Fan Railer
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2012
- Messages
- 887
Not at the moment, I think.
RFP released for 35 Next Gen Locomotives
- Thread starter afigg
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
N
Nathanael
Guest
I think if there's a re-allocation at this late date, it would almost certainly be to orders of extra vehicles from the currently or soon-to-be running production lines. *Anything* involving trackwork is going to be slower than adding on to a car order.
(Well, actually, there would likely be re-allocations to projects which are going over budget, first. Poor Springfield MA Union Station.)
N
Nathanael
Guest
Yeah, I don't think there'll be a problem and EMD is blowing smoke. Fan Railer, would you care to rerun your back-of-envelope estimates using a maximum of 5 cars rather than 8? This probably reduces the necessary newtons of force just enough to satisfy the contract requirements.
Fan Railer
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2012
- Messages
- 887
I would re-run the estimate, but do take note that the cars used in my estimates are single level Amfleets (which come in around 130,000 lbs loaded) while the cars specified in the RFP are bi-levels. Weight wise, the consists are not that off. In addition, keep in mind that a bi-level train has a higher air drag coefficient than a single level train, so while the 5 car bi-level train may be lighter, the lower weight factor is balanced out by the higher air drag, so I still think that an estimate of 40 kN - 50 kN of drag force at 125 mph is a good estimate. If I find the motivation this evening, I may take the coefficients supplied for the Davis Equation and plug it in to find the actual drag force, but my guess is that it will still be around the ball park of my estimate. Keep in mind that in order to reach the maximum balancing speed in a timely manner, a locomotive needs to generate a significant amount more tractive effort at that speed than the calculated drag force. So even with my original estimate of 50 kN of drag force at 125 mph, the EMD locomotive, with only 51 kN of tractive force at 125 mph, would take an excruciatingly long time to reach 125, and that is on level track. There is no way that, with an estimate of 50 kN of drag force, and given the HEP load that I calculated with, that even the EMD locomotive would be able to sustain 125 mph for any given amount of time.
Fan Railer
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2012
- Messages
- 887
Hey, look what just popped online: http://www.scribd.com/doc/205490917/HSR-IDOT-Multi-State-Procurement-Protest-Feb-2014-Original
Even granting EMD their own proposal's acceleration, that rate of acceleration is absolutely ridiculous. Almost half an hour to reach 125mph with a 600kW HEP load?
The acceleration performance charts in the EMD protest letter show the specs for 125 mph speed are really not that important. I'm only paying attention to the curves for the EMD F125, not what EMD claims for the Siemens locomotive because EMD is trying to make Siemens look bad. Because these are diesel locomotives operating at the edge of their engine power output curve to reach 125 mph, it will be a long slow acceleration to creep from 120 mph to 125 mph. Where will these locomotive ever operate where they have that much time to inch up from 120 mph to 125 mph before they have to change speeds for a curve or make a station stop? That is, setting aside the question of where they could someday even operate above 110 mph in revenue service.
What matters are the time(s) in the 2 charts to 110 and 120 mph. Going from 120 to 125 mph will make no practical difference in trip times. For two EMD F125s with a 1,360,00 lb train (8 bi-level cars) and 360kW HEP, it looks to be around 320 seconds to reach 110 mph and 520 seconds to reach 120 mph from a standing start. 5.33 minutes to 110 mph and 8.66 minutes to 120 mph. Need a long open stretch of track with no station stops to get to 120 mph with a long consist.
andersone
Conductor
As a participant in government procurement, and having been involved in a few bid protests, I enjoy a good protest. EMD seemed to cross their i's and dot their t's well - I don't know enough about the physics to comment on the substance, but my experience has been departments do what they want and find a loophole to do it. However reading this document has made my Sunday evening.
Fan Railer
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2012
- Messages
- 887
*not
Anyways, it's good to remember that both companies' locomotive proposals are for unproven designs. The QSK95 is a new platform that has not yet been through hard service yet, even though Cummins tends to make reliable products. The same can be said of the C175, even though that has seen more service, its 20 cylinder version has not been used on a locomotive application yet either. On the electrical side of things, Siemens has made plenty of Eurorunners over the pond, and EMD has certainly proven its worth in the freight and passenger markets here in the US.
The only proposal that would have been using more "proven" technology was the MPI-GE combo. The GEVO engine has been through its trials here and abroad, and GE's electrical side of things has been running fine in both freight (ES44AC) and passenger (P32AC-DM), but ironically, MPI-GE have been quite quiet through this so far.
N
Nathanael
Guest
The 125 mph requirement is really just a box-tick -- since there's not going to be any 125 mph track for them to run on. Another way to put it is that it's overspecification -- if the locomotive can technically sustain 125, it's expected to *really* be able to sustain 110, which is what it's actually going to be used for.
40 kN drag force is probably low enough for Siemens to meet the box-ticking requirement, where 50 kN might not be (according to Fan Railer's calculations).
40 kN drag force is probably low enough for Siemens to meet the box-ticking requirement, where 50 kN might not be (according to Fan Railer's calculations).
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Saying that P32AC-DMs have been running fine on the electric side, may be stretching the truth a tad bit. I'd give it a good strong C, considering how often I see those things rumble in with their prime mover on. 
GE has not actually built a pure electric unit that has proved to be reliable in quite a while, in spite of their corporate name and logo.
GE has not actually built a pure electric unit that has proved to be reliable in quite a while, in spite of their corporate name and logo.
N
Nathanael
Guest
Oh, FWIW 600 kW HEP is a massive overspecification too. Electrical loads are something I know a little about. The air conditioning for 5 of the new bilevel cars could plausibly be run off ~48 kW; the heating shouldn't be more than twice that. The diner probably has some serious HEP load, but the rest of the HEP load just won't be that large. I suppose there's the customers' HEP load, but still.
The key is that lighting, if it's LEDs, which it will be on the new corridor cars, will be insignificant. The drop in electrical load from switching to LEDs everywhere is *massive*.
I suppose the HEP is specified high to account for pulling the old, electrically inefficient cars. But if those hang around for long they'll be retrofitted, as the energy savings is too large not to do it.
The key is that lighting, if it's LEDs, which it will be on the new corridor cars, will be insignificant. The drop in electrical load from switching to LEDs everywhere is *massive*.
I suppose the HEP is specified high to account for pulling the old, electrically inefficient cars. But if those hang around for long they'll be retrofitted, as the energy savings is too large not to do it.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
I thought they were planning to use two units with 6 to 8 car trains for the 110mph operations. So I am a little surprised to see the flap about all this. Seems like a loser playing every possible card to see what sticks, if any.
Look at it this way: Siemens has been producing mostly electric engines for however long, but EMD has been producing mostly diesels for over 75 years. Who has more potential for this DIESEL locomotive order? I think EMD. Look, I like Siemens, I think the are a great company, but it just seems to me that they do a better job with electrics.
Fan Railer
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2012
- Messages
- 887
Well, if you guys look through the document a little more closely, EMD did all their calculations within the letter taking into account 2 locomotives plus 8 bilevel cars, as specified by the RFP. The drag force they calculated for such a train set was 97.19 kN, so based on my earlier calculations, two F125s together put out 102 kN @ 125 mph, while two siemens locomotives put out 94.4 kN @ 125 mph. This is all on page 18 of 19 in the letter. But I agree with afigg; 125 MPH sustained is far fetched, considering the type of service these locomotives are going to be running. 110 mph is more of a realistic bench mark, but even so, the EMD locomotive wins in that area of acceleration. The question now is how important is that 125 number in the procurement, because if it is going to be strictly adhered to, then either Siemens is going to have to revise their proposal, or this round of submissions is just going to have to be tossed and the process will need to be conducted all over again.
N
Nathanael
Guest
Bleah. It is unfortunately likely that the round will be tossed and started over, possibly with revised specifications. Siemens can just specify a larger diesel engine, of course.
The EMD locomotive gives me a bad vibe; it has that "freight unit trying to pretend to be a passenger unit" feel to it, to me. This may be totally unfair on my part. I can't say why exactly, but I'd rather have Siemens traction motors.
The EMD locomotive gives me a bad vibe; it has that "freight unit trying to pretend to be a passenger unit" feel to it, to me. This may be totally unfair on my part. I can't say why exactly, but I'd rather have Siemens traction motors.
Fan Railer
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2012
- Messages
- 887
We'll see if Siemens retains price advantage if they specify a larger diesel.
And haha, GE does the same thing lol. The motors used in the HSP46 and P32AC-DM belong to the same family as the motors used in the Evolution series and Powerhaul series.
The problem is that the clock is ticking on the ARRA funds which is paying for most (all?) of the purchase. The funds have to be expended by September 30, 2017 or they go away. Which I take to mean that the locomotives have to be delivered, go through the acceptance tests, and signed for prior to September 30, 2017. The contract RFP requires that the last unit of the base order be delivered, accepted, and invoiced by no later than June 2017. A delay in production or even small re-designs coming out of initial unit and certification tests could delay the delivery of the last units past September, 2017.
Under normal circumstances, Congress could pass a bill granting a 1 year extension to the deadline on the $8 billion in stimulus funds. But the House Republicans would never go for it.
As for Siemens vs EMD, this is a battle between 2 very large industrial companies, with EMD as a subsidiary of Caterpillar. Wonder if we will see a protest from Motive Power, the small player among the 3?
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Looks like the relief being sought by EMD is cancellation of this procurement process and starting a new one. This in effect would mean that the entire project is canceled and no one gets the contract, since the money will run out before the items can be delivered, unless of course Congress acts to change the deadlines, instead of rescinding the budget amount in the interest of reducing deficit/debt.
N
Nathanael
Guest
If the process is cancelled but the state of Illinois is angry, you'd be amazed how fast they can run a procurement process. It would be quite easy for them to rewrite the specs specifically to favor Siemens and exclude everyone else, give everyone a month to submit specs, and accept the Siemens bid that month.
This isn't one of those good-government states running the bidding, remember. This is Illinois. That usually means things are slowed down, but if the pressure is going the other way, it can mean things happen at lightning speed.
This isn't one of those good-government states running the bidding, remember. This is Illinois. That usually means things are slowed down, but if the pressure is going the other way, it can mean things happen at lightning speed.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Yes. That is a distinct possibility since I don't see how Illinois DoT could possibly come out of this not ticked off, such as they are.
Ryan
Court Jester
The RFP is a multi-state procurement with federal funding with involvement from Amtrak and the FRA. Illinois is acting as the lead agency, but they are not the only ones in charge. Look at the EMD protest letter. It was sent to IL DOT, but also sent to the managers at CalTrans, WSDOT, MODOT, MI, Iowa DOT and the Chief Mechanical Officer at Amtrak. IL will not be able to play fast and loose on this if they wanted to. I expect the handling of the contract award protest will be very procedural and bureaucratic with maximum levels of CYA applied by the state DOT project/program managers.
The protest letter is dated February 3, so we may hear about a counter letter from Siemens soon.
- Status
