RFP released for 35 Next Gen Locomotives

[afigg]

That is not the situation. The 125mph capability was a firm yes/no requirement of the bid. A product that does not meet the 125mph requirement is disqualified from further consideration. If EMD can show that the product specified by Siemens does not meet the 125mph requirement gatekeeper, then a judge can void the award.

Even after a contract is awarded, there is room for further negotiation. They could thus simply ask Siemens to make some modifications to the design to make it fulfill those requirements

There are limits to what design modifications can be made and stay in bounds of the RFP and bid price. Changes to the operator controls, headlights, track signal systems are one thing. A switch to an alternate more powerful engine would be a major design change with significant cost impacts.
If Amtrak were funded like DOD, they could have a "fly-off" competition as was done for the F-16, F-35. Down select 2 companies, pay them to build 2 competing prototypes, and then test them. The equivalent would be to have Siemens and Caterpillar/EMD build or provide working locomotives, take them to Pueblo, and see which performs the best.

But this is a diesel locomotive order, not fighter jets at the (then) cutting edge of technology. Diesel locomotives and ICE engines are mature technologies, so the performance should be able to be predicted with a fair degree of accuracy.

 

[jis]

Then again Siemens could be made to eat the additional cost needed to meet the requirements or throw the whole thing into a new process I suppose. Nothing guarantees a profit for Siemens in any of the Contract. Whether Siemens makes money or not depends on the how well they are able to execute the contract within the promised price per unit I would think.

 

[neroden]

It would also, frankly, make more sense to order new dual-modes (not just to replace the fleet at Albany, but to get rid of those engine changes at DC, Harrisburg, and New Haven).

No it wouldn't.

The equipment rotation would be an absolute mess to try and keep all the locomotives separate based on whether they operate on trains that run through into non-electric territory vs. those that just stay on the NEC spine. Plus, you already have all the ACS-64s coming anyway.

Deciding on service provision based on "the equipment rotation" rather than based on what the customers see (sitting for an hour at DC vs. not sitting for an hour at DC) makes no commercial sense. Many, many organizations have been sunk by doing what is easiest for the management rather than what is easiest for the customers.
That is all I have to say on that matter.

 

[cirdan]

But this is a diesel locomotive order, not fighter jets at the (then) cutting edge of technology. Diesel locomotives and ICE engines are mature technologies, so the performance should be able to be predicted with a fair degree of accuracy.

In the early 1990s, Amtrak borrowed a German ICE train and a Swedish X2000 and ran them in service. Seeing how these things perform under real conditions, how passengers react, things that work, things that don't etc says much more than some theoretical analysis. I think it would be good if manufacturers provided / loaned a locomotive at their own cost and these get judged by actual performance rather than mathematical calculations that may or may not reflect reality. This is how bus manufacturers sell their stock. Admittedly the market is different and doesn't work in the same way. But by focussing too much on the paperwork rather seeking the proof of the pudding in the eating, Amtrak may be closing off certain good ideas and solution just because they don't tick the boxes.

 

[jis]

It would also, frankly, make more sense to order new dual-modes (not just to replace the fleet at Albany, but to get rid of those engine changes at DC, Harrisburg, and New Haven).

No it wouldn't.

The equipment rotation would be an absolute mess to try and keep all the locomotives separate based on whether they operate on trains that run through into non-electric territory vs. those that just stay on the NEC spine. Plus, you already have all the ACS-64s coming anyway.

Deciding on service provision based on "the equipment rotation" rather than based on what the customers see (sitting for an hour at DC vs. not sitting for an hour at DC) makes no commercial sense. Many, many organizations have been sunk by doing what is easiest for the management rather than what is easiest for the customers.
That is all I have to say on that matter.

It is also generally true that a train sitting for 15 extra minutes at Washington DC will not sink Amtrak, and its commercial cost is unmeasurably small in all likelihood. If things are running on schedule no one has to sit for an hour at Washington DC for an engine change. They might have such thrown into the schedule for padding for other purposes.
It will become an issue only when true HSR is extended through Washington to the south and at that point more than likely that electrification will be extended south.

 

[Paulus]

It would also, frankly, make more sense to order new dual-modes (not just to replace the fleet at Albany, but to get rid of those engine changes at DC, Harrisburg, and New Haven).

No it wouldn't.
The equipment rotation would be an absolute mess to try and keep all the locomotives separate based on whether they operate on trains that run through into non-electric territory vs. those that just stay on the NEC spine. Plus, you already have all the ACS-64s coming anyway.

Deciding on service provision based on "the equipment rotation" rather than based on what the customers see (sitting for an hour at DC vs. not sitting for an hour at DC) makes no commercial sense. Many, many organizations have been sunk by doing what is easiest for the management rather than what is easiest for the customers.
That is all I have to say on that matter.

It is also generally true that a train sitting for 15 extra minutes at Washington DC will not sink Amtrak, and its commercial cost is unmeasurably small in all likelihood. If things are running on schedule no one has to sit for an hour at Washington DC for an engine change. They might have such thrown into the schedule for padding for other purposes.
It will become an issue only when true HSR is extended through Washington to the south and at that point more than likely that electrification will be extended south.

Can't have true HSR without electrification anyhow.

 

[jis]

It would also, frankly, make more sense to order new dual-modes (not just to replace the fleet at Albany, but to get rid of those engine changes at DC, Harrisburg, and New Haven).

No it wouldn't.
The equipment rotation would be an absolute mess to try and keep all the locomotives separate based on whether they operate on trains that run through into non-electric territory vs. those that just stay on the NEC spine. Plus, you already have all the ACS-64s coming anyway.

Deciding on service provision based on "the equipment rotation" rather than based on what the customers see (sitting for an hour at DC vs. not sitting for an hour at DC) makes no commercial sense. Many, many organizations have been sunk by doing what is easiest for the management rather than what is easiest for the customers.
That is all I have to say on that matter.

It is also generally true that a train sitting for 15 extra minutes at Washington DC will not sink Amtrak, and its commercial cost is unmeasurably small in all likelihood. If things are running on schedule no one has to sit for an hour at Washington DC for an engine change. They might have such thrown into the schedule for padding for other purposes.
It will become an issue only when true HSR is extended through Washington to the south and at that point more than likely that electrification will be extended south.

Can't have true HSR without electrification anyhow.

That's my point. When it becomes HSR the problem will take care of itself.

 

[Trogdor]

Deciding on service provision based on "the equipment rotation" rather than based on what the customers see (sitting for an hour at DC vs. not sitting for an hour at DC) makes no commercial sense. Many, many organizations have been sunk by doing what is easiest for the management rather than what is easiest for the customers.

That is all I have to say on that matter.

It's not about what's easiest for management. It's about equipment rotation. That's a real thing, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Each ACS-64 costs about $6.5 million each. A dual-mode locomotive easily adds $1-2 million to that price tag. Reducing equipment rotation flexibility means you need more equipment to cover the same service. This means 1 or 2 extra locomotives, so somewhere around $7-15 million in extra capital costs, just for the same amount of service. Then, each locomotive requires maintenance and inspections, many of which are calendar-based and not mileage based, so you're increasing maintenance costs for the lifetime of that fleet (20 years or more).

Jis is right, much of the sitting around for an hour has nothing to do with engine changes and more to do with making sure that trains are on time to make their slots. New Haven, CT, is a better example, because Amtrak controls the entire railroad on both sides (so, minimal schedule padding needed). In that case, the total dwell is only 10-12 minutes, which is 8-10 minutes longer than trains that run through to/from Boston. So, now your sitting for an hour in DC becomes...sitting for 50 minutes in DC?

And lots of companies make decisions for internal reasons, even if "what the customers see" looks bad (see also: virtually every mass transportation company in North America, including passenger rail, buses, airlines). What the customer doesn't see is the efficiency that is necessary to keep a company viable. Many companies have been sunk by running an inefficient operation.

 

[jis]

And of course we won't even mention the notorious white hours in the SNCF schedules.

 

[engr08]

It would also, frankly, make more sense to order new dual-modes (not just to replace the fleet at Albany, but to get rid of those engine changes at DC, Harrisburg, and New Haven).

No it wouldn't.

The equipment rotation would be an absolute mess to try and keep all the locomotives separate based on whether they operate on trains that run through into non-electric territory vs. those that just stay on the NEC spine. Plus, you already have all the ACS-64s coming anyway

I was thinking the same about the dual mode equipment on the long hauls but I was thinking about the job cuts that would come to DC. You have a bunch of yard crews that would be cut because they take the motors off and mechanical as well because they are the ones that hook up the power, do a brake test, etc. Lets just leave the way it is, I think they do a good enough getting these motors off and on.

 

[Trogdor]

It's not about job cuts, but in any event, you'd probably have to add jobs to places like Boston and New York/Sunnyside, because in that scenario the equipment rotation that allows a train coming in with an electric to leave with an electric would have to be adjusted, so the electric would be swapped out and the dual-mode put in its place (or vice versa), because the train that came in from WAS is now heading out to RVR.

 

[jis]

We still need a dual mode locomotive that can actually get certification to operate at 125mph. The problem with the only current one is its axle loading. It is unlikely to ever get certified to operate at 125mph even in pure electric mode, or so I am told by folks that make such decisions on the NEC.

 

[engr08]

ge

It's not about job cuts, but in any event, you'd probably have to add jobs to places like Boston and New York/Sunnyside, because in that scenario the equipment rotation that allows a train coming in with an electric to leave with an electric would have to be adjusted, so the electric would be swapped out and the dual-mode put in its place (or vice versa), because the train that came in from WAS is now heading out to RVR.

Im re-reading what youre saying twice and im not understanding what you are saying. To my knowledge dual mode mean two, like an ALP45 or P32DM. I'll give you an example about what im trying to say. A train leaves NYP heading to RVR, it arrives into WAS and they now have to remove the electric. A diesel is attach to continue the trip to RVR. You need crews to take off the electric and attach the diesel. Now lets say a train leave NYP with an ALP45 (using this as an example) this train can continue its trip without anyone taking off anything. Now the crews that originally did the engine swap is no longer needed, probably just a couple of crews in case an engine goes bad. Will it be nice to use it, yes but I would worry about the cuts to the employees.

 

[jis]

I think we may be getting a bit into the weeds of how one would operate the railroad and allocate consists in a situation where dual modes are available to run the off NEC spine service into non-electrified territory.

I think Trog is using a scenario where consist are allocated for runs either on electrified territory or on extended service based on whatever is available, and if the available consist has the wrong kind of locomotive that would be replaced by the right kind at the point of origination. So there would be some additional loco swapping taking place at places like Sunnyside and Southampton St., and of course there will be no loco change at Wasington DC.

An alternative way would be to create two consist pools one for operation within the electrified zone with electric engines, and another for operation off the spine into non-electrified zones and with dual-mode engines. And then the railroad would be run with these two separate pools with an appropriately powered consist allocated for each service, sort of like the LD pool is separate from the Regional pool. In this case there will be very few engine changes needed.

I am not suggesting one is better than the other. Just pointing out that different ways of operating will involve different level of engine changes.

Generally using two pools that cannot substitute one for the other leads to a less efficient utilization of resources - as a matter of general provable fact in operations. And yet at times there are good reasons to do so. Whether this is a good place with a good reason, I don't know.

 

[cirdan]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/five-u-states-place-contested-093058258.html

Five U.S. states place contested locomotive order with Siemens

FRANKFURT, March 18 (Reuters) - Germany's Siemens said on Tuesday that five U.S. states had placed an order for 32 diesel-electric passenger locomotives worth about 165 million euros ($230 million), one day after U.S. rival Caterpillar said it planned to challenge the contract.

The contract includes options for another 225 locomotives, Siemens said. The locomotives are to be built at Siemens' plant in Sacramento, California and will be equipped with diesel engines made by Cummins, it said.

Caterpillar announced on Monday that it had filed formal complaints challenging the decision by its home state of Illinois to give the contract to a partnership formed by Siemens and Cummins Inc.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/five-u-states-place-contested-093058258.html

FRANKFURT, March 18 (Reuters) - Germany's Siemens said on Tuesday that five U.S. states had placed an order for 32 diesel-electric passenger locomotives worth about 165 million euros ($230 million), one day after U.S. rival Caterpillar said it planned to challenge the contract.

Well, good. Let's keep things moving.

What happens next? I assume that Caterpillar will have to persuade a judge to overturn the states' decision and order a do-over. The faster the matter can get before the judge, the sooner it can be resolved, right?

 

[Fan Railer]

It's been finalized, and it seems that EMD has lost the fight for now. They've also named the locomotive... "Charger." What do you think?

http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/pressemitteilungen/2014/infrastructure-cities/rail-systems/ICRL201403009e.pdf

Fair use quote:

The Departments of Transportation for the U.S. states of Illinois, California, Michigan, Missouri and Washington have awarded Siemens a contract for the delivery of 32 diesel-electric passenger locomotives. The contract is valued at approximately €165 million ($225 million). It includes a purchase option for another 225 locomotives which will be used for regional and mainline trains traveling at speeds of up to 200 km/h (125 mph). The 32 locomotives ordered are scheduled to be delivered between fall of 2016 and mid-2017. "For Siemens this order marks our entry into the U.S. diesel-electric locomotive market and strongly underscores our long-term vision for the U.S. passenger rail market", Jochen Eickholt, CEO of the Siemens Rail Systems Division, emphasized. The diesel-electric locomotives will be manufactured at the Siemens plant in Sacramento, California...

... The official Notice to Proceed has now been formally granted...

...The Charger locomotives will be used exclusively in passenger service. The primary traction drive, a 4,400 hp-rated diesel engine with 16 cylinders and a cubic capacity of 95 liters, will be manufactured in the U.S. by Cummins Inc., headquartered in Columbus, Indiana. These modern locomotives are powerful and efficient and will deliver a cleaner ride, with better air quality and reduced emission rates ensuring compliance with the Federal Railroad's EPA Tier IV regulation required to be in place in 2015...

...The contract includes 32 vehicles plus spare parts supply. In addition, there are options for an additional 75 locomotives for use in regional transportation and another 150 locomotives for mainline transportation.

The Charger locomotive reaches a tractive effort on starting of 290 kN with a weight of around 120 tons. The Cummins QSK95 diesel engine is 4,400 hp-rated. These U.S. locomotives are based technically on the Siemens Eurosprinter, Eurorunner and Vectron locomotive platforms which have been proven through several billion kilometers in both freight and passenger service. The components are procured and manufactured exclusively in the United States.

 

[jis]

I wonder what the parts commonality will be with the Sprinters? Most likely same trucks and motors, and most of the electrical between the DC link and the wheels?

 

[cirdan]

I wonder what the parts commonality will be with the Sprinters? Most likely same trucks and motors, and most of the electrical between the DC link and the wheels?

I guess also on the level of electronics and control system and the communications bus. Even if some customization is needed to equip a diesel rather than an electric, it would make sense to use the same underlying platform.

Possibly this might even imply you could m.u. a Charger with a Sprinter. Not that it would make much sense though.

 

[afigg]

It's been finalized, and it seems that EMD has lost the fight for now. They've also named the locomotive... "Charger." What do you think?

The Charger? Pretty bleh name IMHO. In an age where we all have multiple chargers for all the electronic gadgets, sounds like a wall socket charger.
That the Notice To Proceed (NTP) has been granted is an important step. There is often a long gap between the official contract award and the formal NTP as the managers, accountants and auditors hammer out the details of the contract. The contract negotiation process and NTP appears to have been expedited. Now we will see if Caterpillar/EMD are able to stall the contract work in court.

 

[Paulus]

I wonder if this means that a Siemens victory for Acela II means the return of "American Flyer"

 

[Agent]

It's been finalized, and it seems that EMD has lost the fight for now. They've also named the locomotive... "Charger." What do you think?

I have to ask, do they plan on these locomotives going to San Diego?

 

[Paulus]

It's been finalized, and it seems that EMD has lost the fight for now. They've also named the locomotive... "Charger." What do you think?

I have to ask, do they plan on these locomotives going to San Diego?

Yup, some will go to the Surfliners.

 

[CHamilton]

It's been finalized, and it seems that EMD has lost the fight for now. They've also named the locomotive... "Charger." What do you think?

I have to ask, do they plan on these locomotives going to San Diego?

I was waiting for that one

 

[Fan Railer]

I wonder what the parts commonality will be with the Sprinters? Most likely same trucks and motors, and most of the electrical between the DC link and the wheels?

My guess is that they'll have to beef the truck / suspension up a little bit to handle the extra weight, much like Bombardier beefed up the ALP-46 truck /suspension to support the ALP-45DP's increased weight.