RFP released for 35 Next Gen Locomotives

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.
afigg said:
Googling Amtrak Clearance Diagram D-05-1355 turns up a copy of the diagram with a static height of 14'8". This is the clearance for the NEC and Hudson river tunnels. Think about it, the goal of the Next-Gen diesel locomotive specification and order is to create a standard intercity passenger diesel locomotive for nationwide use for the states, Amtrak, and other possible operators (All Aboard Florida would be a likely candidate). A standard passenger locomotive that does not work in some of the busiest corridors in the east is a problem. The passenger cars have single and bi-level types because there are benefits to using bi-levels in the Midwest and West.
Click to expand...
OK, spill, where did you find a copy of the diagram; because I didn't actually find one when I Googled.
 
Nathanael said:
afigg said:
Googling Amtrak Clearance Diagram D-05-1355 turns up a copy of the diagram with a static height of 14'8". This is the clearance for the NEC and Hudson river tunnels. Think about it, the goal of the Next-Gen diesel locomotive specification and order is to create a standard intercity passenger diesel locomotive for nationwide use for the states, Amtrak, and other possible operators (All Aboard Florida would be a likely candidate). A standard passenger locomotive that does not work in some of the busiest corridors in the east is a problem. The passenger cars have single and bi-level types because there are benefits to using bi-levels in the Midwest and West.
Click to expand...
OK, spill, where did you find a copy of the diagram; because I didn't actually find one when I Googled.
Click to expand...
Magic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nathanael said:
afigg said:
SubwayNut said:
I believe the F59PHIs can't fit into the tunnels in New York City. Do the specifications require these locomotives to be small enough? I'm thinking about Amtrak piggy-backing a LD order and know they want locomotives that can fit up the NEC
Click to expand...
The PRIIA specification for the Next Generation Diesel passenger locomotive states that it shall be "Compliant with Amtrak Clearance Diagram D-05-1355 (latest version)". Which appears to be the clearance diagram for national compatibility including the NEC and Hudson & East River tunnels.
Click to expand...
I belive A-05-1355 is the unrestricted clearance diagram which includes the North River Tunnels (Hudson), East River Tunnels, B&P Tunnel in Baltimore, Union Tunnel in Baltimore, and Park Avenue Tunnel in New York City.
I think the D- prefix means that it's the larger Superliner clearance. Someone who actually has access to the drawings can correct me if I'm wrong. This is an educated guess.

(I'm not sure what the B- and C- clearance diagrams are good for.)
Click to expand...
You may be confusing AAR Plates, with Amtrak diagram designations.
At present it is not clear if there is an AAR Plate A in effect any more. But in the past what was called A was smaller than the American Passenger single level standard, which is what the Amtrak diagram referred to specifies. It is not related to any AAR Plate designation. AAR Plates are for freight. AAR has a separate set of diagrams for passenger, and those are the ones that Amtrak has responsibility for these days I believe.

American passenger bilevel standard as in Superliners is also not aligned with any AAR Plate. It falls somewhere between Plate E and Plate F. Incidentally there is no static diagram for Plate D either. It is a specification for calculating dynamic envelopes for off standard loads.

I have found the following single diagram which has both AAR and UIC gauges shown on it, extremely useful:

http://gritton.org/greg/rail/docs/clearance/AAR_plates_with_UIC.gif

AAR Unrestricted Interchange is Plate B which at 15'1" is too tall for the NEC tunnels.

Incidentally, LIRR's East River Tunnel that is part of ESA has an even more constrained loading gauge than the Penn Station tunnels. For example LIRR or NJT bilevels would not fit through those. As a matter of fact even an MNRR M7A would not fit through those. Only LIRR M7s and and the older LIRR EMUs would fit through those, not the new MNRR ones.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anderson said:
Well, at the very least some of those tunnels are a non-issue since you can't run much in the way of diesel into NYP unless something else is hauling it. That basically scratches operation PHL-NHV, and more often than not does so WAS-BOS as a whole. Now, if they're dual-mode engines that's another story...
My best guess is that they'll go with the EMD-F125. Metrolink already ordered a rack of them, so the line is set to start up. Adding 35 engines to that order (presumably with a few options) wouldn't likely shock EMD's system, and it would save on the cost of starting up a line fresh.
Click to expand...
I think the case for them to meet the height clearance is out there. I know I've seen a few photos of a P-42 running through NYP on a positioning move. Admittedly though the larger issue is clearance issues through BAL than NYP. You've got a little more wiggle room in BAL than NYP, but why regress versus what you've got now. The other consideration to is that down the road they may seek to make a dual mode version of this to replace the P-32 AC-DM since they'll be near the end of their life cycle by the end of the decade.
 
Anderson said:
Well, at the very least some of those tunnels are a non-issue since you can't run much in the way of diesel into NYP unless something else is hauling it. That basically scratches operation PHL-NHV, and more often than not does so WAS-BOS as a whole. Now, if they're dual-mode engines that's another story...

My best guess is that they'll go with the EMD-F125. Metrolink already ordered a rack of them, so the line is set to start up. Adding 35 engines to that order (presumably with a few options) wouldn't likely shock EMD's system, and it would save on the cost of starting up a line fresh.
Click to expand...
But according to this spec sheet: http://www.emdiesels.com/emdweb/products/pdf/2-sidersENG_LTR_proof_rev5RevE.pdf

EMD F125 is 14'7" tall. Do you actually want to make them go through the trouble of making it taller so that they specifically cannot operate through NEC tunnels? If so, why?
 
jis said:
Anderson said:
Well, at the very least some of those tunnels are a non-issue since you can't run much in the way of diesel into NYP unless something else is hauling it. That basically scratches operation PHL-NHV, and more often than not does so WAS-BOS as a whole. Now, if they're dual-mode engines that's another story...

My best guess is that they'll go with the EMD-F125. Metrolink already ordered a rack of them, so the line is set to start up. Adding 35 engines to that order (presumably with a few options) wouldn't likely shock EMD's system, and it would save on the cost of starting up a line fresh.
Click to expand...
But according to this spec sheet: http://www.emdiesels.com/emdweb/products/pdf/2-sidersENG_LTR_proof_rev5RevE.pdf

EMD F125 is 14'7" tall. Do you actually want to make them go through the trouble of making it taller so that they specifically cannot operate through NEC tunnels? If so, why?
Click to expand...
I think you misread my comments. I was more looking at the relative merits (or lack thereof) of picking another not-in-production model of diesel locomotive based primarily on clearing the North River Tunnels. If the F125 fits (which, given that I believe NJT bilevels are 14'6", it seems likely to), then great; I wasn't sure if it would, though. However, running single-mode diesels into NYP is, as I understand it, a bit problematic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ah! Got it!

The RFP effectively says that it must be based on the PRIIA specification, via reference to the loading gauge drawing. So it does not look like the RFP could be satisfied without fitting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To restart this thread, it appears that there is a competitor in the Next Gen Diesel order from Siemens & Cummins who are teaming up. Railway Age article: Siemens, Cummins team for Tier 4 passenger locomotives. They are proposing to build a 125 mph diesel-electric locomotive using a Cummins engine at the Siemens Sacramento plant. Some excerpts:


Siemens Rail Systems and Cummins jointly announced a partnership on Dec. 3, 2013 that they said "will bring one of the most modern and efficient passenger rail, diesel-electric locomotives in the world to the U.S. marketplace."
The companies said Cummins QSK95 diesel engines will be used in Siemens' diesel-electric locomotives in the U.S., "resulting in one of the most energy-efficient, lightweight, smart, diesel-electric locomotives available today in North America."

...

The lighter weight of the new diesel-electric locomotives ensures the ability to safely operate the locomotives at speeds of up to 125 mph more efficiently, requiring less maintenance, the companies said.

The locomotives will be built and assembled at Siemens' solar-powered transportation manufacturing facility in Sacramento, Calif. Cummins diesel QSK95 engines will be made in Seymour, Ind. The 95-liter prime mover is the most powerful high-speed 16-cylinder diesel to be installed in a locomotive generating more than 4,000 hp (2,983 kW), the companies said.
Click to expand...
Besides the Next Gen Diesel procurement by the states and Amtrak, I expect they are talking to All Aboard Florida as well as AAF will need 125 mph passenger diesels for the Miami to Orlando service.
 
Cummins makes some excellent marine diesel engines... good to see them working on rail applications now...
 
Really looking forward to how this all plays out. Siemens seems to be really getting their ducks lined up for passenger rail in the US. First was the bid and award for the ACS-64, next was that Siemens would be bidding for the Next-Gen Acela/CHSRA trainsets, and now this announcement of putting in for the Next-Gen diesel-electric locomotives.

The rail buff in me is very amused with the possible renaissance of locomotive and car building on the industrial scale in Sacramento. :)
 
The mention of Siemens tripped me up...I'm more accustomed to seeing that name in connection with hearing aids considered to be creme de creme. LOL. If that's any indication of their quality in the rail world this is indeed good news.
 
afigg said:
To restart this thread, it appears that there is a competitor in the Next Gen Diesel order from Siemens & Cummins who are teaming up. Railway Age article: Siemens, Cummins team for Tier 4 passenger locomotives. They are proposing to build a 125 mph diesel-electric locomotive using a Cummins engine at the Siemens Sacramento plant.
Click to expand...
This could lead to an extraordinarily uniform fleet of Siemens locomotives for Amtrak. If there's a dual-mode overhead-and-diesel model (for Albany-NY) this might even open up possibilities for incremental extension of electrification.
 
Blackwolf said:
Really looking forward to how this all plays out. Siemens seems to be really getting their ducks lined up for passenger rail in the US. First was the bid and award for the ACS-64, next was that Siemens would be bidding for the Next-Gen Acela/CHSRA trainsets, and now this announcement of putting in for the Next-Gen diesel-electric locomotives.

The rail buff in me is very amused with the possible renaissance of locomotive and car building on the industrial scale in Sacramento. :)
Click to expand...
My thinking is that landing the Next Gen diesel contract is a long shot for the Siemens and Cummins teaming. Since this would be an all new locomotive design and Siemens has not been a significant player in the US diesel markets, they don't have a demonstrated history of performance and reliability to bring to the bid. EMD and GE are established US diesel locomotive manufacturers who have built passenger locomotives before. Siemens and Cummins probably know landing the contract is a long shot, but they may figure it is worth taking the shot with the intent to get a foot in the door for winning future commuter and freight diesel contracts.

Siemens odds are likely much better with the Acela II HSR RFP because the Velaro appear to be a good match to the Amtrak and CHSRA requirements.
 
BTW - An Amtrak Management person once mentioned to my son, that he wishes someday, that they could return to the retro look of the classic passenger engines…. That EMD F7, E7 and F9 look. Not saying it will happen, Again - not saying, that this will happen, but it's nice to know that they think like that.

Ford Motor Co. once went back to the basic/classic look of the Mustang (I think it was "Mustang ll"), and the same with a few other classic cars Ford and GM have produced over the years.

The "retro" look is coming back in many consumer products, appliances, clothes, cameras, furniture… Why not diesel locomotives. After all, what is more "retro" than riding a train.
 
Good luck with that. I agree the retro look is great, but in todays "modern" world, locomotive builders not only want to build the most modern, high-tech locomotives, they also want their engines to look modern as well, least from what I have seen from recent passenger locomotives. Look at Brookville's BL36PH, MPI's MPXpress series, EMD's F125, Siemen's ACS-64. All are "modern" or at least somewhat modern looking engines.
 
Perhaps I should have said "Retro" styling… A modern engine, but with a updated Retro look. Not a replica of an old engine, but more of a throwback design.

Was it Ford that went with a classic retro style on the Thunderbird, yet it was quite stylish and modern looking. Just a reminder of the classic 1960s models...

I was thinking a modern railroad engine, with a classic streamlined front hood and windshield.
 
DesertRat said:
The mention of Siemens tripped me up...I'm more accustomed to seeing that name in connection with hearing aids considered to be creme de creme. LOL. If that's any indication of their quality in the rail world this is indeed good news.
Click to expand...
Siemens is quite a household name when it comes to trains over in Europe, I've ridden on (or been pulled by) a number of different trains they've made, and they all are really quite nice.
While Siemens hasn't really had any track record here in the states for long haul locomotives, they do have quite a good one over in other parts of the world, so I wouldn't count them out of the running for that.

peter
 
abcnews said:
BTW - An Amtrak Management person once mentioned to my son, that he wishes someday, that they could return to the retro look of the classic passenger engines…. That EMD F7, E7 and F9 look. Not saying it will happen, Again - not saying, that this will happen, but it's nice to know that they think like that.

Ford Motor Co. once went back to the basic/classic look of the Mustang (I think it was "Mustang ll"), and the same with a few other classic cars Ford and GM have produced over the years.

The "retro" look is coming back in many consumer products, appliances, clothes, cameras, furniture… Why not diesel locomotives. After all, what is more "retro" than riding a train.
Click to expand...
Careful. There are lots of retro things about passenger trains, but we don't want that to be a predominant reason, or else the bad guys have their ammunition. And if I'm going to engage with an adversary, they will have to get their own ammo.

Passenger rail is rooted in the past, and very much as a role in the future, even long distance / overnight runs. To ride from New York to California for three days vs flying for six hours, what's so modern about that, detractors say? Well, it's modern to the eye of the beholder. Maybe I wanna take my sweet g**amn time. It's true that for a disantance like this, air is likely better for most people, but not necessarily all.

It's easy to refer to riding the rails as "taking the choo-choo", but we need to be careful with our words, especially written, because this galvanizes the erroneous notion that taking non-corridor, or non-high speed trains, is the useless and expensive tax paid luxury modern, hip, sexy America doesn't need and can't afford.

Amtrak has to be careful with this tendency as well, and should work to update some of its modern sides by advertising in dance clubs, malls, and such. If I were its CEO, I would dare to equate taking an Amtrak train with owning a luxury car that's driven to a party of who's who. It's just as sexy, and useful, and it does the job better.
 
From the evaluation report, there were only 3 final bidders: EMD, Siemens, and MotivePower. Siemens base contract bid was $225.5 million for 32 (?) locomotives. The RFP is for 32 to 35 total, so not sure if the additional 3 units are covered by the $24.8 million option.

Now to figure out how much was set aside in the HSIPR grant. If the bid came in low, that means there could be some stimulus funds that could be re-allocated.
 
Wow! Siemens put in a very low bid compared to MPI and EMD. I think they are willing to work at a lower margin to get a foothold here in America. This is great news for California (where the Siemens factory is located.)

I also find it interesting that GE (the builder of the P42/Genesis locomotives) didn't even put in a bid.

Amtrak could be entirely "powered by Siemens" if the company wins the contract for the new Acela trainsets and Amtrak can scrounge up the money to replace their fleet of diesels for long-distance trains.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
abcnews said:
BTW - An Amtrak Management person once mentioned to my son, that he wishes someday, that they could return to the retro look of the classic passenger engines…. That EMD F7, E7 and F9 look. Not saying it will happen, Again - not saying, that this will happen, but it's nice to know that they think like that.

Ford Motor Co. once went back to the basic/classic look of the Mustang (I think it was "Mustang ll"), and the same with a few other classic cars Ford and GM have produced over the years.

The "retro" look is coming back in many consumer products, appliances, clothes, cameras, furniture… Why not diesel locomotives. After all, what is more "retro" than riding a train.
Click to expand...
A "retro" styled nose in a composite (aka fiberglass) should not cost a whole lot different than the slab nose on the P42, which I understand is also a composite. So is TalgoMater. The E's, PA's and DL-109's style may have a restriction on low forward visibility which may be a concern. Lets hope Siemans can do a better style than "basic brick".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top