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

shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
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.
Single level cars in CA? ... With all low level platforms!

I don't see how this is a great solution. One would think they would just order more cars based on the surfliner car...
 
Steve4031 said:
They could raise a portion of each platform with ramp access. Then there would be level boarding for some cars. The specs show that the brightline cars have retractable bridge plates.
Click to expand...
I think that was done in Milwaukee. The architect of the new station actually has their offices upstairs in my office building, but they aren't very friendly, so I can't really ask them that question - which was why was it partially raised. That may have been done by a consultant anyways - they are a very small firm anyhow.
 
MisterUptempo said:
bretton88 said:
Interesting, I notice that the notice calls for the exact same quantity of single level cars as bi-levels. That seems like a bad capacity reduction. Having said that, if they are switching to the brightline cars, that is a really good move. Siemens can probably get a slightly modified design of those cars rolling with fairly low lead time.

One interesting note that might be overlooked, Sumitayo (I think that's how you spell it) is still the prime contractor. They have just agreed to subcontract Siemens to build the cars. In this way there's no need to void and re-bid the existing contract. It's essentially a change order and hiring Siemens as a sub.
Click to expand...
But isn't it a little more complicated than that? As was discussed on "another board" (and let's just mention it was railroad.net), the original procurement process for the order required bi-level railcars that adhered to PRIIA Section 305/NGEC specs. If I recall (and I'm kicking myself for not saving the document), some manufacturers were dismissed out of hand because they presented bids for product that did not comply with Sec. 305.
And now Caltrans/IDOT plan to just allow Sumitomo to contract with Siemens, to build a single-level railcar that likely won't adhere to Sec. 305 single-level standards, much less bi-level?

I question Siemens' ability to meet Sec. 305 because, as was pointed out at the other board, Siemens has already prepared a presentation explaining why the Brightline Viaggio Comforts don't follow Sec. 305 in some areas. You'll find that presentation here- http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/brightline-Coach-Siemens-2.pdf

The original RFP was awfully specific. Isn't it possible (likely, perhaps) that there would need to be a new RFP process, as Sumitomo is looking to deliver a product that is nothing like what was asked for? Short of doing that, I foresee legal teams from all the railcar manufacturers not named Siemens or Sumitomo/N-S lining up to file suit.

ETA - Another question - I remember that some of the losing bidders complained that N-S was lowballing their bid to get the contract. If this substitution is allowed to continue, and the costs of the Siemens single-level are greater than the original N-S bi-level costs, who pays the difference?
Click to expand...
Single level cars are supposed to be cheaper than bi-levels, so they're adjusting for the costs by producing the same # of single level cars. In theory that pool of money should have bought more single level cars than bi-levels.
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
 
The Budd Company is still in business but their railroad assembly plant was closed years ago. They are still a big company and could probably make railroad cars again if they wanted to, but probably not at the price Amtrak is willing to pay.

ACF Industries the successor to American Car and Foundry in Milton, PA still makes railroad cars but they are concentrating on freight cars only. They have a facility that is large enough to make passenger cars but they have not done any of this work for years. Like Budd a long shot for passenger work.

Then there is Bombardier USA , one of the original Superliner manufacturers still in the passenger rail business. .AFAIK, Amtrak ( or the states) were not pushing for their double level equipment so they ended up with a manufacturer that has no idea how to meet specs. Are passengers cars that difficult to make or is it just a price issue????
 
At this point we're not at the manufacturer not being able to meet specs, NS is a very experienced car builder. We're at the point of realizing the spec, which was designed by a government committee, isn't workable. Siemens themselves said up front they thought the weight spec couldn't be met, especially since their lighter European stock is still over the PRIAA weight spec.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
 
dlagrua said:
The Budd Company is still in business but their railroad assembly plant was closed years ago. They are still a big company and could probably make railroad cars again if they wanted to, but probably not at the price Amtrak is willing to pay.

ACF Industries the successor to American Car and Foundry in Milton, PA still makes railroad cars but they are concentrating on freight cars only. They have a facility that is large enough to make passenger cars but they have not done any of this work for years. Like Budd a long shot for passenger work.

Then there is Bombardier USA , one of the original Superliner manufacturers still in the passenger rail business. .AFAIK, Amtrak ( or the states) were not pushing for their double level equipment so they ended up with a manufacturer that has no idea how to meet specs. Are passengers cars that difficult to make or is it just a price issue????
Click to expand...
The Budd company is gone, it only exist as funding agency for its retirees , ACF sold their passenger plans, and as such are usually excluded from re-entering such business .

Budd Company became part of Budd Thyssen in 1978 and in 1999 a part of ThyssenKrupp Budd. Body and chassis operations were sold to Martinrea International in 2006. No longer an operating company, Budd filed for bankruptcy in 2014. It currently exists to provide benefits to its retirees.[4]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't understand this obsession with companies that have failed many years back, and have nothing to do with passenger railroad now, and have lost all their institutional knowledge and expertise, when there are dozens of companies that actually have current expertise and are willing to enter the market in the US.

Get used to the fact that Budd, ACF and Pullman are history and they are not coming back. Let us look forward instead of perpetually wallowing in past glories.
 
jis said:
I don't understand this obsession with companies that have failed many years back, and have nothing to do with passenger railroad now, and have lost all their institutional knowledge and expertise, when there are dozens of companies that actually have current expertise and are willing to enter the market in the US.

Get used to the fact that Budd, ACF and Pullman are history and they are not coming back. Let us look forward instead of perpetually wallowing in past glories.
Click to expand...
Great analogy! I agree 100%. Some of the focusing on past has gotten the passenger rail system in the situation it is today.
 
With the source material from IDOT having been withdrawn, we have to conclude at this time such represented "Fake News".

I'm guilty myself as I reported such at another site.

Had it been solid, and could possibly still turn-out to be, it would have been a win-win. The funding under ARRA09 set to expire Sep 30, would have been protected as well as the single level cars would have been from a proven design (AAF and many, many, overseas).

So stay tuned, but until confirmed by another source, best consider such unfounded, or in newspeak, "Fake News".
 
It is a rumor with some basis in facts, which in my mind is a little different from Fake News. I consider something to be Fake News when something has absolutely no basis on anything and is completely cooked up out of thin air. This clearly is not one of those. It is based on a document that is known to exist suggesting that a change is being negotiated. however, there is no guarantee that such a possible change has been finalized.

overuse of the term "Fake News" itself is a problem IMHO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GBNorman said:
With the source material from IDOT having been withdrawn, we have to conclude at this time such represented "Fake News".

I'm guilty myself as I reported such at another site.

Had it been solid, and could possibly still turn-out to be, it would have been a win-win. The funding under ARRA09 set to expire Sep 30, would have been protected as well as the single level cars would have been from a proven design (AAF and many, many, overseas).

So stay tuned, but until confirmed by another source, best consider such unfounded, or in newspeak, "Fake News".
Click to expand...
jis said:
It is a rumor with some basis in facts, which in my mind is a little different from Fake News. I consider something to be Fake News when something has absolutely no basis on anything and is completely cooked up out of thin air. This clearly is not one of those. It is based on a document that is known to exist suggesting that a change is being negotiated. however, there is no guarantee that such a possible change has been finalized.

overuse of the term "Fake News" itself is a problem IMHO.
Click to expand...
Indeed, while we cannot regard this as confirmed by any stretch (and even plans correct at the time of posting can always change), it is hardly fake news. The original source was legitimate, appearing on an Illinois state website; It was not made up or a fake/forged document. Actual fake news, on the other hand, is either "made-up" (fictitious) or deliberately and greatly exaggerated and/or presented in a misleading manner. We can be pretty certain this document was never intended for public release, at least at this time, hence the removal.

Eventually an announcement will be made, which may confirm these reports or plans may again change further.
 
Concur with all - the withdrawal means (to me) that this was not quite ready for public dissemination, either because the decision wasn't final or because the interested parties had yet to be notified.

Time will tell, and we'll know when a public announcement is made.

But yes, #fakenews definitely oversells is and is qualified for the most over- and inappropriately-used word of the year.
 
For all we know N/S may have agreed to the terms but did not want to make it public yet.

On another note, parts are about to get a whole lot cheaper for Brightline when it comes to mx on its pax cars. More volume means lower prices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top