Siemens Caltrans/IDOT Venture design, engineering, testing and delivery (2012-1Q 2024)

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.
I thought that Nippon had the option of building another 300 double decker coaches if Amtrak wanted them to.
 
Andrew said:
So wouldn't Amtrak likely replace the old Superliner coaches with this new Nippon coach at some point?
Click to expand...
Right now the Nippon-Sharyo car remains an unproven design; Certainly the previous failed compression tests did not go well. Presumably those issues will have been resolved, but regardless, Amtrak will need more than just coaches in a Superliner replacement (which is still years away, and the N-S production likely to be long since completed) which means further modifications (and greater weight) to the updated design.
 
December update. More delays and signs of frustration....

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Pages/305ExecBoard.aspx

[SIZE=8pt]Sumitomo has informed Caltrans that the Final Design Review (FDR) will not take place in January, 2017, as initially anticipated and has been postponed to a later date – sometime in the Spring of 2017.[/SIZE]
Click to expand...
In closing, Bruce commented that it is important that a process and a stream of product be looked at. The current incremental “one and done” approach is “unsustainable”. It is time to look at a process for improvement.
Click to expand...

Hope the midwest likes their Amfleet's and Horizon's. Looks like they're going to be stuck with them for a long time. I'd be shocked if they get a funding deadline extension from the Trump administration.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The most recent Trains magazine had a short article on the trials and tribulations of the CHI-STL route. There was one line that said, with reference to the NS cars, that "delivery of those cars could be four years away," though it did not elaborate further.
 
9900 said:
December update. More delays and signs of frustration....

....

Hope the midwest likes their Amfleet's and Horizon's. Looks like they're going to be stuck with them for a long time. I'd be shocked if they get a funding deadline extension from the Trump administration.
Click to expand...
The stimulus September, 2017 spending deadline is set in the ARRA appropriations bill and is not something that can be extended by the Trump administration even if wanted to, AFAIK. However, it was stated in multiple meeting minutes that the FRA and the states were going to get around the deadline. How was not explained, but part of the original funding for the 130 car order was not ARRA funds, but federal FY2010 HSIPR grants and CA state funds, neither of which is constrained by a mandated 2017 deadline. My guess is that the FRA is getting or planning to get around the ARRA deadline by shuffling the bi-level order ARRA funds with unspent FY2010 funds or other FY10 funded projects which have or will wrap up by Sept. 2017.

Remember the N-S bi-level bid came in well below the fed funded amount reserved for the 130 car order. At one point, the FRA and the states were planning to buy a bunch more cars with the unspent funds, but the delays in the contract killed that plan. At some point, there should be an explanation of how the FRA is getting around the ARRA deadline; well, that is if they pull it off.

As for the news on the delay on the Final Design Review, that is not good news. How serious it is, likely will have to wait to find out.
 
Parts of the federal Charger order were ARRA and parts were federal non-ARRA, if I remember correctly. Those can probably be swapped for the parts of the bilevel order which were ARRA.

I think Moline was entirely non-ARRA? Might be able to swap some funds into that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Steve4031 said:
Ridiculous. This is really frustrating. This country just falls farther and farther behind.
Click to expand...
It is ridiculous. And really frustrating.

But why blame "this country" when a Japanese company designs a new rail car that proceeds to crash-test FAIL?

This thread would be speculating about whether the first bi-levels would go into service first on Wolverines or in Lincoln service. Instead, we read about possible further delays, but it's not exactly the fault of this country.
 
It has to do with the mindless lowest bidder requirement (and possibly incompetently put together specification) that is this country's contribution to this fiasco. This country did not have to select said Japanese Company. There was a French company for example that has a well known design that is known to have passed the buff strength test, which could be rejiggered. But the cost proposed by such if they bid at all was not the lowest cost. The one with zero experience of building center sill-less cars who had no idea what it actually costs, bid low and won. And here we are where we are!
 
The big problem is if NS or CAF is pushed too much then the US company may file for bankruptcy and then where is Amtrak and California ? These rail cars RFPs need some kind of independent performance bond ?
 
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/01/11-bilevel-car-order-no-show

California is a no-show

State officials cancel bilevel presentation at conference, send statement instead

By Steve Sweeney | January 11, 2017

WASHINGTON — “Ongoing negotiations” are what stopped California rail officials from presenting information on a long-stalled bilevel car order at a national transportation conference on Tuesday. At the Transportation Research Board...
Click to expand...
Full text is available to Trains subscribers only, so I am extracting a few pieces from it:

CalTrans' written statement in lieu of the planned presentation which did not take place

“At this time, final design of the [Next Generation Equipment Committee]
compliant cars has not yet been completed and approved. The contract is
behind schedule and negotiations are currently underway to address the
delays,” Steven Keck, CalTrans’ interim chief for rail wrote. “At this
time no further information can be presented.”
Click to expand...
Further background info

Research Board panelists said there have been 243 design changes
thus far on the cars, each taking as little as two weeks or as
long as several months to be processed.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The little pessimist on my shoulder is wondering if a contract cancellation could be looming at some (hopefully avoidable) point in this adventure. Years of work and not a single car to show for it is pretty abysmal.
 
Blackwolf said:
The little pessimist on my shoulder is wondering if a contract cancellation could be looming at some (hopefully avoidable) point in this adventure. Years of work and not a single car to show for it is pretty abysmal.
Click to expand...
It appears your little pessimist could be on the right track.
 
I can easily see a cancellation and it would hold up in court. My question is where would California go next. My guess, if this happens would be siemens. No they would not be bilevel, but Cali would have something that works and made in state.
 
The more I think about it, I could the see the Midwest cancelling and going Siemens too, not as flashy as bilevels, but instead of cab cars, they could put another Charger on the end.
 
The problem may be the not so well written specifications. The Siemens cars are sort of compliant. But who knows for sure? It was not a major issue for AAF. But it is for Midwest I presume. Siemens has already complained about certain aspects of the single level car specification.
 
frequentflyer said:
The more I think about it, I could the see the Midwest cancelling and going Siemens too, not as flashy as bilevels, but instead of cab cars, they could put another Charger on the end.
Click to expand...
The interesting thing to watch about Siemens is the possibility some state(s) cannot do further business with them because of ongoing sanctions against Iran, where Siemens has a rail contract.
 
jis said:
The problem may be the not so well written specifications. The Siemens cars are sort of compliant. But who knows for sure? It was not a major issue for AAF. But it is for Midwest I presume. Siemens has already complained about certain aspects of the single level car specification.
Click to expand...
In theory, Talgo could be a possibility, with recently built train sets now to be used by California. Problem is, they no longer have an operating U.S. production facility. But with 20/20 hindsight, it may have been a better choice than the common bi-level design chosen.
 
Each Talgo configuration requires a specific FRA waiver. It is not compliant with anything. So that could be managed with Siemens stuff too, and much easier since it does not require an FRA safety waiver. it only requires breaking the rule that "all cars henceforth shall be compliant with the grand specification", which of course Talgos aren't either.
 
frequentflyer said:
I can easily see a cancellation and it would hold up in court. My question is where would California go next. My guess, if this happens would be siemens. No they would not be bilevel, but Cali would have something that works and made in state.
Click to expand...
ADA. California has standardized on low platforms, for better or worse. If they get single-levels, big damn mess, end up having to replace all the platforms. Possibly a good idea, but... unlikely.

Siemens can make functional bilevels if they're asked to, for some price or other.

Or California can just go with one of the Chinese companies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top