RFP released for 35 Next Gen Locomotives

[Ryan]

Wow, IDOT came out guns blazing. Thanks for sharing.

 

[PerRock]

That's a good read!

One question however, what is all this business with the iPads they talk about. Based solely off from the protest response is does sound like Siemens tried to bribe the officials with iPads.

peter

 

[Paulus]

That's a good read!

One question however, what is all this business with the iPads they talk about. Based solely off from the protest response is does sound like Siemens tried to bribe the officials with iPads.

peter

I suspect it was more of a "Here's a more convenient and/or interactive way of reading our stuff."

 

[andersone]

I think Paulus has the right idea,, the technology is so cheap that if a presentation were platform driven, could make a positive effect. We are just not used to folks providing overhead projectors as part of the presentation.

The part I love is count the plastic section separators as pages

 

[PerRock]

The part I love is count the plastic section separators as pages

I got a good laugh out of that as well.

peter

 

[Fan Railer]

Coming from the other side, I do find it dubious that IDOT simply rejected EMD's use of the 90% transmission efficiency value from diesel alternator to wheel rim. Correct me if I'm wrong, but should that be common knowledge in the railroad industry that you're not going to get 100% of rated prime mover power to the wheels for tractive effort, even if there IS a separate HEP motor? It's not like its something new or ground breaking. And assuming 90% efficiency is actually pretty high, considering the average efficiency ratings are usually between 80%-90%. IDOT just dismissed it like nothing, which raises a flag for me. It seems like there's more going on behind the scenes from a political standpoint.

I'd also like to see the full documentation that was given to EMD via the FOIA act, since IDOT claims several times that EMD mis-interprets the information in those documents as part of their argument, yet never provides proof on their own part. If EMD's protest was shoddy, in IDOT's terms, then IDOT's initial response, from a technical perspective, is utter BS.

 

[neroden]

Two things:

1; I don't recall seeing the formal IDOT response to the initial protest shared here, but my memory has been known to be shoddy at times. Anyway, here it is:

Niiiice. And pretty definitive, unless there's someone politically backing EMD in one of the official decision-making positions.

If EMD tries to keep this up their ass will be handed to them. They made the governor's office mad. They have no legal case -- looks like Illinois law is quite strict about what you're allowed to protest, and extremely strict about the deadline for protesting.

2; This will eventually warrant a separate thread, but for now I'll start it here, it seems like Amtrak is pursuing a separate contract for 15 tier IV compliant diesel locomotives, perhaps to replace P32-8WHs:

This isn't even enough to replace all the P32-8WHs.

The clue for where these will be allocated is that this is in association with the Carl Moyer Grant Program. This is a California-specific program, meaning that these locomotives would initially be used strictly or at least primarily in California. It is also intended for switchers, though it can be used for non-switch locos on a case by case basis.

The new RFI must be replacing some of the following:

- one of the older stored switchers (there is one new switcher at Oakland and one new switcher at LA)

- 5 P32-8s used occasionally for road duties, more often for switching, in California

- 15 Amtrak-owned F59PHIs used on the Surfliner;

- or possibly (unlikely) some of the California-owned locomotives (16 F59PHIs, 2 P32-8s)

The RFI is for sufficiently many locos that it has to be replacing some F59PHIs.

Since the contract is supposed to be for "15 locomotives and 1 switcher", I'm going to guess it will immediately replace all the F59PHIs on the Surfliner, and add a switcher at either LA or Oakland, though this is just a guess. I would expect the F59PHIs to be retained and cascaded to replace P32-8s, and probably the GP38H-3s used as standby power on the Downeaster. The F59PHIs are preferable to P32-8s for passenger service because of the separate HEP generator.

The P32-8s themselves would probably all be taken out of passenger service, because (after the multi-state order *and* the order in this RFI are delivered) there would be enough F59PHIs to cover protect/standby/rescue engine requirements.

But I wouldn't dare to guess whether the P32-8s would actually leave Amtrak service entirely; Amtrak still needs road power for non-revenue trains. It may make sense to cascade the P32-8s to this role, and get rid of the GP38H-3s instead. Or even to replace the 2000 hp GP38 switchers with P32-8s. (The GP38 switchers were last rebuilt in the 1990s.) It probably wouldn't make sense to replace the lower-horsepower switchers with the P32-8s, of course.

 

[Fan Railer]

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[afigg]

The clue for where these will be allocated is that this is in association with the Carl Moyer Grant Program. This is a California-specific program, meaning that these locomotives would initially be used strictly or at least primarily in California. It is also intended for switchers, though it can be used for non-switch locos on a case by case basis.

The new RFI must be replacing some of the following:

- one of the older stored switchers (there is one new switcher at Oakland and one new switcher at LA)

- 5 P32-8s used occasionally for road duties, more often for switching, in California

- 15 Amtrak-owned F59PHIs used on the Surfliner;

- or possibly (unlikely) some of the California-owned locomotives (16 F59PHIs, 2 P32-8s)

The RFI is for sufficiently many locos that it has to be replacing some F59PHIs.

Since the contract is supposed to be for "15 locomotives and 1 switcher", I'm going to guess it will immediately replace all the F59PHIs on the Surfliner, and add a switcher at either LA or Oakland, though this is just a guess. I would expect the F59PHIs to be retained and cascaded to replace P32-8s, and probably the GP38H-3s used as standby power on the Downeaster. The F59PHIs are preferable to P32-8s for passenger service because of the separate HEP generator.

It should be noted that the RFI is to support Amtrak's application to the Carl Moyer Grant Program. Presumably the RFI is aimed at Siemens to provide prices and data to exercise options on 15 Charger locomotives, although EMD may decide to respond and propose F125s, if for no other reason than to get in Siemens way.

But this is not a "contract", but for an application for a CA state grant program which for 15 locomotives at circa $7 million each plus a yard switcher would be in the $100 to $110 million range. We don't know if getting the grant award is a near sure thing or whether Amtrak is taking a long shot at trying to land the grant so they can reallocate 15 of their locomotives elsewhere.

 

[neroden]

Yes, it's not a sure thing. However, the Carl Moyer Grant Program has a very restrictive set of uses. It is only for diesel equipment, and it can't be used for most Class I freight locomotives. It also only applies to organizations which are trying to use "cleaner than required" engines.

So Amtrak's application for replacing Tier 0 diesels with Tier 4 diesels would be competing with applications for retrofitting or replacing stuff like this:

- fire truck engines

- portable generators used in agriculture

- tractors

- lawn mowers

- marine engines

- heavy construction truck engines

The thing about this is that many of these categories (a) have stricter emissions standards than railroad locomotives to start with, and (b) the equipment has shorter lifetimes than locomotives, so the average equipment age is newer to start with. (Marine engines are a major exception.) Much of the old, smoke-belching stuff in these categories was probably already decomissioned in the last 20 years either due to breakage or minimum emissions standards. The previous years' rounds of grants will have gotten rid of a bunch more of the old stuff. Furthermore, a lot of this other stuff is really quite cheap to do and won't use up a large portion of the funding. (Again, marine engines are a major exception.)

The program is supposed to try to get the most emissions reductions for their buck.

As a result, an application for locomotive replacements is likely to have larger emissions reductions compared to most applications, and has a pretty good shot. (By the way, "cascading" of locomotives has been approved by the grant program before, as long as the worst-emissions locomotives are then retired. I also believe that Amtrak has successfully gotten grants from this program for switcher replacement before.)

If there are some big marine engine repowering applications, which are expensive and have large emissions reductions, then Amtrak might lose the application, but I still think it has a good shot.

In this context, either Siemens Chargers or EMD F125s would probably be fine. They'll both be in use in California. I think those are the only two likely possibilities.

 

[cirdan]

These new locomotives aren't going to be replacing the P42's right?

Amtrak172

They will be displacing P42s on the Midwest and California Corridor trains. But those P42s will be deployed in other parts of the Amtrak network.

Correct, However part of the order is the option for ordering long distance versions to replace the P42s used on the long distance trains. But that isn't going even really be discussed for a number of years.

peter

Good point Peter! I suppose we'll discuss that seriously when it is funded.

I also guess that with technlogy continually advancing the way it is, that what gets ordered then wont be identical to what's being ordered now, even if the platform and certain elements might ne the same. Think P40 vs P42.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I dunno why people spend so much time trying to replace older, dirtier, but still relatively clean Diesel engines. They'd be better off yanking some of the 1980s era clunkers I've seen around LA off the road then a bunch of relatively clean F59PHis.

 

[cirdan]

Coming from the other side, I do find it dubious that IDOT simply rejected EMD's use of the 90% transmission efficiency value from diesel alternator to wheel rim. Correct me if I'm wrong, but should that be common knowledge in the railroad industry that you're not going to get 100% of rated prime mover power to the wheels for tractive effort, even if there IS a separate HEP motor? It's not like its something new or ground breaking. And assuming 90% efficiency is actually pretty high, considering the average efficiency ratings are usually between 80%-90%. IDOT just dismissed it like nothing, which raises a flag for me. It seems like there's more going on behind the scenes from a political standpoint.

I'd also like to see the full documentation that was given to EMD via the FOIA act, since IDOT claims several times that EMD mis-interprets the information in those documents as part of their argument, yet never provides proof on their own part. If EMD's protest was shoddy, in IDOT's terms, then IDOT's initial response, from a technical perspective, is utter BS.

Nowhere does it say 100% was being assumed. It just says that 90% is being rejected as a blanket figure. If Siemens can credibly prove they are offering a system with a consistently higher efficiency then i think its fair to use that higher figure in the calculations rather than the90% assumption.

Though having said that, and speaking as an engineer, I agree with you that even the 90% claim is on the high side.

 

[Ryan]

There's nothing that says that efficiency isn't a part of the formula used for calculations.

It sounds like EMD just decided to throw an extra 90% knockdown factor onto both sets of numbers, which just so happens to put Seimens under the threshold and leave them just above it. I'm sure that's totally a coincidence.

 

[Paulus]

I dunno why people spend so much time trying to replace older, dirtier, but still relatively clean Diesel engines. They'd be better off yanking some of the 1980s era clunkers I've seen around LA off the road then a bunch of relatively clean F59PHis.

There's not that terribly many of them in my experience driving around SoCal and they're required to pass smog tests.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

At their original emissions level, not the current one.

 

[MetraUPWest]

I have a lot of experience with both old and the most recent EMD products, and the current EMD locomotives are pretty embarassing. There's a reason GE destroys them in the freight market- and GE has plenty of problems too so what does that tell you?

EMD should focus on making a good product again rather than trying to sue away the competition.

 

[neroden]

I dunno why people spend so much time trying to replace older, dirtier, but still relatively clean Diesel engines. They'd be better off yanking some of the 1980s era clunkers I've seen around LA off the road then a bunch of relatively clean F59PHis.

What are you thinking of? There's a separate program to replace or repower the freight switcher locomotives.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The Carl Moyer grant program is about getting older Diesel engines out of service in California- by engine I mean motor, not locomotive. I don't know where the public got the crazy idea that Diesel engines are dirty. For any given year a given diesel of given power produces less pollutants (especially since ULSD) across the whole spectrum than it's gas equivalent, excluding carbon particulates, which are relatively safe.

California would do much better restricting usage of classic gas cars, and assisting poor people acquiring newer cars than the garbage you frequently find running around on the west coast.

For $4,000,000 you can get one old diesel locomotive out of California. Or you can replace 150 ancient Ford pickups with belching straight sixes and V8s with modern F150 EcoBoosts that get double the fuel economy, produce a 50th the pollution, and are safer for both their owner and the rest of the drivers on the road.

 

[Paulus]

I don't know where the public got the crazy idea that Diesel engines are dirty.

From facts maybe?

"Are gasoline-fueled cars or large diesel trucks the bigger source of secondary organic aerosol (SOA), a major component of smog? UC Berkeley researchers have stepped into this debate with a new study that says diesel exhaust contributes 15 times more than gas emissions per liter of fuel burned."

and assisting poor people acquiring newer cars than the garbage you frequently find running around on the west coast.

Already a state program.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Congratulations. You cherry picked one emissions component.

 

[neroden]

California would do much better restricting usage of classic gas cars, and assisting poor people acquiring newer cars than the garbage you frequently find running around on the west coast.

Oh, you meant ON-road vehicles. You wrote "1980s era clunkers I've seen around LA off the road" (note the word "off", which confused me). Sure. Separate program, and different politics because the politics of automobiles is weird and complicated.

 

[MetraUPWest]

I still haven't figure out why with automobiles as emissions laws became more stringent they became more reliable, and locomotives are the exact opposite. "Dirty" locomotives are FAR more reliable than clean ones.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The reliability of a modern crappy automobile has improved because the companies that made them could no longer get away with selling garbage any longer. GM for instance designed components to break at intervals. When Toyota briefly tried to sell superior cars in the 80s and 90s, that kind of joke didn't fly anymore.

But for the companies that actually built good cars- Peugeot, Volvo, Saab, and Mercedes-Benz, the quality of their products peaked in mid 80s. It was downhill since. Volvo sold of its car manufacturing business in 2000, Saab is dead, Peugeot does NOT build superior products anymore. Mercedes spent the late 90s to mid 2000s in a sort of lost decade, the legacy of which is still hurting them.

 

[Paulus]

Congratulations. You cherry picked one emissions component.

Second link on google as I recall and "major component of smog" is kinda one of the more important things as far as CA is concerned.