Acela II (Alstom Avelia Liberty): Design, Production, Delivery, Acceptance

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 7:13 am https://youtu.be/dlCi46CmoR4?si=i0q6I8OJan7FpX0T

More data gathering for the models...

Is the one PAN able to supply both power cars?

Yes, the one PAN supplies power to both cars; this is a common design on the high speed trains in Europe when using high voltage AC; multiple PANs are required for 1000-3000V DC to the point that the Rhatische Bahn ABe8/12 3 car trainsets carry 3 PANS - using 1 under AC and the other 2 while under DC. I also thought I saw it reported that running the Avelia with multiple PANs up caused the trailing PAN to bounce on the wire.

Is it possible that the report of AX-2s leaking rain water true?

west point wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2023 7:41 pm Is it possible that the report of AX-2s leaking rain water true?

https://amtrakoig.gov/sites/default/fil ... y_oN8qx_VI

This report just came out that is a scathinf report on the program citing failures at both Amtrak and Alstom.

Basically Amtrak management dropped the ball by failing to implement lessons learned from the Viewliner II program. Alstom was allowed to begin building the train sets without a valid computer model, which the FRA is requiring. The auditors believe Alstom should have all the data they need as they built Acela 1 and have been maintaining those trains.

Page 14 includes this list "Safety‐related. For example, the vendor identified one FMI related to how water drains between passenger cars, causing components that hold the cars together to corrode, which poses safety concerns.

24 Functional. For example, the vendor previously reported that five windows on the trainsets shattered spontaneously.

25 As another example, the vendor identified leaks in the trainsets’ hydraulic tilting systems, a key performance
characteristic of these trainsets, as Figure 4 shows.  "

The auditors are concerned with the fact thag schedule slippage is likely into late 2024 and early 2025, to the point that theyvare unsure if Acela 1 will be able to maintain the schedule. They are concerned about reputational hits to the brand as well as the fact that each departure on Acela 1 vs Acela 2 is leaving $15,000 on the table.

I think this report will kick some people in the ass and hopefully get something going to improve the process of getting the new sets delivered and accepted.

Amtrak's Office of the Inspector General came out with a rather scathing report.

https://amtrakoig.gov/audit-documents/a ... la-program

Summarizing (and quoting in bold):

• Trainset designs have not yet met FRA requirements. W/o a validated prediction model, the FRA's not going to let them commence full testing.
• Trainsets have defects, and the schedule for addressing them is incomplete. Defect resolution ranges from requiring structural and design changes to fixing sealant, drainage, or corrosion.

This is causing Amtrak to run at most 16 out of the 20 Acela I trainsets, using the rest as spare parts, and limiting it's schedule.

Needless to say, the OIG is pissed at Alstom.

Wow!

My immediate impression is that if the Avelia Liberty is unable to begin passenger service by September 2024, the existing Acela Is will be so worn out that they will have to be taken out of service entirely and the new trains will be at risk of being summarily rejected as fundamentally unfit for passenger service. Is there a “drop-dead” date at which Amtrak can walk away from these trains?

I'm not sure if this belongs in this thread as it may derail it, but is there even a plan B on the table if the current fleet of Acela's gives out? There's only so much cannibalization that is possible. Would there lets say in a pretend world be an option for Amtrak to lease SEPTA/MARC equipment (given that SEPTA is operating at 70% capacity as it stands) press those cars into service on the NE regional, then use the Amfeets and ACS-64's and run those on existing Acela routes?

Or is Amtrak going to charge Alstom for the lost revenue and just run less service, or what cost would be potentially charged to Alstom?

All this reminds me of a comment some years ago by a columnist in the British magazine Modern Railways that Alstom is an anagram of almost.

The lack of parts for the legacy AX-1s should be a wake up call to Amtrak and other agencies. All procurement contracts need provisions that Amtrak in this case gets all tooling and blueprints if a vendor stops production of any part. This planned obsolescence by vendors is getting repeated over and over of the no parts problems for many pieces of equipment.

Having been on the other side of that negotiation (i.e., having a customer of the company I work for demand those kind of provisions), I can tell that manufactures are more likely to simply not bid on work containing those provisions than any good they will do for the customer. The real answer is to minimize differences between off the shelf designs and what's wanted (i.e., limit the degree of customization required). I suspect the Avelia designs being built in France don't have these problems and the parts/areas that do have these problems have been redesigned at Amtrak's insistence.

Any corner bets at this time what's ahead for the completion of the Airo procurement?

Whatever happened to the days of Budd and EMD where "here's what we will provide you, here's when, here's the price. Take it or leave it". Answer, corporate and bureaucratic "whatever".

Something tells me, the IG really didn't want to dig too deep into the extent of One Mass' fault (same for the V-II's; but that was just a "sideshow" when compared to your premium product in the only indisputable intercity rail passenger market in North - and for that matter South - America) in this "one more" fiasco.

Oh, and an aside; check out Page 5 Figure 1 within the Report. When did Hornell NY suddenly become "relocated" along the NY,O&W - or maybe the NYC Adirondack Div - instead of along the ERIE?

I've yet to read the report, but at first glance, what did Amtrak expect from Bombardier? Because in the US isn't that what Alstom essentially is? They wanted a foothold in the US, but didn't account for the fact that the culture came with it. Amtrak, New York City Transit, et al, wouldn't even do business with Bombardier. What proof did they have that they had changed? I'm creating a hashtag: #AlstomBoondoggle. I'd hazard that this is on a par with or bigger than the Acela I boondoggle.

Lest we forget, EMD did have a "fiasco of sorts" with the SDP-40's, but they "made good" with a like number of F-40's, which could well hold the title as the most successful passenger engine ever built. NDA's abounded; and the terms of the trade in, and to what extent parts from the SDP-40's found their way into the replacement F-40's, is unknown - at least to me.

Amtrak and EMD should have learned from the experience of FP-45's on "my MILW". They too were C+C and top heavy with their steam generators and water tanks. While there was never an outright derailment, our Locomotive Engineers reported "truck hunting". Management (for once) listened to the troops, and those engines were only allowed as trailing units in passenger service (there are photos in circa '68 TRAINS of them leading).

Those engines were never offered to Amtrak, and lived out their days in freight (I was on assignment, so "no picture taking", but I saw one heading East at Harlowton, MT).

Report this morning on CNBC that Alstom is in serious financial trouble.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/05/french- ... grade.html