New Midwest/California Bi-Level Discussion

That answer would make sense if they were going to build these cars on the same shop floor as the Metra car but they aren't. They built an entirely new shop, partly as a result of this order, which has been open for some time now. Thoughts?

gokeefe wrote:Recently I've done some research on the internet regarding the bi-level car order. I found it notable how little information there is out there regarding any progress on the order.

Try a google search using "Caltrans bi-level procurement updates". I started with Caltrans because I have noticed they are a more "open" or transparent state transportation agency than some others (say, for example, MBTA which is about as transparent as blacked out glass from what I have observed). A search for IL and MI DOT documents may turn up other updates.

Found this 9 page February 20, 2015 presentation from Nippon-Sharyo and Sumitomo to the Next Generation Equipment Committee. Turns out that the project is indeed encountering schedule slippage with the Feb 2015 schedule calling for the completion of testing of 3 pilot cars by December 2016 (from the end of May 2016) and the 130th car to be completed by October, 2018. The Feb 2015 status bullets:

• Preliminary & Intermediate Design: Completed
• Mockup Review: Completed
• Final Design: 92% Complete
• Carbody Steel Procurement: Completed up to car #39
• First Article Inspection: 18% Complete
• Started Fabrication of Metal Parts: July 2014
• Started Carbody Shell Assembly: September 2014
• Completion of 1st Carshell: June 2015

I think it is a safe bet that the first bi-level cars will not enter revenue service until at least early 2017. How that is reconciled with the September, 2017 deadline for spending the stimulus funds, I do not know.

That search turned up another interesting document, a November, 2014 RFI from Michigan DOT on the behalf of the Midwest States (IL, MI, MO, and WI (Yes, Wisconsin for those who have not been following the details)) for statements of interests and comments for a Fleet Maintenance Contract for the Midwest bi-levels. Amtrak's Chicago facility is not assured to get the contract for the maintenance of the Midwest bi-levels.

Very nice find and I'm glad I asked here.

Slide 5 has what I believe are the very first publicly available pictures of the bi-level cars under construction.

Also worth noting: last weekend I was reading Metra's typically useless rider newsletter "On the Bilevel" and found this story about the 1000th NS bilevel and 160th electric MU bilevel. I don't worry too much about NS meeting the contract.

http://metrarail.com/content/dam/metra/ ... 015web.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (second page, top)

I strongly agree. There's little doubt that they can build these cars and that they will build these cars. It is interesting watch them spin this assembly line up. As with CAF my sense is that once they get going Amtrak and their partners will do everything possible to keep them running.

Well, for those of you who hadn't heard. The prototype bi-level shell failed the 800,000 lbs crush test. badly. Nippon is temporarily laying off 100 employees as a result.

Also....No option cars were ordered. There's now serious questions on whether the stimulus money can be completely spent before the deadline...

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Pages/305ExecBoard.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow. I'm surprised especially given their long history building cars in North America.

Wow, pretty inexcusable given that this is just a new incarnation of the same design that goes back to the Superliner I and Santa Fe hi-level before that! Maybe Amtrak needs to stop jumping from one manufacturer to the next. Alstom seems to have done fine with the Pacific Surfliner cars.

Could be materials are getting worse as time moves along.

Matt Johnson wrote:Wow, pretty inexcusable given that this is just a new incarnation of the same design that goes back to the Superliner I and Santa Fe hi-level before that! Maybe Amtrak needs to stop jumping from one manufacturer to the next. Alstom seems to have done fine with the Pacific Surfliner cars.

Does Alstom have an open factory in the United States? As long as we're stuck with price-hiking buy-American rules, they can't just settle on a manufacturer and call it a day since there isn't enough business in the United States to keep production lines rolling continuously

bmichel5581 wrote:Well, for those of you who hadn't heard. The prototype bi-level shell failed the 800,000 lbs crush test. badly. Nippon is temporarily laying off 100 employees as a result.

Also....No option cars were ordered. There's now serious questions on whether the stimulus money can be completely spent before the deadline...

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Pages/305ExecBoard.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Damn! (is there a more specific page than that link, a lot there to sift through).

And folks thought that CAF was having trouble with the Viewliners!

This really is quite a bombshell. No doubt have held N-S in very high regard for the passenger equipment they've built over the years for CalTrain, METRA, South Shore/NICTD, MARC, etc.

OTOH N-S has been in the news recently for the wrong reasons (see below) so perhaps this latest development was inevitable:

http://abc7chicago.com/news/worker-clai ... ns/779253/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Greg Moore wrote:Damn! (is there a more specific page than that link, a lot there to sift through).

It is located in the Sept. 1st board minutes, Item 9. Interestingly, there is also quite a lot of discussion about the Dual-Mode replacements, and a field trip the technical review committee took to Albany to view the current operation.

Its item 9 on the September 1st minutes.
Here it is quoted from the PDF of the minutes.

9.
Status Update: Bi-Level Car Procurement – Momoko Tamaoki:

Momoko Tamaoki provided an brief update on the Bi-Level Car Procurement;

FAI’s – no update since the last call – there are additional FAIs scheduled for September on items such as truck frames, floor covering and electrical panels.

Design Review – there are 12 hot list items remaining open – most are check list items and are expected to be closed soon.

There are 5 RFCs open – 3 are in the hand of Caltrans and 2 are with the vendors.

Car shell testing – Momoko reported that they conducted a pre-compression test at the end of August and it resulted in structural failure. The vendor is investigating how and why this happened – Caltrans is getting daily updates on the investigation, but still no resolution to it. Based on the failure – the schedule is uncertain and will remain uncertain until the root cause of the problem is determined.

Ron Pate, WSDOT commented that he appreciates Momoko’s candidness in providing the Board with this report, and he is certain they will work hard to resolve the issue.

Rob Edgcumbe, Consultant (Jacobs) for Caltrans, was on the call today and any member having questions should feel free to contact Rob or Momoko.

Sadly, sometimes you get failures no matter how good your engineers are. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) software - which is used to simulate how structures perform under load - is notoriously finicky, sensitive to tiny changes, and incredibly slow (because you're performing calculations at millions upon millions of points in the structure) which limits the number of simulations you're able to do. It's particularly bad with thin shells, because the software works by dividing the structure into many smaller solids (elements). A thin sheet metal shell may be only a few elements thick, so a tiny error can induce a huge difference.