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

shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
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.
While I don't remember the exact wording (and unfortunately the Wayback Machine does not seem to have snagged a copy of the page), I seem to remember it reading to the effect of Sumitomo had "proposed" replacing NS as the subcontractor with Siemens as of May. Long way to go from there to a signed contract with all parties.

Actually as it happens the latest Section 305 monthly summary was posted today, and retains the boilerplate "working out some contract issues with the contractor [and] there will be nothing to report for now" language, so everyone getting their hopes up about shiny new Siemens cars may want to come back down to Earth for a little while.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
keelhauled said:
While I don't remember the exact wording (and unfortunately the Wayback Machine does not seem to have snagged a copy of the page), I seem to remember it reading to the effect of Sumitomo had "proposed" replacing NS as the subcontractor with Siemens as of May. Long way to go from there to a signed contract with all parties.

Actually as it happens the latest Section 305 monthly summary was posted today, and retains the boilerplate "working out some contract issues with the contractor [and] there will be nothing to report for now" language, so everyone getting their hopes up about shiny new Siemens cars may want to come back down to Earth for a little while.
Click to expand...
I don't wish to confuse matters, but since the .pdf in question has touched off the debate it has, I'm posting a .jpg version of the document, for those who may have joined the party late.

9pQOGpY.jpg


This is clearly not fake news. This was posted at a state-level governmental website for the sake of transparency. Documents like this don't get posted just for the hell of it. Usually, the opposite is the case; getting government agencies to post relevant information can sometimes be a real struggle. This was not some hacked e-mail of suspicious origin or validity, in which some bureaucrat was merely spitballing with a co-worker. Sumitomo made a proposal of substituting N-S bi-levels with Siemens single-levels, and, according to the document, Caltrans and IDOT agreed to it.

Did the deal fall apart? Were the possible legal ramifications too large a risk to proceed? Did the possibility of acquiring Siemens railcars that were admittedly outside Section 305 specs and/or well outside the guidelines of the original RFP jeopardize the extension of federal funding? Was the extension of funding denied, period? Who the hell knows. But, if nothing else, this document, its sudden disappearance, and the overall lack of transparency of this procurement needs to be addressed.
 
keelhauled said:
Actually as it happens the latest Section 305 monthly summary was posted today, and retains the boilerplate "working out some contract issues with the contractor [and] there will be nothing to report for now" language, so everyone getting their hopes up about shiny new Siemens cars may want to come back down to Earth for a little while.
Click to expand...
And similarly all those that want to ignore the posting just because a monthly report has a boilerplate are of course free to live in their own world too. :p

The real thing at this point admittedly is to worry more about whether there will be any car or not. Given that the official document claims "contract issue" are being worked in an ongoing process, it is reasonable for any rational person to believe that the brief glimpse that we got was of the ongoing "contract issues" the official boilerplate alludes to. Whether any of it will come through is a different matter, as we have learned also about officially signed and sealed contracts that were at one point officially touted as the best thing since sliced bread, based apparently on very unstable foundation. Afterall that is why we are still here in this thread.
 
Nice catch, I was hopeful someone still had a copy open.

We'll just have to see what falls out the other side, I'm not taking the disappearance of the document as a sign of anything.
 
Very interesting development(s). Personally I wouldn't mind the single level cars, especially if they are similar to the Brightline cars - they look modern (of course, the new bi-levels at least looked good in the renderings) and will attract people to take the train. But yes, the ADA issues are going to be a problem.
 
jis said:
keelhauled said:
Actually as it happens the latest Section 305 monthly summary was posted today, and retains the boilerplate "working out some contract issues with the contractor [and] there will be nothing to report for now" language, so everyone getting their hopes up about shiny new Siemens cars may want to come back down to Earth for a little while.
Click to expand...
And similarly all those that want to ignore the posting just because a monthly report has a boilerplate are of course free to live in their own world too. :p
Click to expand...
Oh yes, certainly. All I was trying to point out was that regardless of the IDOT memo nothing has moved forward to the point of being made public this summer, so whatever is happening seems to doing so, much like the rest of this sorry saga, slowly.
 
I think the PDF is big. Many here speculated why not move to the Siemen's coach and from this disaster of somebody's (N/S or the entity writing the specs) making. While they are a myriad of details to work out, the memo indicates a bunch of pax rail enthusiasts ramblings on some forums were not that far off the mark. The powers that be are thinking the same too. Whether can legally pull it off is a different story.

As an aside, to a politician, he has some fancy new locomotives that were so supposed to be pulling some fancy new cars (makes for some great political ads). The locomotives were delivered, but that politician still wants his or her fancy new cars and could care less now if they are single or bi level. If going this expedites it, so be it.................at least to the politician.
 
The Siemens cars are certainly modern and far better than what exists now, but I still believe bi-level cars are the better option for the Midwest and California until I can be provided with additional evidence to counter that claim. If it is true that a single-level car could be ready in 2 years while a bi-level would take 5, that is a tough decision. The Siemens cars are obviously not going to meet all of the specs, so would it be possible to remove a few specs so that the NS bi-levels could pass the required tests? If not, is it possible to order an established model of bi-levels such as Surfliners or modified low-platform commuter equipment? I am not necessarily opposed to switching to single-level, but I think all of the possibilities for bi-level cars should be explored first. Bi-level cars may take longer to be delivered, but they would provide level boarding, higher capacity, and in certain cases more compatibility with present equipment (especially in California).

Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app
 
I would think dwell times alone would be reason enough to prefer Bi-Levels (to say nothing of capacity).

Multiple sets of wide, trainlined doors with level boarding make a huge difference for dwell times.

Then there's the question of bike accommodation, which is a very big deal in California.
 
#Fake News is news which was created or posted or spun in a manner intended to deceive. All other inaccurate news is #Wrong or #Stupid.

The factual accuracy of the IDOT page is debateable. But it was not created with intent to deceive. In fact, since it took all of you desperate for such information months to find, not only was it not likely intended to deceive; it was probably not intended to be found.

I suspect it's deletion reflects that.
 
Green Maned Lion said:
#Fake News is news which was created or posted or spun in a manner intended to deceive. All other inaccurate news is #Wrong or #Stupid.

The factual accuracy of the IDOT page is debateable. But it was not created with intent to deceive. In fact, since it took all of you desperate for such information months to find, not only was it not likely intended to deceive; it was probably not intended to be found.

I suspect it's deletion reflects that.
Click to expand...
IDOT scavenger hunt? I wonder if it was because it's been posted recently (not that I care all that much to delve deeper).
 
Caesar La Rock said:
Steve4031 said:
What is the capacity of the Siemens single level car and the bi-level.
Click to expand...
Between 40-86 seats according to PDF on the Viaggio Comfort. Not sure on the bi-levels.
Click to expand...
As a means of comparison, the California/Midwest bi-levels were supposed to adhere to Section 305 specs, which are as follows-

Coach - 89 Revenue Seats & 1 Wheelchair Parking Location

Cab/Baggage - 74 Revenue Seats & 1 Wheelchair Parking Location

Cafe/Lounge - 33 Revenue Seats, 1 Wheelchair Parking Location, 21 Lounge Area Seats (non-revenue), & 4 Crew Workstation Seats
 
MisterUptempo said:
Caesar La Rock said:
Steve4031 said:
What is the capacity of the Siemens single level car and the bi-level.
Click to expand...
Between 40-86 seats according to PDF on the Viaggio Comfort. Not sure on the bi-levels.
Click to expand...
As a means of comparison, the California/Midwest bi-levels were supposed to adhere to Section 305 specs, which are as follows-

Coach - 89 Revenue Seats & 1 Wheelchair Parking Location

Cab/Baggage - 74 Revenue Seats & 1 Wheelchair Parking Location

Cafe/Lounge - 33 Revenue Seats, 1 Wheelchair Parking Location, 21 Lounge Area Seats (non-revenue), & 4 Crew Workstation Seats
Click to expand...
Brightline select car 46

Smart car 66

http://gobrightline.com/brightline-reveals-first-trainset/

Those concerned about bike racks look at the link.
 
Similar equipment us used on the railjet service in Austria.

I shared a link. The stairs in the entry way are not as steep as amfleet and horizon cars. Could still present a slipping hazard in wet or winter weather when pax track snow onboard.

 
I sincerely appreciate how the members here recognize that I, as a fairly new member around here. did not willfully post "fake news". There appears unanimous consensus that something was posted to an official Illinois DOT site.

That such was removed is of course a mystery.

Thanks to all for their understanding.

GBN
 
I am not a regular here, but I wouldn't worry too much, GBNorman. From what I have seen, this can be a fairly harsh crowd, but I think their bark is worse than their bite. ;-)

GBNorman said:
I sincerely appreciate how the members here recognize that I, as a fairly new member around here. did not willfully post "fake news". There appears unanimous consensus that something was posted to an official Illinois DOT site.

That such was removed is of course a mystery.

Thanks to all for their understanding.

GBN
Click to expand...
 
Well now, NARP has this following information in this week's Hotline mailer:

The California Department of Transportation announced they will be substituting Siemens equipment for the Midwest passenger railcar procurement of 130 bi-level passenger railcars, replacing current manufacturer Nippon Sharyo.

Since Siemens does not produce bi-level equipment, the procurement will be amended to 130 single-level railcars. While this will reduce the total number of seats, it will shorten the delivery frame for the railcars from approximately 5 years for a bi-level railcar to 24-34 months for a single level railcar.

The procurement is led by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in joint agreement with the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), which represents a coalition of Midwestern states. The bi-levels were to be manufactured in Sharyo’s new manufacturing plant in Rochelle, Illinois. However, the Japanese company hit problems early in the manufacturing process, unable to meet the requirements for high structural rigidity, which are unique to the U.S. passenger rail market.

“We support the decision to substitute Siemens’ equipment, since it has become clear that Nippon Sharyo is not going to be able to deliver the equipment to meet Federal Railroad Administration requirements,” said NARP’s Jim Mathews. “Giving the advanced age of Amtrak’s existing fleet, and surging demand for passenger train service, the top priority is acquiring new rolling stock as soon as possible. As we move forward, we hope the FRA and state transportation officials use this incident to bring U.S. rail safety regulations more in-line with international best practices, which will lower procurement costs, expand capacity, and save lives by allowing more Americans to choose train travel.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
no announcement from Nippon Sharyo, no announcement from Siemens, nothing in railpace, nothing in progressive railway,nothing from Railway age and links keep going dead ????

Kind of like that top secret GE engine test deal ???
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since Siemens does not produce bi-level equipment...
Click to expand...
POm4jNZ.jpg


img src - siemens.com

I guess it will come as quite a shock to Siemens when they find out that they haven't been producing these bi-levels that they've been selling all this time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top