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

[R30A]

The Brightline cars do not allow for level boarding in the midwest and west, and so it does not make sense to use them.

If you were looking for new NEC cars, Brightline based siemens cars with traps likely would make sense.

 

[MisterUptempo]

Just found a curious note in the July, 2017 newsletter from the Indiana Passenger Rail Alliance, which can be viewed/downloaded at the following URL - http://www.indianahighspeedrail.org/docs/2017/201707aai.pdf

If one scrolls down to page 7 of the newsletter, the following entry is found-

A joint effort of California, Illinois, Michigan and Missouri led to an award to Nippon Sharyo, USA, for rail cars, with delivery expected to start in 2020.

I e-mailed IPRA, in hopes of getting confirmation as to the validity, and perhaps the source, of the statement. I have yet to receive a reply.

I posted this in hopes that someone on this board is either a member of IPRA or knows someone who is, just so we can find out whether the information comes from a reliable source, or whether the entry is coming from an overly optimistic railfan, or even just someone wishing to engage in a little chain yanking.

Thanks in advance.

 

[neroden]

Maybe the solution lies in Amtrak abandoning the strategy of trying to find a manufacturer for the late eighties, early nineties Viewliner design? I have now pulled on my thrice charmed chain mail, for those that are familiar with D&D versions.

There's nothing wrong with the Viewliner design.
All reports are that the problem is with the Elmira workforce. I recall a specific complaint about that from someone inside Amtrak (privately), actually -- he said they couldn't get people who could read a blueprint (and implied that they couldn't even train them to do so).

It's very hard to attract good employees to live in Elmira! And *of course it is*; it's not a very attractive place to live. (There are things I like about Elmira, but it's a small town and it's shrinking; there's not much there.) Move the factory even as close as Syracuse (you know, somewhere which has passenger train service connecting it to the rest of the world) and you'd get a better result.

 

[neroden]

In Viewliners there are some possibly unnecessary cost increasing features inherent in the design. One is the inherent lack of consideration for using modern sealed airconditioning units that can be swapped out easily, instead of tinkering around with different parts in different cabinets. But that could possibly be fixed somehow. I am also not convinced that the whole business about replaceable modules has really worked out. To date nobody has ever changed out a module successfully with any less effort than if they were just built using other techniques used in car building. So while theoretically a nice idea I am not sure how practical it is. The net result of all this is that instead of using standard mass produced body shells and furnishing them, we have to do these small orders of special stuff that is not off the shelf and consequently get to pay a lot extra for them. I am not sure we are getting anything in return to justify the extra cost and pain.

I believe this is inaccurate. I have been told that swapping a defective module in a Viewliner, while still an involved process, is much less involved than replacing anything in a Superliner sleeping car. The Superliner I retrofit program was cancelled because of the excessive cost, I am told, while Viewliner module replacement is still considered viable.

As noted before, the Viewliner design is fine. The problem is trying to build them in Elmira. (And I say this as someone who lives 60 miles from Elmira.) If you were trying to build a standard Siemens car in Elmira you'd have the same problems. If you were building the Viewliners in Sacramento they'd be fine.

 

[Blackwolf]

As noted before, the Viewliner design is fine. The problem is trying to build them in Elmira. (And I say this as someone who lives 60 miles from Elmira.) If you were trying to build a standard Siemens car in Elmira you'd have the same problems. If you were building the Viewliners in Sacramento they'd be fine.

I have to agree here. I don't think CAF itself as a company is the real problem; location of the factory really is. Its unfortunate that the politics of job creation may well have made a viable and profitable contract the sluggish mess this has become.

 

[Bob Dylan]

As noted before, the Viewliner design is fine. The problem is trying to build them in Elmira. (And I say this as someone who lives 60 miles from Elmira.) If you were trying to build a standard Siemens car in Elmira you'd have the same problems. If you were building the Viewliners in Sacramento they'd be fine.

I have to agree here. I don't think CAF itself as a company is the real problem; location of the factory really is. Its unfortunate that the politics of job creation may well have made a viable and profitable contract the sluggish mess this has become.

I mostly agree, but CAF is to blame for not doing their homework on the Factory Location, for the Bid and now for the Delays,it sure isn't Amtrak's Fault this mess is never ending!

 

[PVD]

Quite a bit of rail work has been done there in the past. Lack of skilled fabricators is a problem in the manufacturing sector all over the country. Many years ago the US made a decision that vocational education should be downplayed, and we sold people on the moronic notion that the only good work is white collar work. Lots of the remaining people with welding and fabrication skills ran out to the oil fields when that boom hit, making it even harder to attract local talent. Its about 65 miles to Alstom in Hornell, and plenty of Orion bus folks 2+ hours away in Oriskany were potentially available. But if I don't pay better than someone else, and have poor management that doesn't know how to run a factory creating a c-f-k atmosphere, how successful would you be wherever you put your factory.

 

[Ryan]

Yep. The shipbuilder runs into problems trying to keep quality aluminum welders at the shipyard in Alabama. The big money from the oil fields is just too much to compete with, and the supply of decent workers is vanishingly small.

 

[Eric S]

Just found a curious note in the July, 2017 newsletter from the Indiana Passenger Rail Alliance, which can be viewed/downloaded at the following URL - http://www.indianahighspeedrail.org/docs/2017/201707aai.pdf

If one scrolls down to page 7 of the newsletter, the following entry is found-

A joint effort of California, Illinois, Michigan and Missouri led to an award to Nippon Sharyo, USA, for rail cars, with delivery expected to start in 2020.

I e-mailed IPRA, in hopes of getting confirmation as to the validity, and perhaps the source, of the statement. I have yet to receive a reply.

I posted this in hopes that someone on this board is either a member of IPRA or knows someone who is, just so we can find out whether the information comes from a reliable source, or whether the entry is coming from an overly optimistic railfan, or even just someone wishing to engage in a little chain yanking.

Thanks in advance.

Hmm. I can't recall seeing 2020 as a delivery date anywhere else. I've also not read past issues of IPRA newsletters, so I'm not sure how well this issue has been covered in the past. The lack of any mention of the delays with this project really makes me wonder whether 2020 was just pulled out of, uh, let's say a hat.

 

[jis]

I agree. Absent anything from any official source or a citation to one, this date quoted by IPRA is at best considered to be a figment of someone's imagination.

 

[MisterUptempo]

I agree. Absent anything from any official source or a citation to one, this date quoted by IPRA is at best considered to be a figment of someone's imagination.

Was doing a little nosing around and found something that might qualify as official information.

On May 22, 2017, the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission made a presentation to Congressional staffers in Washington, D.C. That presentation can be found at the following URL - http://miprc.org/Portals/7/pdfs/MIPRC%20presentation%20for%20congressional%20staff_052217_final.pdf?ver=2017-06-02-161342-390

Acquisition of new bi-levels is discussed, and mentions that Nippon-Sharyo will start to deliver those new bi-levels starting in 2020.

Here is the slide in question-

img src - miprc.org

Some of the members of MIPRC are employed by the state DOTs involved in the bi-level purchase; some also sit on the NGEC. A little more official than a rail enthusiast's newsletter. May be something, may be nothing. Just thought it warranted mentioning.

 

[jis]

Interesting find!

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

At this point, I think most of us would be very happy if bi-level cars could actually be delivered in 2020.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Amtrak Forum mobile app

 

[Eric S]

Thanks for finding that!

 

[neroden]

Blech. Given the state of Congress, there's no way the ARRA money will be extended to pay for those. California's cars were mostly coming out of state funds anyway, and Illinois was using a bundle of state funds as well (in addition to probably being able to reallocate funding between the cars and their often-state-funded track work), but the other Midwestern states... will pretty much just lose their grant money. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Missouri are unlikely to replace the lost grant funds with state funds and don't have a "fungible" state-funded contract to move the federal money to.

So if they ever come out, they really will be "Surfliner IIIs". They'll probably be owned entirely by California and Illinois.

 

[Anthony V]

Blech. Given the state of Congress, there's no way the ARRA money will be extended to pay for those. California's cars were mostly coming out of state funds anyway, and Illinois was using a bundle of state funds as well (in addition to probably being able to reallocate funding between the cars and their often-state-funded track work), but the other Midwestern states... will pretty much just lose their grant money. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Missouri are unlikely to replace the lost grant funds with state funds and don't have a "fungible" state-funded contract to move the federal money to.

So if they ever come out, they really will be "Surfliner IIIs". They'll probably be owned entirely by California and Illinois.

I disagree with that statement because Illinois successfully got an extension on the ARRA funding for the proposed Chicago-Quad Cities route, and is now seeking another one due to ongoing engineering and construction delays for that project. If Congress was willing to grant the Quad Cities route a funding extension due to the extenuating circumstances, they might be willing to grant an extension for the bi level equipment funding as well. All Illinois (the lead state in the order) has to do is ask Congress to do it.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Guess you haven't heard. Congress is doing Nothing this year!

And now the Debt Ceiling and,Budget is looming and Herr Trumpff is threating to Shut down the Government if Congress doesn't heel and pay for his Wall!

 

[Scuba_Steve]

Guess you haven't heard. Congress is doing Nothing this year!

And now the Debt Ceiling and,Budget is looming and Herr Trumpff is threating to Shut down the Government if Congress doesn't heel and pay for his Wall!

I thought Mexico was paying for it....

 

[Green Maned Lion]

How Is this rail related?

 

[PRR 60]

How Is this rail related?

It's not. So, let's get back on topic.

 

[afigg]

I disagree with that statement because Illinois successfully got an extension on the ARRA funding for the proposed Chicago-Quad Cities route, and is now seeking another one due to ongoing engineering and construction delays for that project. If Congress was willing to grant the Quad Cities route a funding extension due to the extenuating circumstances, they might be willing to grant an extension for the bi level equipment funding as well. All Illinois (the lead state in the order) has to do is ask Congress to do it.

The $177 million HSIPR grant for the Chicago to Quad Cities corridor came from FY2010 funding, which does not have the Sept, 2017 deadline that the ARRA stimulus grants did. Congress, AFAIK, did nothing to extend a funding extension for the Quad Cities grant, it was done by the US DOT and the FRA within their administrative authority.

As for the Nippon-Sharyo contract, the funds came from a mix of ARRA, FY2010, California state funding, although if I recall, ARRA made up the largest portion of the original funding. if Nippon-Sharyo is still indeed under contract and now scheduled to deliver the cars starting in 2020, would be nice to get additional information on how the FRA got around the ARRA deadline, whether N-S is still planning to deliver 130 bi-levels rather than a portion, and why the delay to 2020?

OK, so the test bed bi-level failed the crush test and the fix was a major re-design. But 3 to 4 years for a re-design? There have be other reasons for taking 8 years to deliver after contract award. That is even later than the CAF Viewliner IIs, provided CAF delivers the remainder in the next year or so (Viewliner II contract award was in 2010). What other contracts does the N-S plant have? Does N-S have other production contracts with 2018 and 2019 deliveries that were supposed to ramp up after the 130 bi-levels were going out the door in 2017?

Where is the railroad industry trade press on this story? This is a major contract, if the states and the NGEC board are not talking, surely Trains Magazine, Railway Age, etc or even major Illinois or Southern California newspapers could investigate and report on what is going on with the N-S contract.

 

[A Voice]

Where is the railroad industry trade press on this story? This is a major contract, if the states and the NGEC board are not talking, surely Trains Magazine, Railway Age, etc or even major Illinois or Southern California newspapers could investigate and report on what is going on with the N-S contract.

That is a very good question. We're not hearing the whole story, that much is obvious, and while not true in every case it is usually a bad sign when people (namely, the NGEC) stop talking. I've heard the '2020' date mentioned before, but took it as an unofficial "if we have to start over, it'll be 2020 before we see any cars". But are the states really going to fund the (revised) order on their own dime now?

 

[MikefromCrete]

The lack of coverage of this issue is disconcerting. This is a major problem, yet little has been published about the reasons for the continuing delay or if the contract will be completed. The only news seems to come from the local Rochelle paper on layoffs at the plant. Obviously, something must be going on or the contract would have been cancelled long ago. IDOT and the other state agencies need to come clean on the matter and let the public know what is going on.

 

[PRR 60]

I suspect the lack of public information is due to a discussion of contract requirements and responsibilities - items that could end up in court. This could be a complicated deal.

Essentially, the spec called for a bi-level car that met the strength requirements of a SuperLiner or California Car, but had to come in at about 20,000 pounds less weight than either of those cars. Obviously, the initial design attempt by N-S failed to meet the strength requirements, and it appears that subsequent design attempts have analytically been determined to be inadequate. It appears that, at least in N-S's opinion, it can't be done.

There can be two sides to this, from a legal perspective. One, N-S bid this work, knew the requirements, and thus incurs the responsibility to build cars meeting the spec or be held in default. The other side is that N-S can claim that they bid the work in good faith under the presumption that the states and Amtrak had done due diligence to determine that a car could be designed and built to meet the spec, and that it has now been determined that the spec was faulty and not buildable. The fact that Siemens looked at the single-level spec and told the NGEC that they could not design and build a car that met the weight and strength requirements of that spec could provide some credence to what might be the N-S claim.

If you have conflicting claims like that, then you have a sensitive situation for negotiating a path out. If the contract is canceled, N-S is going to demand compensation for the work done to date. The states are not going to want to pay N-S for useless work just to have them start over with a car design closer to the weight of a California Car. If all my speculation is close to accurate, they are going to have to meet somewhere in the middle in order to hit the reset button and start over. Those sorts of discussions are not typically public.

 

[PVD]

One manufacturer looking at a spec and saying it can't meet it so it won't bid it that way does not help someone who looked at a spec and agreed to build it. It is a contracts case, either the groups reach an agreement, or the lawyers and courts will.What NS and the consortium agreed to in writing will determine how this goes. It is why companies pay lawyers to draft contracts, and you pay them to review them before you sign them. In most RFP based acquisitions, if you don't specifically exclude or indicate you can't meet a provision or term of an RFP, you own it.