Amfleet I Replacement

[Thirdrail7]

The next gen single level coach is probably going to be made by CAF, in all honesty. Once the V-II order part I is done, Amtrak should have a good working relationship with CAF. Plus, they own the design, so they can get exactly what they want.

Adding my two bits to the other replies, we should realize that Amtrak will not be in charge - or at least the only player for deciding what to get for an Amfleet 1 replacement order. Whenever that might happen. The FRA/US DOT, the NEC Commission with representatives from all the NEC states, and all the eastern states that provide subsidies including capital charges for the rolling stock used for the corridor services will have a say. I suspect that it is likely that a joint equipment order commission of some sort will be formed to issue the RFP for single level cars, review the bids and make the purchase decision with Amtrak having only a few votes on such a commission.

I think it is possible that the Amfleet I and Amfleet II replacements could go separate ways. Amtrak may want to order Viewliner II coach and cafe cars for the single level LD fleet to have a consistent car type for the LD trains. Say, an order for 130 to 140 LD coach cars and 30 cafe/diner light/lounge cars to replace the 145 remaining Amfleet II cars. That order might not neccesarily go to CAF, but could go to another vendor as the RFP would have to be an open bid.

For an order of Amfleet I replacements, say 550 plus cars to expand capacity and the fleet size, the states might opt for off the shelf equipment, such as the Siemans cars, that is compliant with the PRIIA single level specification. But I am speculating here, have no inside info or sources. Which would be meaningless anyway as until there is enough funds lined up to place either an Amfleet I or II replacement order, little will happen beyond updates to a fleet strategy plan.

Would you agree that this assumes that all of the groups will actually utilize Amtrak as their carrier? Personally, I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility that NY, PA and CT, order their own cars and grab someone else to provide services for them.

 

[jis]

Thirdrail, I think Amtrak will try its darnedest to remain the carrier of choice for everyone. But I agree with you that NY, PA, and CT (and MA for Boston - Springfield operations) might very well go their own way. Of those in my reckoning CT might be the first to defect. Frankly neither NY nor PA has a robust enough passenger rail desk in their DOT to pull of their own operations at present. but of course that could change, specially if something like what is being tried by Indiana with the Hoosier State is found to work equipment-wise.

The impact on passenger rolling stock is at best unpredictable at present. On thing is clear that the private rolling stock providers will not follow the Amtrak lead. They will be more cost sensitive and will go into the world market to get the best deal they can, as is evidenced by what AAF is doing in Florida.

 

[Amfleeter]

What's the actual benefit to Amtrak owning the design for the Viewliners?

They can have anyone they want building it, it's cheaper because all R&D is in-house, plus maintenance is cheaper.

 

[jis]

What's the actual benefit to Amtrak owning the design for the Viewliners?

They can have anyone they want building it, it's cheaper because all R&D is in-house, plus maintenance is cheaper.

How do we know maintenance is cheaper. Cheaper than what? Isn't the design pretty obsolete being of 1980's vintage? How much real R&D is involved in building an '80's vintage passenger car? How can a car that will have a total build run using special rigs for it, of maybe 600 cars be cheaper overall than cars that have build runs of many thousands? I am just curious. I don;t know the answers to these questions.

 

[west point]

JIS; There is a major difference between 1980s cars and today. Capital costs are much easier to justify than operating costs (maintenance). So the present V-2s are built with a modular design. That way parts or components can be quickly removed and a new / rebuilt part inserted. + the build contract has maintenance provisions for "X" number of years pushing manufacturer to build cars and locos more reliable. The modular also allows quicker turn around of cars allowing for higher utilization. Remember even the sleeper units will be modular. Now with the designs being owned by Amtrak anyone can bid from the drawings and the only problem new builders have will be institutional construction experience.

It may be that the AAF equipment will not be so designed. We will have to wait and see they may want a cheaper design at first in case the service does not work. One of the many problems of older aircraft is the difficulty of replacing some parts as compared with later models...

 

[Hal]

JIS; There is a major difference between 1980s cars and today. Capital costs are much easier to justify than operating costs (maintenance). So the present V-2s are built with a modular design. That way parts or components can be quickly removed and a new / rebuilt part inserted. + the build contract has maintenance provisions for "X" number of years pushing manufacturer to build cars and locos more reliable. The modular also allows quicker turn around of cars allowing for higher utilization. Remember even the sleeper units will be modular. Now with the designs being owned by Amtrak anyone can bid from the drawings and the only problem new builders have will be institutional construction experience.

It may be that the AAF equipment will not be so designed. We will have to wait and see they may want a cheaper design at first in case the service does not work. One of the many problems of older aircraft is the difficulty of replacing some parts as compared with later models...

Any new cars by any manufacturer is going to be modular. That is how they build these days. I doubt that the replacement for Amfleet 1 will be based on the Viewliners.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Thirdrail, I think Amtrak will try its darnedest to remain the carrier of choice for everyone. But I agree with you that NY, PA, and CT (and MA for Boston - Springfield operations) might very well go their own way. Of those in my reckoning CT might be the first to defect. Frankly neither NY nor PA has a robust enough passenger rail desk in their DOT to pull of their own operations at present. but of course that could change, specially if something like what is being tried by Indiana with the Hoosier State is found to work equipment-wise.

The impact on passenger rolling stock is at best unpredictable at present. On thing is clear that the private rolling stock providers will not follow the Amtrak lead. They will be more cost sensitive and will go into the world market to get the best deal they can, as is evidenced by what AAF is doing in Florida.

I'm just going to cut to the chase and post an older article that makes me wonder, Jis. Please allow a brief "fair use" quote from the following article: Looming fund cuts endanger Amtrak's Keystone line

Subsidies from Pennsylvania and Amtrak have been declining gradually as ridership and ticket revenue have risen.

But Pennsylvania is not likely to replace the full $8 million subsidy from Amtrak, leaving severe cuts in service as "a distinct possibility," said Andy Sharpe, communications director of the rail passengers association.

"Given the unwillingness of Gov. Corbett to address the lack of dedicated funding for local and regional mass transit, we are skeptical that he'd be willing to provide a boost in funding to maintain current service levels on the Keystone," Sharpe said.
Another possibility would be for Pennsylvania to contract with another rail operator, such as SEPTA or a private firm like Herzog Transit Services Inc. of St. Joseph, Mo., to run the trains.

"It might put more of the onus on PennDot to start looking around for a competitive bidder," said Mitchell. "Amtrak's unit operating costs are relatively high."
PennDot press secretary Steve Chizmar said it's too soon to say what will happen to the Keystone service.

"We want to get this resolved," Chizmar said. "It's a crucial link . . . a vital route."

Amtrak's unit operating costs are relatively high is telling statement, particularly if your DOT is already operating trains. Herzog might not have a fleet of equipment but SEPTA does. It wouldn't take a hell of a lot for Penndot to get SEPTA to Harrisburg. Although SEPTA may be in slightly worse shape than Amtrak, the Pennsylvanian DOT may just decide the throw their weight behind SEPTA to provide service. This way they deal with one company. They may tack onto the order of double deckers and once their ACS-64s are operational, they can tell Amtrak to pound sand.

Possible? Yes! Probable? Well, time will tell.

Amtrak may have a surplus of equipment in the next few years.

 

[neroden]

When someone suggests that Amtrak order yet more cars from CAF, the line from Animal House comes to mind: "Thank you sir, may I have another."

:sigh: There's nothing wrong with CAF. They badly underestimated the difficulty of setting up a factory from scratch in Elmira and staffing it, but they seem to have managed to do so finally. If I were Amtrak, I would totally buy more cars from CAF *if* CAF was willing to offer ridiculous discount prices in order to try to win back reputation.

What's the actual benefit to Amtrak owning the design for the Viewliners?

They can have anyone they want building it, it's cheaper because all R&D is in-house, plus maintenance is cheaper.

How do we know maintenance is cheaper. Cheaper than what? Isn't the design pretty obsolete being of 1980's vintage?

No, it's not. It's really better considered a 1990s design.
It's actually state-of-the-art except for one key thing: the weight penalty. But given that AFAIK the FRA *still* hasn't relaxed its rules to allow for lightweight cars, it's the best thing to order. The moment lightweights are allowed, the ideal thing to order will change massively.

Amtrak's unit operating costs are relatively high is telling statement

Not really. What's going on there is allocation of overhead; PRIIA is requiring the allocation of Amtrak's overhead to these lines, which makes the unit operating costs look high. Unfortunately any startup would have the same problem. SEPTA could offer the service at avoidable-cost pricing and underbid, but SEPTA's got its own capital backlog, so SEPTA would be obliged to tack on capital costs to its bid and it probably wouldn't be any cheaper.

 

[Andrew]

Septa is planning to purchase double-decker coaches in the not too distant future...

Does anyone know if the Bombardier Multi-level vehicle is the strongest candidate for this new coach procurement, and when a contract is expected to get signed?

 

[jis]

It has to be something like the Bombardier MLVs (NJT-like) or Kawasaki C3s (LIRR-like) since they have to fit through tunnels of similar height clearance through center city.

 

[Andrew]

It has to be something like the Bombardier MLVs (NJT-like) or Kawasaki C3s (LIRR-like) since they have to fit through tunnels of similar height clearance through center city.

Bombardier's double deckers are lighter than Kawasaki's.

I wasn't able to find the height and weight of Hyundai Rotem's double decker's. Do you know what they are?

 

[jis]

It's actually state-of-the-art except for one key thing: the weight penalty. But given that AFAIK the FRA *still* hasn't relaxed its rules to allow for lightweight cars, it's the best thing to order. The moment lightweights are allowed, the ideal thing to order will change massively.

FRA has apparently changed the regulations for tier 1 (allowing CEM to meet energy absorption requirements instead of brute force collision posts alone) enough to allow off the shelf UIC equipment with very minor changes. AAF is taking advantage of that to acquire Siemens Viaggio cars for their Miami - Orlando service. That is also what is now allowing Stadlers DMUs to become FRA compliant with relative ease, something that was inconceivable when NJT built the RiverLINE.
Regarding the Viewliner design vintage....

No, it's not. It's really better considered a 1990s design.

Well if you say so. I would just note that the prototypes were built in 1987-88 and leave it at that.

It has to be something like the Bombardier MLVs (NJT-like) or Kawasaki C3s (LIRR-like) since they have to fit through tunnels of similar height clearance through center city.

Bombardier's double deckers are lighter than Kawasaki's.

I wasn't able to find the height and weight of Hyundai Rotem's double decker's. Do you know what they are?

The Boston Rotem cars are the Boston double-decker height, same as the Boston Kawaskis (or the MARC Kawasakis), which would not fit through NY and Philly tunnels.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Amtrak's unit operating costs are relatively high is telling statement

Not really. What's going on there is allocation of overhead; PRIIA is requiring the allocation of Amtrak's overhead to these lines, which makes the unit operating costs look high. Unfortunately any startup would have the same problem. SEPTA could offer the service at avoidable-cost pricing and underbid, but SEPTA's got its own capital backlog, so SEPTA would be obliged to tack on capital costs to its bid and it probably wouldn't be any cheaper.

My thought process (which may be wrong) is the unit costs include what Amtrak charges for support which includes the labor pools. In other words, even if the cost of the actual "car" turns out to be the same, if Amtrak's labor rate for engineers, conductors, mechanical forces, etc is significantly more than a SEPTA employee, that would add to the "unit" costs.

Am I looking at this wrong?

 

[neroden]

It's actually state-of-the-art except for one key thing: the weight penalty. But given that AFAIK the FRA *still* hasn't relaxed its rules to allow for lightweight cars, it's the best thing to order. The moment lightweights are allowed, the ideal thing to order will change massively.

FRA has apparently changed the regulations for tier 1 (allowing CEM to meet energy absorption requirements instead of brute force collision posts alone) enough to allow off the shelf UIC equipment with very minor changes. AAF is taking advantage of that to acquire Siemens Viaggio cars for their Miami - Orlando service. That is also what is now allowing Stadlers DMUs to become FRA compliant with relative ease, something that was inconceivable when NJT built the RiverLINE.

FINALLY. This would call for major changes to order specifications, and should improve things, hopefully.

 

[neroden]

My thought process (which may be wrong) is the unit costs include what Amtrak charges for support which includes the labor pools. In other words, even if the cost of the actual "car" turns out to be the same, if Amtrak's labor rate for engineers, conductors, mechanical forces, etc is significantly more than a SEPTA employee, that would add to the "unit" costs.

Am I looking at this wrong?

This would be the case if it were *true*, but in fact from everything I can tell it is not the case; SEPTA employees get paid just as well as Amtrak, it seems, if not better. Don't forget that SEPTA Regional Rail has crazily powerful unions which were able to thwart the adoption of modern practices on more than one occasion.

Maybe hiring BNSF or Veolis to run it would get lower-paid workers, but from what I can tell not SEPTA.

 

[StriderGDM]

The next gen single level coach is probably going to be made by CAF, in all honesty. Once the V-II order part I is done, Amtrak should have a good working relationship with CAF. Plus, they own the design, so they can get exactly what they want.

Adding my two bits to the other replies, we should realize that Amtrak will not be in charge - or at least the only player for deciding what to get for an Amfleet 1 replacement order. Whenever that might happen. The FRA/US DOT, the NEC Commission with representatives from all the NEC states, and all the eastern states that provide subsidies including capital charges for the rolling stock used for the corridor services will have a say. I suspect that it is likely that a joint equipment order commission of some sort will be formed to issue the RFP for single level cars, review the bids and make the purchase decision with Amtrak having only a few votes on such a commission.

I think it is possible that the Amfleet I and Amfleet II replacements could go separate ways. Amtrak may want to order Viewliner II coach and cafe cars for the single level LD fleet to have a consistent car type for the LD trains. Say, an order for 130 to 140 LD coach cars and 30 cafe/diner light/lounge cars to replace the 145 remaining Amfleet II cars. That order might not neccesarily go to CAF, but could go to another vendor as the RFP would have to be an open bid.

For an order of Amfleet I replacements, say 550 plus cars to expand capacity and the fleet size, the states might opt for off the shelf equipment, such as the Siemans cars, that is compliant with the PRIIA single level specification. But I am speculating here, have no inside info or sources. Which would be meaningless anyway as until there is enough funds lined up to place either an Amfleet I or II replacement order, little will happen beyond updates to a fleet strategy plan.

Would you agree that this assumes that all of the groups will actually utilize Amtrak as their carrier? Personally, I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility that NY, PA and CT, order their own cars and grab someone else to provide services for them.

I can't see NYS caring enough to actually invest in their own cars (even though it may be a double win since the cars would almost certainly be built in NYS).

 

[WoodyinNYC]

It's actually state-of-the-art except for one key thing: the weight penalty. But given that AFAIK the FRA *still* hasn't relaxed its rules to allow for lightweight cars, it's the best thing to order. The moment lightweights are allowed, the ideal thing to order will change massively.

FRA has apparently changed the regulations for tier 1 (allowing CEM [Contract Equipment Manufacturer? -- One of 112 listings at acronymfinder.com] to meet energy absorption requirements instead of brute force collision posts alone) enough to allow off the shelf UIC [sorry, no idea, apparently not among 35 listings at acronymfinder.com] equipment with very minor changes. AAF is taking advantage of that to acquire Siemens Viaggio cars for their Miami - Orlando service. .......

Wait! Shouldn't this be HEADLINE NEWS?

You are saying the new regulations may make possible lighter, cheaper, faster, more fuel efficient, more nearly off-the-shelf coaches as replacements for the Amfleets? (Staying on topic. )

Wonder if the latest delays to the Viewliner diners and sleepers could be because Amtrak is busily trying to write change orders for CAF for lighter, cheaper, faster, more fuel efficient, more nearly off-the-shelf designs in line with the new regulations. :giggle:

Anyway, this news is, Amtrak Joe Biden might say, "a big f*cking deal." So thanks for the info. Links or more details would be appreciated, since this news blew past me while I was distracted. Or maybe the hardliners agreed to relax the old rules on condition there be no press release about their backing down to embarrass them. LOL.

 

[Caesar La Rock]

In response to the previous post, you may want to look at this. Don't want to take this off topic, but it is true about off-the-shelf stuff.

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/modern-european-train-designs-american-tracks-2015-fra

 

[neroden]

Did the regulations actually finally go through? Are they reallly in place? Can someone find references to the Federal Register?

Because yes, if true, this should be headline news on every rail website. It is a *huge* deal.

 

[neroden]

Wonder if the latest delays to the Viewliner diners and sleepers could be because Amtrak is busily trying to write change orders for CAF for lighter, cheaper, faster, more fuel efficient, more nearly off-the-shelf designs in line with the new regulations. :giggle:

That would be absoutely awesome and would be a great reason to delay the diners and sleepers. I kind of doubt it, though. But that would be absolutely awesomely great.

 

[Ryan]

Not especially, change orders of that scale at this stage in the construction process are a recipe for disaster.

 

[jis]

I have no idea what changes in the buff strength and collision characteristics rules would be considered "awesome" and which not, so it is likely that the changes that have happened are probably not "awesome", They were being discussed last year or earlier.

What has not changed is the ability to absorb 800,000lb buff force.

What has changed is that deformation of the ends of the cars to absorb energy is now allowed. The deformation that is not allowed is of the main passenger carrying compartment. That is typically how CEM is done. The previous tier 1 standards did not allow deformation of the entire body of the car..

I am told that the changes appear as an additional method of meeting the Tier I requirements in the CFR. I have not checked it personally.

I have no idea what, if any, effect this has on the weight of cars. I am told that with this change, the changes needed in the design of line manufactured cars that meet current and near future UIC standards will be relatively small. However, I am not a coach manufacturer, nor do I know enough about the statics and dynamics of coach designs to comment beyond that in a knowledgeable way.

And yeah, I don't think CAF's inability to deliver cars within several years of the original plan has anything to do with any of this. These rules were not available when the order was placed.

 

[neroden]

What has not changed is the ability to absorb 800,000lb buff force.

What has changed is that deformation of the ends of the cars to absorb energy is now allowed. The deformation that is not allowed is of the main passenger carrying compartment. That is typically how CEM is done. The previous tier 1 standards did not allow deformation of the entire body of the car..

The question is, basically, do vestibules count as part of "the main passenger carrying compartment" or not. If they do, nothing much has changed, since the cars can't be made longer to add crumple zones. If they don't, it's a huge change; a crumple-able vestibule can absorb a lot of energy and a lot of dead weight can be eliminated.

 

[jis]

What has not changed is the ability to absorb 800,000lb buff force.

What has changed is that deformation of the ends of the cars to absorb energy is now allowed. The deformation that is not allowed is of the main passenger carrying compartment. That is typically how CEM is done. The previous tier 1 standards did not allow deformation of the entire body of the car..

The question is, basically, do vestibules count as part of "the main passenger carrying compartment" or not. If they do, nothing much has changed, since the cars can't be made longer to add crumple zones. If they don't, it's a huge change; a crumple-able vestibule can absorb a lot of energy and a lot of dead weight can be eliminated.

No they don't, as far as I could understand from the text and talking to folks whose job it is to understand and execute upon it. What they have speced in the regs appears to be pretty much in line with standard European practice as far as what is and what is not "passenger compartment" goes.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

In response to the previous post, you may want to look at this. Don't want to take this off topic, but it is true about off-the-shelf stuff.

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/modern-european-train-designs-american-tracks-2015-fra

Long Barred from American Tracks, European Train Designs Could Get Rolling by 2015

By Stephen J. Smith | October 31, 2013

“It’ll take a while to get the [new] regulations in place,” said Robert Lauby, associate administrator for railroad safety and chief safety officer at the FRA. The new rules have already been drafted and now await approval from various federal agencies, followed by a period of public review. ... Lauby suggested that the new rules should clear the final hurdles sometime in 2015."

It's a good article from NEXT CITY but it's stale, almost two years old.

So I'm still wondering if there's an official notice yet.