replacement requirement. Already there is a shortage of capacity in the Superliner sleeper fleet – a fleet that is high on the priority list for replacement as it is – and matching this need with that of the corridor services will need to be carefully managed."

A major aspect of the Fleet Strategy Plan is avoid placing big one time orders and then nothing for 10-15 years. The goal is a more steady stream of orders to maintain a manufacturing base. The smaller order approach also allows for quicker ramping up of capacity if ridership growth is higher than projected. The money to order 120 bi-level corridor cars is in place. The question is what will Amtrak do for Superliner I replacements? Rather than ordering 250 new cars in in shot, the plan discusses ordering so many per year. With limited capital funding from Congress, Amtrak might go ahead and order 50 bi-level sleepers piggy-backing on the bi-level order, then 50 cars of a different type in several years for example. Use RRIF loans to cover the bulk of the acquisition cost and pay the loans down in the good years from Congress or from revenue as ridership grows. The next 2 years will be interesting, if nothing else.

 

[George Harris]

On another train site, they are discussing this in terms of interoperability with the existing Superliner fleet. So how similar and/or different are these next generation bi-levels going to be from the Superliners? Will CAF be a likely winner of any long distance version for this procurement contract, so that Amtrak can nurse their learning curves further along, to revive an industry supplier?

Google PRIIA Bi-Level passenger rail car or PRIIA specification no. 305-001 amtrak specification no. 962

This should ge you a 580 page document that tells you all you want to know on the subject and a lot more besides.

A few gems:

The purpose of this specification is to define the performance and technical requiremetns for a fleet of new third-generation bi-level passenger rail cars for use in medium to long distance intecity corrider service in North America.. . .

The goal of the PRIIA is to create a bi-level intercity corridor car specification that may be used by any state or agency to procure bi-level rolling stock for intercity service.

They are to have two doors each side, two stairways, electric outlets at each seat, restrooms on both upper and lower levels, be trainlined for push-pull service, etc. There will obviously be some cab cars, and also some lounge cars.

They are to fit with Amtrak's bi-level clearance envelope, which is drawing B-066-00050, rev 1. (google that one if interested.)

Functional compatibility with other bi-level car fleets is a requirement of this specification. Existing bi-level fleets rreferenced include Superliners, California Cars, and Surfliners
The cars as specified will be able to operate as a discreet fleet, or intermingled with other bi-level intercity cars.

The cars shall be designed and manufactured to perform satisfactorily for a minimum of 40 years.

And: when it comes to speed:

The cars shall be designed and tested for revenue operation at all speeds up to 125 mph, on all classes of track from FRA Class 1 to Class 7.

That is 125 mph folks!

It also says able to operate on curves with up to 5 inches unbalanced superelevation.

 

[Anderson]

One problem with the quote from the Fleet Strategy Plan is that Boardman has consistently refused to order new equipment. Mind you, at least in theory some single-level sleepers could be pressed into service out west (think the old Santa Fe setups, or what Amtrak did at some points back in the 70s...there are some pictures on the '75 trip that was posted that show this), but that is not an ideal fix.

 

[Ryan]

One problem with the quote from the Fleet Strategy Plan is that Boardman has consistently refused to order new equipment.

With the exception of the Viewliners. And then the new electrics. And now the bilevels.

 

[bretton88]

Great news! More! More!!(Wonder if the Governors of Wisconson,Ohio and Florida are having second thoughts?? )

Scott Walker definitely is. He just approved 34 million dollars in state money for Hiawatha upgrades, with the goal of 90 million over 3 years in improvements. WI also picked up the option for 2 more locomotives and 2 more Talgo trainsets. All this while the rest of the midwest goes bi-level.

 

[Anderson]

One problem with the quote from the Fleet Strategy Plan is that Boardman has consistently refused to order new equipment.

With the exception of the Viewliners. And then the new electrics. And now the bilevels.

*sighs* Sorry, unclear reference. I was referring to the reference in the plan to buying new Superliner LD equipment, which Boardman has been very reluctant to try and buy.

Edit: Also, Walker has been doing a frustrating dance. As he seems to put it, he's all fine with souping up the existing Hiawatha service (which is quite popular, and as an intercity mass transit system it has a decent CR number, too). Granted, this is likely hedging more than actual support, but it's an easy fudge.

Of course, since he's fine with boosting existing services (including, quite clearly, improved frequencies) but not "new" services, can someone please call him on routing expanded CHI-MSP service through the existing EB line?

Edit 2: Also, there seems to be something strange going on in FL. I think I heard rumblings of actually rounding up the private sector funding for a line in the Orlando area.

 

[Ryan]

One problem with the quote from the Fleet Strategy Plan is that Boardman has consistently refused to order new equipment.

With the exception of the Viewliners. And then the new electrics. And now the bilevels.

*sighs* Sorry, unclear reference. I was referring to the reference in the plan to buying new Superliner LD equipment, which Boardman has been very reluctant to try and buy.

OK, gotcha. That's still a part of the plan. Aside from the fact that we don't have the money sitting around to do it, ordering everything at once is at odds with the plan to keep a steady state procurement to keep the factories going. After the viewliners, electrics, bilevels and high speed diesels the Superliner replacements will come.

 

[Anderson]

One problem with the quote from the Fleet Strategy Plan is that Boardman has consistently refused to order new equipment.

With the exception of the Viewliners. And then the new electrics. And now the bilevels.

*sighs* Sorry, unclear reference. I was referring to the reference in the plan to buying new Superliner LD equipment, which Boardman has been very reluctant to try and buy.

OK, gotcha. That's still a part of the plan. Aside from the fact that we don't have the money sitting around to do it, ordering everything at once is at odds with the plan to keep a steady state procurement to keep the factories going. After the viewliners, electrics, bilevels and high speed diesels the Superliner replacements will come.

I can definitely see that...granted, I'd rather see a multi-year purchasing plan committed to that would get a steady stream of business going to a domestic supplier (or at least one on the North American continent) rather than having to see new factories built every time.

 

[afigg]

OK, gotcha. That's still a part of the plan. Aside from the fact that we don't have the money sitting around to do it, ordering everything at once is at odds with the plan to keep a steady state procurement to keep the factories going. After the viewliners, electrics, bilevels and high speed diesels the Superliner replacements will come.

I can definitely see that...granted, I'd rather see a multi-year purchasing plan committed to that would get a steady stream of business going to a domestic supplier (or at least one on the North American continent) rather than having to see new factories built every time.

Until the funding and agreements are in place for the corridor bi-level order, made little sense for Amtrak to proceed on it's own. With the funding to buy 120 (or more) bi-levels in place, which is enough to get a production line going, Amtrak can either piggy-back on the current order or wait several years to start place long distance bi-level orders in what they hope will be a more favorable funding environment.

One question is, if Amtrak has to choose between Amfleet II replacements for the eastern fleet and Superliner I replacements in the next 3-4 years, which do they choose? Figure they have to take out a RRIF loan to cover the bulk of the acquisition costs and can't afford to load up on that much debt.

The multi-year purchase approach is a major part of the Amtrak Fleet Strategy Plan v2 document. The goal is to place a steady stream of smaller orders to sustain industrial capacity and get away from the one time large purchase orders with everything delivered in a 2-3 year period. And then, no US based factories to choose from when you need to place another order.

 

[Anderson]

OK, gotcha. That's still a part of the plan. Aside from the fact that we don't have the money sitting around to do it, ordering everything at once is at odds with the plan to keep a steady state procurement to keep the factories going. After the viewliners, electrics, bilevels and high speed diesels the Superliner replacements will come.

I can definitely see that...granted, I'd rather see a multi-year purchasing plan committed to that would get a steady stream of business going to a domestic supplier (or at least one on the North American continent) rather than having to see new factories built every time.

Until the funding and agreements are in place for the corridor bi-level order, made little sense for Amtrak to proceed on it's own. With the funding to buy 120 (or more) bi-levels in place, which is enough to get a production line going, Amtrak can either piggy-back on the current order or wait several years to start place long distance bi-level orders in what they hope will be a more favorable funding environment.

One question is, if Amtrak has to choose between Amfleet II replacements for the eastern fleet and Superliner I replacements in the next 3-4 years, which do they choose? Figure they have to take out a RRIF loan to cover the bulk of the acquisition costs and can't afford to load up on that much debt.

The multi-year purchase approach is a major part of the Amtrak Fleet Strategy Plan v2 document. The goal is to place a steady stream of smaller orders to sustain industrial capacity and get away from the one time large purchase orders with everything delivered in a 2-3 year period. And then, no US based factories to choose from when you need to place another order.

Unquestionably, Amfleets. Again, there are enough routes that are height-restricted; in a crunch, you could flip the Cap or CONO to single-level if you absolutely had to; you cannot do the opposite to the Silvers, Crescent, or Cardinal unless you start dropping part of the consist in Washington (nor the Lake Shore unless you do something that makes virtually no sense like, if even technically possible, rerouting it into Grand Central).

Edit: In fact, switching the Cap might make sense if they go ahead with the Pennsylvanian cars and get into an equipment crunch on the Superliner side. Mind you, if they can fill the new space on the single-level sleepers, they definitely need more of those, but I'll let load factors and pricing tell that story...but if that holds, I think they need to put an order for more of those in.

(Reposted because of errors above with coding...I hate it when the site does this)

Mod note: I deleted your duplicate post.

 

[WICT106]

Good. Get the funds allocated before any recision takes place. Get the funding, and get the projects underway. The national fleet is getting a bit long in the tooth.

However, something tells me that WI Gov. Walker is too stubborn to admit that he made a mistake in refusing the funds for the Hiawatha extension to Madison. WI rail advocates are regrouping, and plotting new strategy, though.