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.
Updates and interesting bits from the July 19 and draft August 2 meeting minutes of the NGEC Executive Board on the Nippon-Sharyo bi-level car contract.

July 19 minutes excerpts:

Carshell –We continue to have regular updates from NS to review the progress of the design issues and the schedule for the design activities and component tests leading up to the supplemental design review and to production and testing of the carshell. Carshell design activities are now proceeding in accordance with the schedule requirements of the supplemental design review in 2017. The revisions to the design to meet the full range of design cases have been identified and the analysis task is underway. Currently, the focus is on the methodology being used for the revised analysis exercises and the requirements that Caltrans/IDOT have for ensuring that the analysis is completed to a level of satisfaction for our subject matter experts.

Testing –The seat/table dynamic tests took place on June 30 & July 1. While some tests were successfully completed, there are still a few open items that need to be discussed and worked out between Caltrans, NS, and Kustom Seating. We are hoping to resolve all issues by fall. As for the Side door endurance test, as of July 11, the current cycle count is 462,262. The Side door system rig is still cycling well. We received preliminary information that the 500,000th cycle will most likely be accomplished during the day this Friday. The cycling will then be stopped for another major inspection and replacement of the drive nut.

Misc. – Program Management Plan Audit took place on July 13. NS was well prepared. We spent a lot of time on risk management. We were able to close about half the audit items based on the evidence that NS presented during the audit. NS agreed to revise the plan by the end of August to close the rest of the open items. The QA meeting, which took place on July 14, went well. NS was the most prepared that they have ever been. Overall, they have made good progress since our last meeting, and were able to present quite a bit of quality data from the pilot car build. The next QA date was set for October 6. At that time we will do another CDRL Element Audit. Our Quality system records audit went well with a minimal number of minor findings.
Click to expand...
While the car frame is being redesigned, they have been life-cycle testing parts. Cycling the side door 500,000 times is impressive.

August 2 draft minutes excerpts:

Bruce expressed thanks to IDOT, the Mid-West states, and the FRA who are all working hard with the vendor to address issues related to, not only the carshell redesign, but also those related to funding. At this point it seems that all parties have come to a meeting of the minds on a way to fully fund and deliver the base order. Even with the issues related to ARRA funding deadlines. An amendment is in process with Caltrans, IDOT and all relevant parties.

Bruce also pointed out that the internal schedule for delivery of the carshell redesign has not changed over the last 6 months – which is a very positive sign – and model 2C is progressing well.

Final Design Review is anticipated to take place in January of 2017 – with a pre-meeting expected to take place in October of this year.

There has been “lots of static and fatigue review” and it looks like the redesign of the carshell will be compliant with all necessary forces.
......

Bruce added that the Nippon Sharyo team has been “focused and intense”. As a result, the redesign seems to ”be a good model, a good design.”
FAIs –Truck Assembly FAI took place on July 12 in Rochelle. Our Subject Matter Expert reported that it was an excellent FAI with no open issues. The upcoming FAIs are for passenger seat and table, food service cars and ATR/UTR in fall 2016.

Carshell –We continue to have regular updates from NS to review the progress of the design issues and the schedule for the design activities. The last update meeting was July 25, Monday. Carshell design activities are now proceeding in accordance with the schedule requirements of the supplemental design review in 2017. A number of design refinements have been incorporated into the structure and the Method 2C model has been created. All load cases have been run on this model and the analysis of the results is underway. Any further refinements will be added to Method 2D, which is the final standard model. Briefings were provided on a number of the design updates such as material changes, plate thickness increases and additional webs.

Testing –The seat/table dynamic tests took place on June 30 & July 1. While some tests were successfully completed, there are still a few open items that need to be discussed and worked out between Caltrans, NS, and Kustom Seating. We are hoping to resolve all issues by fall. We will schedule seat and table FAI after all issues have been closed.
Click to expand...
So perhaps early 2017 for the initial delivery of the first bi-level cars for field tests?
 
The August 30 meeting draft minutes of NGEC Executive Committee has an update on the proposed revised delivery schedule for the N-S bilevels. Appears that the test failure and subsequent redesign of the carshell will result in a 18 month to 2 year delay in the delivery schedule. Excerpt from the August 30, 2016 minutes:

Overall, progress on the bi-level car procurement is moving forward. They are working their way through the FAI’s.

Testing is progressing well with there being a few open items yet to be resolved.

Work on the carshell design 2 is moving along well also with the schedule for design review holding.

The Mid-West states and Caltrans are working with Nippon Sharyo to extend the contract through 2022 for delivery. The delivery period for the cars would be from 2018-2022, “keeping us under contract for delivery of the base order through 2022.”
Click to expand...
Through 2022? oh well.
 
I've wondered the same thing. I wonder if Amtrak can legally "spend" it into an escrow account of some sort that either gets paid out to Nippon-Sharyo upon delivery or back to the Treasury if they fail to deliver.
 
StriderGDM said:
I've wondered the same thing. I wonder if Amtrak can legally "spend" it into an escrow account of some sort that either gets paid out to Nippon-Sharyo upon delivery or back to the Treasury if they fail to deliver.
Click to expand...
Amtrak is not buying the Nippon-Sharyo bi-levels, the 4 states (CA, IL, MI, MO) are with (mostly) FRA funding. Amtrak will operate and maintain the bi-levels for the 3 Midwest states and presumably will do the same for CA. But it is a bystander in the issue of how the 130 car order gets paid for with the looming September, 2017 deadline for the expenditure of the 2009 stimulus funds which is providing, or was, part of the funding for the 130 bi-level car base order. How the states and the FRA are seeking to finagle around the stimulus funding constraints, we do not know.
 
Replace "Amtrak" with "states" and my point still stands. More likely though is Congress provides some sort of extension.
 
Is there any way the funding deadline could be extended due to these extenuating circumstances?
 
There's always a way if the people in power (congress) choose to make a way. The question is whether that will be done or not.
 
StriderGDM said:
Replace "Amtrak" with "states" and my point still stands. More likely though is Congress provides some sort of extension.
Click to expand...
According to an article in the Passenger Train Journal that I was reading yesterday, apparently it is the Midwest states that are most affected by the possibility of running out of time on the funding. Most of California's funding is not thus encumbered.
 
PTJ is still around? Wow.

So it seems like the locomotives will be delivered on time pulling old Amtrak rolling stock. And no word when the new cars will arrive.
 
frequentflyer said:
PTJ is still around? Wow.

So it seems like the locomotives will be delivered on time pulling old Amtrak rolling stock. And no word when the new cars will arrive.
Click to expand...
PTJ did stop publication for a while. Then it was restarted by a new owner as a quarterly publication. It is actually quite good again. The PTJ 2016 Annual is a wonderful issue covering the Amtrak Rainbow Years. It is well worth it.
 
I would not take that literally. The lead agency is California.

While the fund may be in trouble for the Midwest portion, one think it going to be addressed in a lame duck session. If not by administrative action at the FRA.
 
Just-Thinking-51 said:
I would not take that literally. The lead agency is California.

While the fund may be in trouble for the Midwest portion, one think it going to be addressed in a lame duck session. If not by administrative action at the FRA.
Click to expand...
Seems like they could be using the State of California's own money to get things moving while they untangle the Stimulus funds for the rest of it.
 
California DOT is in charge of the cars, just like Illinois DOT is in charge of the locomotives. Since the California money is assured, it would make sense to use that at the end of the order after the stimulus money is spent.
 
Some rather interesting items in the November 8 minutes of the NGEC executive board with regards to the N-S bi-level contract.

Status Update:

Caltrans, IDOT and Sumitomo are working on a contract extension to go beyond the ARRA funding deadline.

The Carshell redesign Final Design Review (FDR) is being planned for the early part of 2017 (Late January or early February) in Rochelle, Illinois.
Click to expand...
Would be interesting to learn how are they finagling a contract extension beyond the ARRA deadline.

The surprise item in the minutes is about NCDOT which is ordering 5 bi-levels. Had not read that before. The whaat? part is that the NCDOT bi-levels will be configured to connect to single level cars and somehow the mixed trains will deal with high level platforms.

Extended excerpt:

Allan Paul, NCDOT, announced that they have received federal funds to acquire 5 bi-level cars. NCDOT would like to use the NGECs Bi-Level Car Specification and modify it as needed for our spec. The Bi-Level cars are going to be used with their single level fleet, so it will be necessary to match the two vehicle types up. The intent is to use the NGEC specification and cut and paste to transpose slightly to the NCDOT car.

Allan noted that NCDOT would keep the NGEC apprised of the changes they make and make those changes available to all.

Asked about their intent regarding access to the Bi-level (high/low level boarding), Allan explained that they are building high-level platform boarding from 8 above the platform and 48 above the top of the rail. They will create a high-level platform with an interior elevator for transition inside the car. This will accommodate either high-level or low-level boarding. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, there will be access between cars.

Mario Bergeron asked if the configuration is more multi-level with high-level side doors with the ability to go u and down inside the car or Bi-level with low-level entry to the car.

Allan responded that it could be considered multi-level, but the entry would be roll on roll off at mid-level (mezzanine). There would be a transition from the upper-level to the lower-level with the exit at the low-level.

Mario asked is it a vehicle that will need because of the funding will need to have 305?

Allan said that it was not necessary but NCDOT intends to use the 305 spec as much as possible.

Eric Curtit congratulated Allan and NCDOT on this great opportunity, and added you are a member (of the NGEC) they are your specs too.

Allan again committed to keeping the NGEC posted on its progress. He noted that they plan to work on the spec after the first of the year, with the intent to go out for bid in June or July with a delivery date of late 2019 or early 2020.
Click to expand...
 
So this will be a completely new tri-level car design for all intents and purposes that will have little in common with the midwest cars. They will be more like the Bombardier Lozenges but packaged in an NGEC outer shell that is quite different from the shells of the midwest cars.
 
jis said:
So this will be a completely new tri-level car design for all intents and purposes that will have little in common with the midwest cars. They will be more like the Bombardier Lozenges but packaged in an NGEC outer shell that is quite different from the shells of the midwest cars.
Click to expand...
The use of the NGEC spec will be "as much as possible." I heard that Brightline and Siemens feel that the single-level NGEC car, as spec'd, is not build-able due to an unrealistic weight limit. Siemens reportedly told the NGEC that they would no-bid work if held to that spec. Essentially, they feel the weight limit does not permit a frame strong enough to meet the structural requirements. Thus, the NGEC now wants to know what Siemens and Brightline did so they can learn from the positive work done for that project (not constrained by multiple and conflicting interests) and maybe apply it going forward to avoid the fiasco they have run into with the bi-level spec.

"Design by Committee" is an old engineering saying that is synonymous with disjointed, unfocused and, sometime simply incompetent specification preparation. I have no idea if that is the case with the bi-levels, but when I see that the spec calls for a car 20,000 pounds lighter than a Superliner but with the same or greater structural capability, I have to wonder if anyone made an effort to see if a car could even be built to that spec. I do know that recent revisions to the bi-level spec (305-001) have reduced the structural loading requirements in areas such as the live floor loadings, presumably in an effort squeeze some weight out of the design, but they still have that compression test elephant in the room to deal with.

I think it is very interesting that the NGEC has now put their standard specs - documents funded by taxpayers - under lock and key. The public is now prohibited from downloading the current versions so, quite frankly, we can't see what our tax dollars are producing. Any request for a copy must be approved by the NGEC chair, and the chair has made it clear that all such requests from the general public will be denied. I'm considering giving it a try anyway just to see what they say. I can become pretty annoying when I want to be, so it might be an interesting exercise.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PRR 60 said:
jis said:
So this will be a completely new tri-level car design for all intents and purposes that will have little in common with the midwest cars. They will be more like the Bombardier Lozenges but packaged in an NGEC outer shell that is quite different from the shells of the midwest cars.
Click to expand...
I think it is very interesting that the NGEC has now put their standard specs - documents funded by taxpayers - under lock and key. The public is now prohibited from downloading the current versions so, quite frankly, we can't see what our tax dollars are producing. Any request for a copy must be approved by the NGEC chair, and the chair has made it clear that all such requests from the general public will be denied. I'm considering giving it a try anyway just to see what they say. I can become pretty annoying when I want to be, so it might be an interesting exercise.
Click to expand...
I have heard from a few other sources that I trust also that the NGEC specs are a disaster based on fantasies of people who have never ever designed a real car, and there is a reason that many reputable builders have refrained from and will continue to refrain from bidding until it is fixed. Yes an FOIA request would be interesting to run up the flagpole, though it would be even better if it was done by someone who has the means to then drag it through the federal court. There is too much bull crap that goes on in the establishment that is worthy of being torn down.
 
Frankly it makes sense for any location not constrained by tunnels to use the BiLevel equipment. NC is in a little tricker position given that it has to have platforms to accommodate single level cars from the Carolinian (across the whole route) and the Star at Raleigh and the Meteor on the eastern end of the state (if regional service ever makes it that far). Are any of the stations west of Raleigh destined to get high level platforms other than Charlotte? (if Charlotte even still is)
 
Greensboro is High Level. All Piedmont stations are eventually scheduled to get HL. I am not sure that any of the Meteor stations are scheduled to get HL in NC. I also don't think any of the Star stations south of Cary in NC will ever get high level. Hamlet would probably be a special challenge anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top