Railroad Forums 

  • Acela Replacement and Disposition Discussion

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

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1219221  by Fan Railer
 
Good news:
https://procurement.amtrak.com/irj/port ... 6565a217df" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Board of Directors of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”) has authorized Amtrak to issue a Request For Proposal (RFP) for up to twenty-eight (28) new high speed Trainsets in concert with the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA). Amtrak and CHSRA contemplate issuing the RFP in mid-November 2013. Prospective Offerors should plan to attend a Pre-Proposal Meeting, Northeast Corridor tour, and Buy America Act informational session conducted by the Federal Railroad Administration from December 4, 2013 through the December 6, 2013
 #1219234  by 25Hz
 
Ok, someone bring me up to speed.... are these diesel or electric, where are they running etc?

No twerky answers, a link will do fine. ;)
 #1219245  by Arlington
 
25Hz wrote:Ok, someone bring me up to speed.... are these diesel or electric, where are they running etc?
No twerky answers, a link will do fine. ;)
Can't find a link because nobody ever really says directly what's going on because there's a lot of "subtexts" about the FRA overruling its design dogmas purportedly to get a joint order for equipment that nobody has ever said how they're going to pull off joint standards.

To answer your question, these are purely Electric. Somehow they promise to be a design that meets the contradictory goals of
1) Good for Amtrak and the NEC...Light, perhaps "tilty", and needing to do 165, willing/needing a weight hit on tilt 'cause its cheaper than a new right-of-way
2) Good for California...Light, "world standard", not likely to tilt (unnecessary expense & weight on California's proposed routes) and needing to do 220mph
3) Good for the FRA and safety...being an off-the-shelf model conforming to world crash energy management standards (rather than all heavy and beefy to fend off US freight trains as Acela is)
4) Good for the DOT and costs...being an off-the-shelf enough that there are lots competing manufacturers, few custom features, fast delivery, and proven operations

Amtrak put off its order of supplemental Acela coaches because Acela, in conforming to the old buff-strength standard, is too heavy and custom (and expensive to buy and operate)
CAHSR let its procurement process be complicated and potentially slowed--they already were clear they wanted straight Euro-Japan-China standard equipment
FRA had to make it look like the savings of standard equipment and a bigger order-size was driving this not a need to make a definitive break with buff strength standards

Somehow somebody keeps moving this ahead. I think most people expect it to change the FRA standards, but eventually get broken into two orders, with Amtrak getting a tilter from one manufacturer and CAHSR getting something extremely light and fast.
 #1219277  by Jishnu
 
As opposed to carefully parsing news releases, has anyone here managed to read the new proposed standard and understand what the exact changes are? What does it actually say? Reading some of it I got the impression that what it adds are new profiles that one can adhere to, characterized by somewhat lower buff strength requirements together with CEM (Crash Energy Management). So to say buff strength is out is not technically correct.

Anyway, it would be nice to hear an opinion or two from someone who actually understands what is in the modified CFR sections.
 #1219284  by Arlington
 
Jishnu wrote:As opposed to carefully parsing news releases, has anyone here managed to read the new proposed standard and understand what the exact changes are? What does it actually say? Reading some of it I got the impression that what it adds are new profiles that one can adhere to, characterized by somewhat lower buff strength requirements together with CEM (Crash Energy Management). So to say buff strength is out is not technically correct.

Anyway, it would be nice to hear an opinion or two from someone who actually understands what is in the modified CFR sections.
Understood or not, you're not really going to know their true practical effect until you see the joint RFP, which, per the press release, "Amtrak and CHSRA contemplate issuing the RFP in mid-November 2013." As discussed above (not just by me) it seems as likely that Administrator Szabo will tell us via the RFP how he wants the CFR to read, as it is that the CFR will tell us how the RFP will read.
 #1219307  by Woody
 
gokeefe wrote:Here is a more detailed parsing of the press release:
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) today announced ...
PARSE:The current standards are no longer suitable and are going to undergo a major revision.
...
Takeaway: The U.S. passenger rail market is reopening for business in a way that it hasn't been in this era of world history (since about 1910).
Nominating this for Post of the Year!

It is clearly the Parse of the Year. Thanks for breaking it down so clearly. Now we can understand what's going on here, after years of bureaucratic mushmouth and delay.
 #1219358  by 25Hz
 
So we are finally moving into the 20th century?! Great, now we just need to get into the 21st century and we'd be set! ;)
 #1231161  by JimBoylan
 
About the platform height problem mentioned at the bottom of page 1 with European style trains, you do what the New Haven Railroad had American Car & Foundry do 56 years ago to get their Talgo train into the high level platforms at Grand Central. The doorways had to be modified.
 #1231168  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Tadman wrote:Platform heights - European platforms are halfway between high and low platforms here, which probably means their floors are below NEC platforms. At that point you've either got to stool up the truck bolsters (bad idea for many reasons) or raise the floor, which is basically a clean sheet design.
Regarding Mr. Boylan's immediate, somewhere there is a photo of passengers alighting a New Haven Talgo at Grand Central. There was a 'hatch' in the roof over the vestibule and steps to which the passengers would ascend to the hi-level platform. The process seemed akward, but then, GCT was the only hi-level platforms anywhere on the New Haven - and it was the terminal. Of course, Amtrak has lived for pushing forty years with 'emergency egress' Amfleet traps at low level platforms.

I cannot locate the photo in any of my 'ex libris' New Haven works; possibly, if not likely, Messrs. Nelligan and Weaver can find one in theirs. NHRHTA certainly has one in their archives, but they are very protective, and rightly so, of their material at web postings.
 #1231183  by realtype
 
Was browsing through the RFP and a few of things jumped out at me:

- "Trainset shall be capable of a continuous Operating Speed of 160 mph under full load conditions" (for Amtrak)
- "Trainset shall be capable of a continuous Operating Speed of 220 mph under full load conditions" (for CHSRA)
- "The Vehicle floor height above TOR shall be (51 inches)"

I understand that Amtrak/CHSRA (and the feds) want to save money by combining the procurement, and it's perfectly logical, but it looks like both systems are comprising. The 220mph top speed will likely drive up the cost for the Amtrak sets (even though they only have to maintain 160mph) since they'll be somewhat over engineered. The vehicle floor height is pretty much the standard for passenger rail vehicles on the NEC today and would make sense for Amtrak, but it precludes the California HSR from having "mid-level" European-style platforms.
 #1231186  by electricron
 
realtype wrote: The vehicle floor height is pretty much the standard for passenger rail vehicles on the NEC today and would make sense for Amtrak, but it precludes the California HSR from having "mid-level" European-style platforms.
Those high platforms will also cause difficulties for California's existing low floor Superliners, Galleries, and Bombardier bilevels. The existing California car fleet and the new HSR fleet will not be able to share platforms anywhere.
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 105