Long Distance (LD) fleet replacement RFP discussion H1 2024

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.
So what you are implying is that the bilevel replacement is essentially already paid for?
That would be the implication, at least for a substantial part of the cost, yes.
And of the following rolling stock manufacturers, (Alstom, Siemens and Stadler), who do you think is most likely to both win and receive the new fleet contract?
Your guess is as good as mine, and mine is probably not worth the paper it is written on. Insufficient information so far. I don't even know for sure who the bidders are since the bids are not in or at least not publicized.
 
The problem of depending on skylight style windows in coaches replacing a lounge is that many passengers prefer to close the curtains, especially during the evening hours. This makes it impossible to see what is outside.
Skylight will have shades controlled by the conductor. Probably all open or closed in the entire car.

Actually, the shades may not matter. They'll probably be so filthy that shades won't be needed. ;)
 
You don't move more cars to the core. You attach non-core cars to the core.
I think I see what you're saying now. But that may depend on how you define "core." it seems to me that the actual core of the train is entire string of semi-permanently-coupled cars that would run on a given route every day. From a capacity standpoint, at least, I don't think it would matter whether the lounge space on that core was in one car in the middle of the core, or in portions of two cars at either end of the core.
 
I think I see what you're saying now. But that may depend on how you define "core." it seems to me that the actual core of the train is entire string of semi-permanently-coupled cars that would run on a given route every day. From a capacity standpoint, at least, I don't think it would matter whether the lounge space on that core was in one car in the middle of the core, or in portions of two cars at either end of the core.
It wouldn't. But any end window may or may not be covered by an adjacent car if the train has added capacity outside of the core.
 
It wouldn't. But any end window may or may not be covered by an adjacent car if the train has added capacity outside of the core.
True enough. But the window would not be covered if the train does not have added capacity, and that would be good enough for me!
 
True enough. But the window would not be covered if the train does not have added capacity, and that would be good enough for me!
The front one would always be substantially covered by the 14.5' tall locomotive. It is only the rear one that we are talking about here.
 
The front one would always be substantially covered by the 14.5' tall locomotive. It is only the rear one that we are talking about here.
That's probably true, too. But as we're talking at least ten years down the road, we don't know exactly what locomotives will be pulling these new trains. And I've noticed that whenever I've been in a Superliner coach on the front of a train, people will walk up to the front window to get a peak over the engines. The other advantage to having windows on both ends of the train is that you don't have to worry about turning the train at the end of each run,
 
That would be the implication, at least for a substantial part of the cost, yes.

Your guess is as good as mine, and mine is probably not worth the paper it is written on. Insufficient information so far. I don't even know for sure who the bidders are since the bids are not in or at least not publicized.
IIJA is a five year program I believe. Maybe this project gets ongoing grants as needed, then after five years Congress & the President must continue to fund it? (There would be a contract with Siemens/etc. though.) Or, an IIJA grant this year for the full $7b can be banked by the FRA/Amtrak? The former seems more likely, but I'm talking out my hat, other than reading a lot of newspapers over the years.
 
That's probably true, too. But as we're talking at least ten years down the road, we don't know exactly what locomotives will be pulling these new trains. And I've noticed that whenever I've been in a Superliner coach on the front of a train, people will walk up to the front window to get a peak over the engines. The other advantage to having windows on both ends of the train is that you don't have to worry about turning the train at the end of each run,
It is almost certain that it will be ALC-42s that will be pulling them upto 2040 or so since no additional acquisition is planned or budgeted for in the long term plans yet. 2040 is just 16 years away. And even if there are other locomotives, none will be substantially shorter than 14.5' tall.

IIJA is a five year program I believe. Maybe this project gets ongoing grants as needed, then after five years Congress & the President must continue to fund it? (There would be a contract with Siemens/etc. though.) Or, an IIJA grant this year for the full $7b can be banked by the FRA/Amtrak? The former seems more likely, but I'm talking out my hat, other than reading a lot of newspapers over the years.
Not this year, but they can be banked in equal proportions over the 5 years, since they remain available until spent with no limit on when they are spent.
 
So what you are implying is that the bilevel replacement is essentially already paid for?

And of the following rolling stock manufacturers, (Alstom, Siemens and Stadler), who do you think is most likely to both win and receive the new fleet contract?

Anybody who has made passenger rail equipment in the US in the last 15 years is likely to at least try to bid. Amtrak mentioned last year that they had ~10 companies interested. Of those you can be pretty sure the following are going to make a significant effort:
  • Stadler
  • Siemens
  • Alsom
  • CAF
  • Hitachi
  • Hyundai Rotem
  • Kawasaki
  • Kinki Sharyo
I'd absolutely love to know how many made the cut to get the full RFP, but that will likely be kept under wraps until after a preferred vendor is chosen.

I believe it is possible that several manufacturers will attempt to submit joint bids, but that is just speculation. Of course I am on team Stadler because they are local to SLC. They really have room to grow and the institutional knowledge to build an order of this magnitude.

I wonder if info about the initial RFI could be made available. Not any technical details of course, but a list of companies engaged. I'll hold off on any more FOIA requests for now though.
 
What really bothers this poster is that if all proposals are just for Superliner type cars what happens in the east for the necessary single level cars? Imo The present single level trains need at least 40 more sleepers. Then if the DFW train to ATL is initiated it will need 4 train sets and if it should go all the way to NYP (a possibility before the FRA route thru IND can start) That would mean at least 6 train sets. so 2 - 4 sleepers on that route means 12 - 24 single level sleepers. including the 20& spares a total of 50 more with options for another ~25?

Mayber CAF should make a split bid the important one is a quarantine to build 50 V-3 sleepers say 4 years with options for another 25? As well a few more diners for those single level trains and maybe even baggage ( end of contract).
 
There is an option in there to have the same skylight style windows in the coaches as for the lounges - so conceivably you could "sightsee" right from your seat on cars where they exercise that option. Obviously it's nice to have somewhere to go other than your seat but if the coaches had the same style windows it mitigates the issue somewhat. It's also not possible to glean what the actual rules regarding the lounge will be from the tech spec. There's nothing of course stopping them from opening it up to coach passengers if there's an advocacy push to do so - even if it's called the first class lounge in the specs.

Coach passengers do not want sky lit coach seats. This was a major complaint of the privately run Autotrain, with full domes repurposed as overnight coaches.

So, no it does not mitigate it at all. And yes, there is something to stop use of the sleeper lounge car for coach passengers - it means coach passengers constantly traipsing back and forth through the diner to get to the lounge, and no longer use the diner as a buffer to prevent their trespassing into the sleepers. It will not happen. Even if management supports it, which they will not, OBS will not permit it. OBS have creative ways of using cardboard boxes to block people from where they do not want them to go while they know managment is a habitual absentee landlord and wouldn't have it any other way.

The sightseer lounge can be standing room only through the most scenic mountain ranges on the Starlight, Zephyr and Empire Builder, is a popular feature car, but would have no replacement. Every LD consist with a lounge car and a diner has the diner against the sleepers.

Amtrak clearly wants coach passengers to stay in their seats at all times except when fetching food as in a corridor train, having no concept of long distance train realities. This entire cafe/lounge/diner design is disaster and unacceptable. While reinventing the wheel in their little bubble, they made it a triangle.

No wonder it takes a FOIA request to see the sordid details. I'd be ashamed of it too.
 
Last edited:
What really bothers this poster is that if all proposals are just for Superliner type cars what happens in the east for the necessary single level cars? Imo The present single level trains need at least 40 more sleepers. Then if the DFW train to ATL is initiated it will need 4 train sets and if it should go all the way to NYP (a possibility before the FRA route thru IND can start) That would mean at least 6 train sets. so 2 - 4 sleepers on that route means 12 - 24 single level sleepers. including the 20& spares a total of 50 more with options for another ~25?

Mayber CAF should make a split bid the important one is a quarantine to build 50 V-3 sleepers say 4 years with options for another 25? As well a few more diners for those single level trains and maybe even baggage ( end of contract).

There are 75 Viewliner sleepers. They now use 35 each day. There's your 40 sleepers that they have chosen not to maintain, and that started before Covid. Let's not positively reinforce bad behavior. The Viewliner-I's are as old as the Budd 10-6 cars were in 1979, which is when they were converted to HEP and lasted another 20 years and only got scrapped because of the dump toilets.
 
Last edited:
What really bothers this poster is that if all proposals are just for Superliner type cars what happens in the east for the necessary single level cars? Imo The present single level trains need at least 40 more sleepers. Then if the DFW train to ATL is initiated it will need 4 train sets and if it should go all the way to NYP (a possibility before the FRA route thru IND can start) That would mean at least 6 train sets. so 2 - 4 sleepers on that route means 12 - 24 single level sleepers. including the 20& spares a total of 50 more with options for another ~25?

Mayber CAF should make a split bid the important one is a quarantine to build 50 V-3 sleepers say 4 years with options for another 25? As well a few more diners for those single level trains and maybe even baggage ( end of contract).
The current RFP is for acquiring bi-level cars. How can anyone respond to it with a partial single level proposal and expect to be taken seriously?

There will be a separate path for replacing the single level fleet either as an exercise of options associated with the Amfleet I replacement order or as a separate RFP as spelled out in the plan document.

There are 75 Viewliner sleepers. They now use 35 each day. There's your 40 sleepers that they have chosen not to maintain, and that started before Covid. Let's not positively reinforce bad behavior. The Viewliner-I's are as old as the Budd 10-6 cars were in 1979, which is when they were converted to HEP and lasted another 20 years and only got scrapped because of the dump toilets.
Indeed. If they simply bothered to bring all the single level Sleepers on line they could augment the Sleeper count on the four main trains with some getting two more and others one more. Or alternatively convert the Cap into single level.
 
No wonder it takes a FOIA request to see the sordid details. I'd be ashamed of it too.
It’s impossible to know the full programmatic details from a technical specification. What if they reveal that the premium coach seats (which many overnight passengers will likely spring for) have access? And what if they just allow access with a purchase of a beverage from the “first class bar?” I think panicking over this before we even see any of the final details is way premature. These details can all be sorted out - and as previously pointed out they are trying to make this as flexible as possible with making it possible to use H couplers instead if the envisioned semi permanent coupled configuration doesn’t work out. I also like the idea behind the first class bar - it should be open to everyone in some form (even if it means through a purchase - but if executed right I think it would be a net positive.) There may be some things that require some advocacy to correct - but the superliners are tired and should not completely inform the new fleet. I appreciate that they’re willing to include some new concepts to provide a more upscale experience to premium passengers who pay a lot of money. Coach passengers should be included - even if it’s in a premium manner - but let’s see what they have in mind before condemning it
 
The current RFP is for acquiring bi-level cars. How can anyone respond to it with a partial single level proposal and expect to be taken seriously?

There will be a separate path for replacing the single level fleet either as an exercise of options associated with the Amfleet I replacement order or as a separate RFP as spelled out in the plan.
Exactly. Reading between the lines it seems the future of the Viewliner 1 sleepers is the primary decision point. I kind of get the impression (somewhat an educated guess) that there’s two options on the table - one would be an option execution on the Airo order for replacing Amfleet II along with a life extension of the Viewliners Is or a procurement similar to the bilevel one that would include the full program and replace both Viewliner I and Amfleet II and be compatible with Viewliner Ii.
 
There is an option in there to have the same skylight style windows in the coaches as for the lounges - so conceivably you could "sightsee" right from your seat on cars where they exercise that option. Obviously it's nice to have somewhere to go other than your seat but if the coaches had the same style windows it mitigates the issue somewhat.
The problem with that is the overhead baggage racks would block the view…and they are needed much more than skylight windows…
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cal
Anybody who has made passenger rail equipment in the US in the last 15 years is likely to at least try to bid. Amtrak mentioned last year that they had ~10 companies interested. Of those you can be pretty sure the following are going to make a significant effort:
  • Stadler
  • Siemens
  • Alsom
  • CAF
  • Hitachi
  • Hyundai Rotem
  • Kawasaki
  • Kinki Sharyo
I think Talgo deserves another chance but probably has a bad taste in their mouths and won't. What about CRRC? They have always seemed eager to grow their business here.
 
For a May 15 WAS - MIA
The FY24-29 Five Year Plan, page 44, states an intent to have a separate acquisition cycle for single level long distance equipment.
The sleeper inventory is woefully inadequate. To compare revenue let us take a May 15 trip WASH - MIA. A planned AM-2 is 60 pass. Fare $157 = $9420: roomette fare 11- $571 = $6291. Bedrooms 5 - #1450 = $ 7259 . Added together - $13541; Now any extra passengers are at the coach fares so if we take 15 additional sleeper passengers at $157 = $2355 for a total revenue of ~~~ $15896 for each sleeper.

15896 - 9420 = $ 6476. Nice premium revenue for Amtrak sleeper vs coach fares for a few meals and lounges. Of course, fares collected seem to be more with closer to train dates and intermediate turnover. I did ignore the additional cost of running an additional sleeper to meet same load as a coach. 1296 miles at ~~~ $4.00 / mile= $6384 but 2nd sleeper's revenue does add its revenue.

Amtrak seems so scared that it cannot fill more sleepers that it will not even get all back into service. Much less order more. Who knows how many persons would ride in a sleeper if meal service and a few other items were attractive? IMO can we suspect that most persons who would want to travel on Amtrak especially sleepers can try to make a reservation on just an average of ~~ 2 - 4 weeks. But now all sleeper space is gone by then. Lost passengers who will not go by coach,

IMO with these figures Amtrak should modify their car overhauls to do the sleepers during slow periods and keep all sleepers bringing in the revenue. Do coach overhauls during these high sleeper revenue times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top