Acela II RFP information announcement

Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
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.
Steering this thread back to the HSR trainset RFP, Kawasaki is publicly expressing an interest in bidding. Lincon Journal Star: Kawasaki Sees High-Speed Opportunity (may have to click on the single question poll to see the full article). Kawasaki has a facility in Lincoln, NE that is ramping up to build up to 748 Series 7000 cars for WMATA over the next 4-5 years. The Metro cars are EMUs, so there is some commonality in building coupled powered cars in principle between the Metro cars and HSR trainsets. Whether they could build or assemble Kawasaki design HSR trainsets that meet the Buy American requirements is an issue that they will to answer.
 
Found these interesting documents on the FRA eLibrary site. Amtrak and CHSRA have both filed for Buy America waivers for 2 prototype HSR trainsets each to be built outside the US. The remainder of the HSR order would be built in the US, but the waiver would allow the prototypes or first operational units to be used for testing and enter service more quickly. Amtrak and CHSRA filed separate waiver requests with a fair amount of updated info on their plans and projected schedule.

Amtrak Buy America Waiver Request for two (2) prototype high speed rail trainsets

California High Speed Rail Authority Buy America Waiver Request for two (2) prototype high speed rail trainsets

Some excerpts from the Amtrak waiver request:

On January 24, 2014, Amtrak and the Authority jointly issued a competitive Solicitation for the new HSR Trainsets. The intended result of the Solicitation is the procurement of "Common Platform" Trainsets for Amtrak and the Authority. A "Common Platform" is defined as a Trainset or Trainsets from a "platform" family (e.g., either distributed or concentrated power, similar body construction/cross section, either conventional or articulated bogie architecture) that meets or exceeds Amtrak's current schedule performance on the NEC infrastructure as it exists today while meeting the Authority's and Amtrak's future needs when substantially new high speed infrastructure is completed. Although the technical differences between the Amtrak and Authority Trainsets require two distinct sets of prototypes to be developed (e.g., differences in traction power, car bodies, bogie suspension characteristics, and differences in initial operating speeds), developing the prototypes in concert allows both organizations to share costs, share design perspectives, and leverage the benefits of a joint procurement.

The Amtrak plan envisions an acquisition oftrainsets to supplement, and eventually replace, the current Acela service. Amtrak is seeking a trainset capable of operating at 160 mph on Amtrak's existing infrastructure and that is capable of or can be subsequently modified to operate at up to 186 mph and/or 220 mph as the tracks and other infrastructure elements are improved to support the higher speeds. The Authority is seeking a trainset capable of operating up to 220 mph initially, and which would be similar in performance requirements to that required under Amtrak's Vision for High-Speed Rail in the NEC.

Once the Amtrak contract is executed, a notice to proceed will be issued, and the Trainset design process will begin, leading initially to the manufacture and assembly of the Amtrak prototype Trainsets to be completed by December 2016. Amtrak anticipates that revenue service using the new Trainsets will be initiated in 2018.

...

Amtrak intends to procure a service-proven trainset platform, capable of meeting the requirem.ents of the Performance Specification issued with the RFP. The Trainset will be capable of operating bidirectionally at speeds up to 220 mph, and having a minimum seating capacity of 425 passengers.

Amtrak's Trainsets will have an initial operating speed of 160 mph and will be tested at 165 mph. As a result of these high operating and testing speeds, there are several attributes ofTrainset design that need to be respected in order to provide a safe and reliable service. [rest of paragraph in document]

...

Interviews with HSR Trainset manufacturers have identified a one and a half to two year time period to establish the required facilities to support a domestic high speed Trainset assembly capability. This time period is largely comprised of the time needed to upgrade current/future new facilities to accommodate assembly of high speed equipment, and the time needed to train the domestic workforce. Both of these elements of potential delay can be mitigated while final assembly of the prototypes is occurring overseas.
Click to expand...
If the waiver request is granted, there could be HSR trainsets running tests on the NEC in 2017. {advance major foam alert warning)
 
For those wondering what the differences may be between the Amtrak NEC HSR trainsets and the CHSRA trainsets, the CHSRA waiver request summarizes the different operating requirements which will likely result in 2 different carbodies and configurations

Justification for Separate Amtrak and Authority Waivers

Amtrak and the Authority require two sets of two prototypes to be designed, assembled and tested under the Amtrak trainset procurement contract. The Amtrak and Authority trainsets will share a common platform. There are, however, physical and technological differences between the two, driven by the particular needs of Amtrak and the Authority. The Amtrak trainset will be designed and constructed to conform to the Amtrak NEC clearance requirements. This will impact the overall width of the trainset and the lower comer of the trainset where clearance between the equipment and the third rail is needed thereby requiring modifications to existing train set designs (e.g., carbody width and underfloor equipment layout). With new infrastructure, the Authority is not limited to the constraints found on the NEC and has the flexibility to leverage several existing equipment designs. Because of these physical differences, it is likely that manufacturers will propose two different trainset carbodies.

From a technological perspective, the Amtrak and Authority trainsets differ in initial operating speed, electrification, braking, signal/control and radio system, and suspension requirements:

• The Authority's trainset will have the capability of operating up to 220 mph, with testing speeds up to 242 mph. Amtrak is initially specifYing an operating speed of 160 mph, with testing speeds up to 165 mph.

• The Authority's trainsets will be required to operate on extended gradients and in extended tunnels on the gradients as the alignment traverses the Diablo, Tehachapi and San Gabrielle mountain ranges. This will impact the design of the traction, braking and cooling systems.

• The Authority's traction power system will be based on a 25 kV, 60Hz system, whereas Amtrak's NEC operates with three different voltages, 12 kV, 25Hz; 12.5 kV, 60Hz; and 25 kV, 60Hz. The Amtrak trainset propulsion package will be a significantly different design when compared to the Authority's trainset, and the Authority anticipates that there will be two separate and distinct trainset propulsion system designs.

• The Authority's braking requirements will be based on criteria defined in European Technical Specifications for Interoperability, whereas Amtrak will need to meet the stop distances currently found on the NEC. There is likely to be differences in the type/number of brake equipment installed on the respective trainsets, especially considering the extended gradients found on the Authority alignment.

• Amtrak requires signaling equipment for Automatic Train Control and Positive Train Control compatible with the existing NEC infrastructure, whereas the Authority is initially specifying interface points (for both signaling and radio) that will be resolved once a systems Contractor is determined.

Based on the aforementioned differences, two distinct sets of prototypes are warranted.
Click to expand...
 
For one thing the Amtrak sets will need to have heavier transformers to be able to operate under both 25Hz and 60Hz.

The California sets will not need ACSES but will possibly need to operate under I-ETMS or equivalent freight PTC systems on some segments, irrespective of what system (possibly ERTMS L2) that they use on the high speed dedicated segments. Which means either the trains will have to be able to operate under both systems or ERTMS will need to be installed in addition to I-ETMS on the non-high speed/freight segments used by the high speed trains.But this is a relatively minor issue and boils down to having enough cabinet space for a extra module or two, and enough space under the floor on the roof for an additional antenna or two.

I understand that on the NEC there will be certain segments where I-ETMS will be installed in addition to ACSES at the expense of either a freight railroad or a commuter railroad so that their I-ETMS equipped trains can operate seamlessly. Specifically MARC has been mentioned in this context, in conjunction with the Perryville to Washington DC segment.

Such dual parallel operation of control systems is not that unheard of. The LGV Est 200mph line in France is equipped with both TVM-430 and ERTMS 2. The ICEs use the latter, the TGVs the former.

Anyway, coming back to prototypes after meandering around a bit, yes, there is ample justification for two almost completely different train sets even though based on the same platform. I had said this is what was going to happen all along. Indeed I was a bit surprised when they came out with this idea of a single order covering both.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
An existing design would be the best option for new HSR traisets. Personally, I think a Alstom TGV Duplex derived design would be a great starting point. The TGV Duplex is shorter in height than a Bombardier MultiLevel Coach, making it compatible with the NEC and existing Catanary. Using newer, more powerful traction motors such as those of the AGV and distributed power throughout the train will allow higher power to weight ratios to enable the train to operate at speeds not yet seen in North America, even if FRA required reinforcement is added in addition to the original design. The next generation of Acela or other HST in the US will not be as capable of succeeding as a bilevel would. Successful HSR in the US will require economies of scale that single level trains cannot offer.
 
CrazyDave said:
An existing design would be the best option for new HSR traisets. Personally, I think a Alstom TGV Duplex derived design would be a great starting point. The TGV Duplex is shorter in height than a Bombardier MultiLevel Coach, making it compatible with the NEC and existing Catanary. Using newer, more powerful traction motors such as those of the AGV and distributed power throughout the train will allow higher power to weight ratios to enable the train to operate at speeds not yet seen in North America, even if FRA required reinforcement is added in addition to the original design. The next generation of Acela or other HST in the US will not be as capable of succeeding as a bilevel would. Successful HSR in the US will require economies of scale that single level trains cannot offer.
Click to expand...
Don't think Duplex will clear the Baltimore low tunnels.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anything that fits in standard UIC loading gauge will fit through all of NEC. TGV Duplexes do fit that loading gauge. Ergo....

They also are some of the most cramped accommodation on any HSR that I have ever come across too. It would be sort of like the NJT MLVs running at 200mph. :)

On the NEC where only one of four potential slots are used by a relatively short train now, and there is (a) potential for running 12 - 14 car trains instead of 6, and the potential for running 4tph instead of 1tph per type, jumping to double decker seems like an overkill. Even the French did not do that until slot and train lengths became insufficient for the demand. We have a long long way to go before we get there on the NEC for Amtrak service. All the real capacity issues are commuter train issues at present, not Amtrak train issues, and are likely to remain that way for decades, even after Amtrak acquires additional rolling stock, provided they don't do misguided things like getting more 6 car consists that cannot be run in pairs.
 
OuiGo would make for a rather nice replacement for the Regionals. Could get average for NYP-WAS under $50.
 
Is it really overkill or planning for the future. If the next Acela is 12-14 cars long will that make double stops necessary at certain stations? If Amtrak went Duplex all that revenue left behind (would make an accountant cry) would be realized, and future growth planned for.

I would imagine that Duplex would be kind of cramped.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RyanS said:
frequentflyer said:
If the next Acela is 12-14 cars long will that make double stops necessary at certain stations?
Click to expand...
No. For the platforms that are shorter, as long as you can get 3/4 of the cars or so on the platform, you're fine. If people in the first and last car have to move to the next car to board, it isn't the end of the world.
Click to expand...
I don't know if it is different just because it is not a commuter, but the Coast Starlight at Van Nuys always make a double spot if it has more than 12 cars. It moves up one or two cars for the last one or two coaches.
 
A) You can. You can open doors in the forward or rearward direction from the control panel (or both).

B) It isn't an issue, since the Acela fits on existing platforms.

C) Even if it were an issue, the Acela II could have a different door control system.
 
frequentflyer said:
Is it really overkill or planning for the future. If the next Acela is 12-14 cars long will that make double stops necessary at certain stations? If Amtrak went Duplex all that revenue left behind (would make an accountant cry) would be realized, and future growth planned for.

I would imagine that Duplex would be kind of cramped.
Click to expand...
We know from the RFP specification that Amtrak is NOT looking for 12 to 14 car long HSR trainsets nor are they considering double deck cars. In the Schedule 1 Part A specification in section 7..3 Trainset Configuration, it states:

For Amtrak, the distance between the first and last axles of the Trainset shall be a maximum of 205 m (672.6 feet).

For the Authority, the maximum Trainset length shall be such that all of the side entry doors of the Trainset in double traction can berth at a platform having a length of 407 m (1,335 feet).

The Trainset design shall feature single-deck passenger accommodations.

Seating provisions shall be in accordance with Section 8.4.6.
Click to expand...
So this discussion of Duplex cars and really long HSR trainsets (for Amtrak) is not grounded in the reality of what Amtrak and CHSRA are looking to buy.

Now a company can submit a non-compliant proposal if they think that they can make a case that their proposal is superior to what is asked for in the RFP. But they would be taking a big gamble on getting their proposal considered. This is an RFP for a multi-billion contract that could lead to 20 years of building trainsets for the CA HSR system. If you are the corporate executive in charge of putting the proposal together and trying to land a big contract, would you take that risk?

I think we are overlooking how much of an increase in capacity that Amtrak is looking for with their RFP, even with circa 8 car long single level trainsets, because the Acela Is have so little.

There are 20 Acela I trainsets x 303 seats each = 6060 seats. Of the 20 Acela trainsets, 16 are in use on a weekday for 80% utilization.

Amtrak is seeking new HSR trainsets with somewhere from 425 to 450 seats. If Amtrak were to order 28 HSR trainsets with 433 seats, that would result in 12124 seats, twice that of the Acela I fleet. If Amtrak maxes out the order and gets 32 HSR trainsets with 450 seats, that would result in 14,400 seats, 2.37x that of the Acela ! fleet.

If an additional slot per hour is used between WAS and NYP to have the new HSR trainsets with 433 seats run every 30 minutes during the AM and PM peak window instead of a single Acela 1 each way per hour, that would provide 866 seats per hour (so to speak) compared to 303 seats for an 2.85x increase. Cut prices by 20% to 30% to fill those seats and Amtrak still comes out way ahead on revenue.

The chokepoint is NYP to BOS with its limit of 39 total trains a day over the Shore Line East route for 19 trains each way on a weekday. The increase in capacity for the new HSR trainsets won't be as dramatic if Amtrak can't add more Acela I/II slots. But that is a discussion for another post.
 
Doesn't the Coast Guard involved 19 trains-per-day maximum, expire in a few years? Namely the end of twenty years after the electrification began?
 
NE933 said:
Doesn't the Coast Guard involved 19 trains-per-day maximum, expire in a few years? Namely the end of twenty years after the electrification began?
Click to expand...
I've never heard anything about this. I'd love to see a citation.

The Coast Guard has absolute authority -- the standard rule is that water traffic has priority over all other traffic, an ancient common law rule. Even the NYC Subway lifts its bridges when ships come through. But this "19 trains per day" thing is another matter and must have something to do with an agreement to make ships wait. I don't know whether it has an expiration date, and if it does, I don't know what replaces it.
 
A brief description of the restrictions and their genesis appears on this page on the Shores and Bridges page on Shore Line East Service Expansion.

The relevant portion says:

Since the trains, rails, parking, platforms, and station are all here, the primary impediment to initiating Phase Two of the Shore Line East expansion plan concerns the bridge closings over the three movable railroad bridges between Old Saybrook and New London.

Train crossings over these bridges are regulated by agreement from multiple parties. The DEP governs bridge traffic via the Federal Water Quality Act, Amtrak owns the rails and the Connecticut Marine Trades Association represents the interests of the Connecticut recreational boating industry.

During the electrification of the northeast corridor in the mid 1990’s, the DOT reached an agreement with Amtrak, the DEP, and the CMTA to allow 44 trains per day to travel between Old Saybrook and New London on weekdays (34 Amtrak and 10 SLE). In 2003, total train crossings were reduced to 41 (39 Amtrak and 2 SLE).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I citation I have not, rather, more on fallible memory if its mentionings in rail forums like this.

But I hope others can chime in; besides, having a term limit would be consistant with norms for allowances, especially since many of the bridge's replacements are built several feet higher, and so it theoretically allows more marine traffic to pass without an opening. My algabreic logic says if there are fewer openings, then there is leverage in the argument that more trains over the present 19 can and should be allowed.
 
NE933 said:
But I hope others can chime in; besides, having a term limit would be consistant with norms for allowances, especially since many of the bridge's replacements are built several feet higher, and so it theoretically allows more marine traffic to pass without an opening. My algabreic logic says if there are fewer openings, then there is leverage in the argument that more trains over the present 19 can and should be allowed.
Click to expand...
The only movable bridge on the Shore Line East that has been replaced with a higher clearance bridge in the past 10+ years is the Niantic River bridge. The lift span was replaced for the Thames River bridge in New London, but AFAIK the replacement did not have a notably improved clearance.

There was a good in-depth article on the movable bridges of the NEC and Metro-North in the February 2014 issue of Trains Magazine with a data table on the bridges with length, height above water, approximate number of yearly openings, year built/rebuilt, ballpark cost to replace. The Niantic River bridge has the most yearly openings at 4,100 but I think that is for the old bridge; the new bridge has higher and wide clearance and is expected to have to open less often. The CT River bridge (3500 yearly openings) is planned to be replaced with a higher clearance movable bridge but it will take time and money to replace it.

Whether the new Niantic River bridge and rebuilt Thames River bridge are enough to result in a change to the 39 trains a day restriction, don't know. However, this thread is about the next gen HSR trainset order; don't want to get sidetracked into the CT bridge situation, except to note the 39 train a day restriction on the SLE and the slow speeds in CT are significant issues into increasing BOS-NYP ridership and capacity.

The current weekday schedule has 10 Acelas and 9 Regionals each way between NYP and BOS. If the 10 Acelas with 303 seats each are replaced with 425 to 450 seat HSR trainsets, that works to a 40% to 48% increase in capacity for the Acela class service. And figure they could add an extra coach car or two to the Regionals, but then the stations with shorter platforms become a hassle. Useful increase in capacity, but one that could get maxed out if ridership continues to grow and Amtrak remains stuck with a 39 trains a day limits. A couple of daily Inland Route Regionals would provide some relief but wouldn't help with the premium Acela service capacity.
 
Thought that this should be noted. If the HSR Trainset procurement is still on the schedule that was posted in January, the bid proposals were to be submitted by Friday, May 16. So, if Amtrak and CHSRA have not granted an extension, the bids for the HSR trainsets have been turned in.

The next major step in the January RFP timeline are oral presentations on the week of September 8.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top