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

Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
keelhauled said:
My understanding is that the major advantage of the Chargers is they can handle the 110 mph trains with a single locomotive, whereas two P42s are presently required.
Click to expand...
Why is that? The two engines have similar power output, around 4200 hp.
 
It is probable that they are geared differently as well, the Cummins engine in the Chargers is a higher speed (crankshaft RPM) motor than the GE prime mover.
 
An update was posted on the progress of the cars. Nothing particularly exciting, but apparently the next scheduled (but not final) design review of the redesigned carbody is scheduled for May.
 
This does shed light on the design flaws. The car deformed at 798K lbs. It needs to not deform at 800K lbs. This is substantially less bad than prior posts seem to make it out to be.
 
It is just plain ridiculous that they are unable to design a car shell that meets a requirement that has been already met by many others. If this causes problems with the federal funds they should be on the hook for the entire amount IMHO
 
Just-Thinking-51 said:
Per the Amtrak Rep: this order is in big trouble, it was more than one failure, and the funding is in risk.

EPSA / NARP 2016 meeting.
Click to expand...
Best I can hope for is that Congress set the funding deadline, so Congress in its wisdom could extend the deadline.

Not a good place, to depend on the mercy of the crazies in Congress.
 
Steve4031 said:
Talgos are looking better at this point. Wish they would have used them. State of Illinois can't do anything right.
Click to expand...
Caltrans made the purchase, not Illinois, and Talgos aren't suitable for what CA and the Midwest want or need.
 
I know MDOT almost bought em, but shortly before it happened the state congress got all upset over the cost the state was paying to store the rebuilt commuter cars we have, so the purchase got put on hold. Last I checked it's still on hold, someone could tweet them and ask for an update in light of the NS issues, they were pretty receptive & responsive last time I did it.

peter
 
I thought it was a multi-state consortium with Illinois Dot as the lead, together with Caltrans. But it is 88 cars/Midwest 44 cars/Caltrans Wasn't that a big part of building them in Illinos? They were going to go with something that was built to the standards of the PRIIA. But that doesn't change the fact that the Talgos (or any other trainset scenario) were not what they were looking for.
 
PVD said:
I thought it was a multi-state consortium with Illinois Dot as the lead, together with Caltrans. But it is 88 cars/Midwest 44 cars/Caltrans Wasn't that a big part of building them in Illinos? They were going to go with something that was built to the standards of the PRIIA. But that doesn't change the fact that the Talgos (or any other trainset scenario) were not what they were looking for.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Nippon-Sharyo bi-level purchase is by a multi-state consortium with Caltran acting as the lead agency. The Next Generation Equipment Committee with representatives from multiple state DOTs, Amtrak, the FRA, and various consultants wrote the bi-level spec and oversaw the contract bid and selection process. AFAIK, the decision to award the contract to NS was made by the 4 states, Amtrak, and the FRA (as the FRA is the source of most of the funding).

Not all of the funding for the 130 bi-levels is from stimulus funds with a September, 2017 deadline. Some of the funding is FY2010 money and some is California state funds which don't have the deadline. Whether the FRA can shuffle funds between FY2010 and stimulus accounts and projects to help cover a delay in delivery by NS, don't know. That there is a statement that the contract is at risk indicates that the FRA is limited in what it can do. If not all of the stimulus funds can be spent by the deadline, CA has the resources to step up and cover the gap for the bi-levels it is ordering if it has to. But Illinois (under Gov. Rauner), Michigan, Missouri are another matter.

In more normal times in Washington, Senator Durbin (D-IL) or another Senator along with a House member would work to add a rider to an appropriations bill authorizing the FRA to extend the September, 2017 deadline 1 or 2 years and leave it to FRA to decide which projects to allow extensions for, provided there is a justification. Would be a boon to CA HSR as well as the bi-level contract. It would only take a couple of sentences tucked away in a 1000 page bill. Would not add anything to the official deficit as the money has already been spoken for in terms of annual spending. However, we are not in normal times on Capitol Hill. The tea party Republicans would try to block anything having to do with the Obama stimulus program, even 7 years later.
 
Hi,

According to the latest committee report, a new draft delivery schedule may be released in mid-April.
 
This is not the first production fiasco, as I'm sure we're aware. Is it a flaw in the bidding process? I'm not an expert in this area, but is there even a penalty clause of some sort relating to meeting production deadlines? It seems that companies underbid so that they can get the job, then wind up either missing deadlines, and/or putting out a shoddy product. I think this is also happening in the awarding of some commuter rail transit contracts.
 
Caesar La Rock said:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/delays-may-derail-stimulus-funding-for-amtrak-railcars-1460308921
Click to expand...
Well, it's a dirty job but somebody gotta do it. Fair use excerpts from the thorough and horror-filled article in the Wall Street Journal:



Delays May Derail Stimulus Funding for Amtrak Railcars

... Funding for about three-quarters of the 130-car order is tied to the 2009 [stimulus]. [it] required the cars be built entirely with domestically sourced components and materials. [They] must be completed by Sept. 2017 and missing the deadline would result in any unspent money being redirected by the federal government.

... assembly work by ... Nippon Sharyo USA Inc., was suspended last fall after it was unable to comply with U.S. design requirements.... Crashworthiness ... a primary focus of car designers since ... Nippon Sharyo’s car hasn’t been able to pass a federally mandated test for absorbing rear- and front-end compression force generated in a crash.

After repeated failures, engineers are now redesigning the car’s body shell. That and testing will take about two more years ... The job was to be finished in 2018, the stimulus-funded portion ... in 2017. Now, Nippon Sharyo isn’t expected to start production until 2018 . . .
Click to expand...
Maybe CAF should take over this order? :(
 
Well I guess California can pay for more wreaked Amtrak LD cars sitting around at Beach Grove to be fixed and then put into State Service. How many are sitting around?
 
Most of these cars were to be funded by the stimulus bill, but not all. Of the cars funded directly by the state(s), how many each of those are for California and the mid-western states?

We may well be seeing Horizon cars on Chicago regional trains for years to come, pulled by brand new Siemens locomotives...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Palmetto said:
This is not the first production fiasco, as I'm sure we're aware. Is it a flaw in the bidding process? I'm not an expert in this area, but is there even a penalty clause of some sort relating to meeting production deadlines? It seems that companies underbid so that they can get the job, then wind up either missing deadlines, and/or putting out a shoddy product. I think this is also happening in the awarding of some commuter rail transit contracts.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are penalty clauses. As mentioned in the WSJ article: "Blown delivery deadlines could leave Nippon Sharyo liable for several million dollars of damage fees for violating the contract terms, sources familiar with the contract said. The states could use that money to pay for some railcars, but would likely have to find other sources to make up the shortfall."

A few million dollars in fees for missing the tight deadline will only pay for a couple of cars. The flaw in the bidding process is arguably with how long it took to write the specifications, requirements, write an RFP, and award the contract. I think the contract award to N-S was announced in late 2012, but that is just the award selection. Given the complexities of a multi-state contract, the Notice to Proceed might not have been given until some months later.

The problem is the stimulus deadline of September, 2017. N-S had a manufacturing plant that built passenger rail cars when they won the contract. The challenge as discussed (briefly) in the WSJ are all the requirements to buy all the parts from US vendors, meet FRA regulations, and design & fabricate a new design in the time allowed. In a normal build contract, if there is a 1 or even 2 year slip, the agency that awarded the contract might be unhappy and the contractor may take a hit in penalty fees, but the funding remains available, and eventually the rolling stock gets delivered. See the CAF Viewliner II and the seriously delayed Series 7000 car deliveries for WMATA as examples.

There is a fix for the deadline. Senator Durbin could team with one of the California Senators and insert a rider in an appropriations bill to give the FRA the authority to extend the stimulus deadline for up to 2 years to September, 2019 if the FRA determines there are legitimate reasons on a case by case basis to do so. Could probably be done in 2-3 sentences in a bill. The catch, of course, is that while such a rider could probably get through the Senate, there will be House Republicans who will go out of their way to block any such extension. In a normal functioning Congress, an extension would be no big deal. After all, the funds have already been obligated and "spent" from a budget viewpoint. But we don't have a normal functioning Congress.

Whether the FRA has a legal work-around the deadline for the bi-level stimulus funds, don't know. Pay N-S in advance with new full refund clauses if they don't deliver or something similar, if that is even possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top