New Midwest/California Bi-Level Discussion

Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, gprimr1, Amtrak67 of America, Tadman

Re: New Midwest/California Bi-Level Discussion

Postby OrangeGrove » Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:30 pm

How much of a business will they have, though, if those Hi-levels just sit around for years and years with never any takers? One would hope they have a business plan beyond the finite number of ex-Santa Fe cars they have access to.
OrangeGrove
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:11 pm

Re: New Midwest/California Bi-Level Discussion

Postby mtuandrew » Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:33 pm

MisterUptempo wrote:But if they sold those 50 or 60 Hi-Levels to a state DOT, then they really wouldn't have a business anymore, would they? :-D The presentation they had for Oklahoma resembled an eighth-grade science fair project-lots of pictures and small words in very large print. Strangely, as I write this, the Corridor Capital website forwards to a Blogger page from 2010. It just might be a hiccup. I'll check later.

They sound like US Railcar, but with a product people might actually buy.

OrangeGrovd has it right on. With the money from an outright Hi-Level sale, Corridor Capital could purchase newer, better, and/or more plentiful rolling stock better suited to its mission. (For instance, it could acquire Shoreliners, Comets, or BTC/CTCs, if any of them are in half-decent shape, and be able to bid nationwide.) It could also get a better website :P
Last edited by mtuandrew on Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mtuandrew
 
Posts: 4117
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:59 am
Location: the Manassas Gap Independent Line

Re: New Midwest/California Bi-Level Discussion

Postby Alex M » Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:48 pm

east point wrote:Two important questions.
1. What are the true number of Bright line trains in the order ? That may be why the 5 train set number is bogus. ?
2. Doesn't the Brightline order ( AAF ) include extra coach cars ? Seem to remember that mentioned somewhere ?

From what I have been able to see, Brightline's initial order is for 5 four car trainsets with two locomotives on each end, four of them having been delivered. Once the service expands to Orlando, the train consist will grow to seven cars, demand could push that to 9 once they build to Tampa and maybe Jacksonville. Anyone with more up to date info please correct me if I am in error.
Alex M
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:22 am

Re: New Midwest/California Bi-Level Discussion

Postby electricron » Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:16 am

Alex M wrote:From what I have been able to see, Brightline's initial order is for 5 four car trainsets with two locomotives on each end, four of them having been delivered. Once the service expands to Orlando, the train consist will grow to seven cars, demand could push that to 9 once they build to Tampa and maybe Jacksonville. Anyone with more up to date info please correct me if I am in error.

When they start operating to Orlando, they're also plan to increase the number of train sets up to 10. Extending the service further would of course require using even more train sets.
electricron
 
Posts: 3923
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: New Midwest/California Bi-Level Discussion

Postby BandA » Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:14 pm

Corridor Capital could lease 1/2 to 2/3 of their cars to Amtrak, use the money to complete renovation of the remaining, then bid on small startups with equipment that is ready to go instead of "mothballed" or whatever. This would buy time for Amtrak & for their own "operations" and allow them to buy more cars.
User avatar
BandA
 
Posts: 1898
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:47 am

Re: New Midwest/California Bi-Level Discussion

Postby Backshophoss » Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:19 pm

The former El-Cap coaches have been in long term storage,and need complete updating(overhaul) due in part of less then ideal
storage conditions,most of them have been parts donors to other private cars,spare parts are unavailable.
Amtrak has modified the Pacific Parlors to use Superliner parts where possible at Beech Grove.

Believe the overhaul of the El-Cap coaches could overwhelm US Railcar's shop,unless Corridor Capital is willing to bankroll the $$$$ needed
to allow parts prototyping where needed.
Backshophoss
 
Posts: 4628
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:58 pm

Re: New Midwest/California Bi-Level Discussion

Postby MisterUptempo » Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:29 pm

Something I found interesting. Looking at the RFP issued by Caltrans/IDOT in April, 2012 for the bilevels, I ran across the section which discusses "Liquid Damages for Late Delivery" (SP 3.3.1 on page 89). The penalty for late delivery of the bilevels is pegged at $750.00 per day per railcar delivered late.

Final acceptance of the first three bilevels (that's after manufacturer and agency testing) was supposed to take place no later than 36 months after the Notice to Proceed was issued. The NTP was issued November 27, 2012. N-S was required to deliver six bilevels a month until the order was complete. The first month in which six bilevels were to be delivered would have been December, 2015. 625 days have passed from December 31, 2015 to today, September 15, 2017.

625 days X $750.00 per day X 6 railcars = $2,812,500 worth of penalties on the six December, 2015 bilevels alone. The RFP limits liquid damages at 10% of contract value, equaling $35.2 million, which would be deducted from payment to Sumitomo.

How big a bath will Sumitomo take on this deal? Any guesses?
User avatar
MisterUptempo
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 4:25 am

Re: New Midwest/California Bi-Level Discussion

Postby bostontrainguy » Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:46 am

Some more info:

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Pages/Sec ... ittee.aspx

Excerpts:

Technical Subcommittee:

On 5-18-17, the following update was provided by NGEC Revision Control Coordinator, Tammy Krause:

The update of the single level specification is temporarily on hold. Rich Stegner will lead an internal team to evaluate various existing equipment specifications, including the PRIIA Bi-level, and will be creating the DCRs to update the specification. As the full scope of the project develops we may reach out for PRIIA volunteers. All the DCRs created will be processed through the technical working groups per NGEC procedures. The approved DCRs will be incorporated into the next version of the single level. We will have a revised timeline after the full scope of work is determined. This will be before the end of June.

Procurement Updates:

Bi-Level Car Procurement: As Caltrans and IDOT are working out some contract issues with the contractor there will be nothing to report for now. As this is expected to be the status for a while, on the last call (1-12-17) Chairman Bergeron asked that this item be removed from the bi-weekly agenda until such time that Caltrans feels that it has an update to provide to the subcommittee. Momo Tamaoki, Caltrans, will contact Steve Hewitt and the Chair when there will be something to report and an agenda item will be added to the subsequent conference call.

Syncing the new Grant Agreement with ongoing NGEC contracts:

Because the current Amtrak and AASHTO contract is in place until 9-30-17, and the current sub-contractor contracts are also in place until 9-30-17, no action is necessary right now. Amtrak and AASHTO have a process in place to extend the Amtrak/AASHTO contract in sync with the grant and effective 10-1-17 through 9-30-19. The subcontractors/sub consultants currently in place will be extended at the same time - effective 10-1-17 through 9-30-19 as anticipated in the new grant agreement SOW and budget.
On 5-3-17, a motion and a second were offered to reaffirm the intent to renew the contract between Amtrak and AASHTO as well as the current sub consultant’s contracts for the remainder of the current grant agreement – through 9-30-19. The motion (below) was transmitted to the FASC members for a vote and, on 5-31-17 it was approved and sent on to the Executive Board for its approval.
“As was intended in past NGEC budget approvals and to ensure compliance with the Audit of Grant Agreement of March 27, 2013, and the NGEC’s updated Procedure of Establishing Contract Support adopted August 6, 2013, the NGEC authorizes Amtrak to contract with AASHTO for administrative support services as well as subsequent sub-contracts per the statement of work for entities such as; with Hewitt Consulting for Manager of Support Services, and with SalciConsult for Specification Consultant services.  In addition, with the Federal Railroad Administration’s June 8th, 2015, approval of the NGEC’s Supplemental Statement of Work and related budget extension through September 30, 2017, and its subsequent approval of the Statement of Work and Budget included in the Grant Agreement executed on October 26, 2016 for the period beginning October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2019 , Amtrak is authorized to extend its agreement with AASHTO and AASHTO’s sub-consultants in accordance with the Statement of Work.”
On 6-6-17, the NGEC Executive Board approved the motion as presented and asked AASHTO and Amtrak to finalize their contract in accordance with the motion, and AASHTO was tasked with doing the same with the sub-consultant contracts.

On 6-28-17, Darrell Smith reported that a lot of work is being done internally at Amtrak to make sure the contract extension with AASHTO is compliant with the grant agreement. Darrell does not expect much to change for AASHTO at all, but with the new language applying to DBE’s there may need to be an updated goal. Amtrak grants is going through the requirements with a fine-tooth comb to make sure all is done properly. Darrell will report each month on the status until the contract with AASHTO is done.
bostontrainguy
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:14 am

Re: New Midwest/California Bi-Level Discussion

Postby gokeefe » Sat Sep 16, 2017 6:27 pm

MisterUptempo wrote:How big a bath will Sumitomo take on this deal? Any guesses?


A lot. I'm guessing the contract will be fulfilled at a loss and Siemens will be happy to oblige its services.
gokeefe
User avatar
gokeefe
 
Posts: 9917
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:28 pm
Location: Winthrop, Maine

Re: New Midwest/California Bi-Level Discussion

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Sat Sep 16, 2017 7:34 pm

They take far less of a bath eating a bunch of severe contract penalties...but working diligently on the salvage operation...than they do facing off against Amtrak, the feds/USDOT, and several states' attorney generals in court in one big poopshow of a breach-of-contract lawsuit. No-brainer choice.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7227
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: New Midwest/California Bi-Level Discussion

Postby mtuandrew » Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:42 pm

Would be interesting to be a fly on the email chain between N-S and SCOA detailing the cost-share of penalties.
User avatar
mtuandrew
 
Posts: 4117
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:59 am
Location: the Manassas Gap Independent Line

Re: New Midwest/California Bi-Level Discussion

Postby gokeefe » Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:59 pm

If I was corporation counsel at Sumitomo (not, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night) ... I would be telling the C-Suite that they ought to dump the whole thing on NS and threaten to sue potentially as an intentional tort which opens the door to punitive damages. The one thing that might save the whole situation is some form of collegialism between the corporate leadership of both respective companies in Japan.

Reading through Nippon Sharyo's rolling stock contract history I remain astounded at this level of failure. As far as I can tell this is a failure that is totally unprecedented in company history (at least in the post-war era).
gokeefe
User avatar
gokeefe
 
Posts: 9917
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:28 pm
Location: Winthrop, Maine

Re: New Midwest/California Bi-Level Discussion

Postby David Benton » Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:06 pm

I am petty sure it has something to do with the 110 - 125 mph capability specs/ weight ratio, and this is why the States do not appear to be kicking up too much of a fuss at the lateness. Siemens will also breathe a sigh of relief their Chargers won't have to try and pull the bilevels to the specified speed , and the other loco manufacterers law suit is probably now moot.
Moderator worldwide railfan , Rail travel & trip reports
The only train trips I regret are the ones I didn't take.
User avatar
David Benton
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:29 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: New Midwest/California Bi-Level Discussion

Postby gokeefe » Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:01 pm

David Benton wrote:Siemens will also breathe a sigh of relief their Chargers won't have to try and pull the bilevels to the specified speed , and the other loco manufacterers law suit is probably now moot.


Those engines will be used in service in California on existing bi-level trainsets that I would guess are just as heavy. I would be surprised if the performance specifications were specific to only the new bi-level cars.
gokeefe
User avatar
gokeefe
 
Posts: 9917
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:28 pm
Location: Winthrop, Maine

Re: New Midwest/California Bi-Level Discussion

Postby Tadman » Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:28 pm

So if this order goes single-level, is the mullet at the back of the Cali Chargers going to be removed?

https://goo.gl/images/QChLWB
Tadman
 
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:21 am
Location: Michigan

PreviousNext

Return to Amtrak

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests