by dowlingm
I'm puzzling my way through Mr Norman's piece. If Michigan has no true need to replace some Horizons and it's going to be a pain to maintain Talgos - what was their motivation to request proposals?
Railroad Forums
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
dowlingm wrote:I'm puzzling my way through Mr Norman's piece. If Michigan has no true need to replace some Horizons and it's going to be a pain to maintain Talgos - what was their motivation to request proposals?Seconded - Michigan owes no favors to either Wisconsin or Talgo, so Mr. Norman's point makes little sense. Keep in mind, Amtrak could be the winning bidder on this RFP with the existing Horizon or Amfleet equipment (or even refurbished Metroliner Michigan coaches, wherever they went), but Talgo has a huge interest in getting their foot in the door. Minnesota hasn't signed onto the Midwest Bilevel order, nor has Indiana or Iowa, and Michigan may well decide to sell their share of the cars and go Talgo for all their routes if they like what they see. This is Talgo's last chance to be taken seriously in the USA east of the Cascade Range.
dowlingm wrote:I'm puzzling my way through Mr Norman's piece. If Michigan has no true need to replace some Horizons and it's going to be a pain to maintain Talgos - what was their motivation to request proposals?I've read elsewhere that MDOT Amtrak yearly subsidies rose to almost $30 Million per year from close to $5 Million per year recently. Much of that increase is from MDOT subsidizing the maintenance on the old Horizon equipment they weren't required to do before. That's why most of the MidWest states, North Carolina, California, and Pacific Northwest states are purchasing railcars for Amtrak to run; it's cheaper to do so over time. And that's the reason why MDOT may buy or lease available Talgos now; because it is cheaper.
mtuandrew wrote: (or even refurbished Metroliner Michigan coaches, wherever they went)There were only five of those I believe, and I read that one was damaged beyond repair in a yard collision. The four remaining I guess ended up in Bear, DE storage. I remember seeing them on the NEC occasionally until maybe a little over a decade ago - here's one on the Three Rivers immediately behind the HHP-8. The blanked out cab and missing door give it away.
Gilbert B Norman wrote:This is not to say that these trains will see revenue service on the Michigan routes - even though so far as I'm concerned, such would be a waste of resources. Michigan is party to the 'Midwest bi-level' equipment order, which is a-building (the Nippon Sharyu plant is clearly visible from I-88 at Rochelle), and I'd like to think there is another three or so years of economic life to the Horizon fleet (they're really 'not all that bad'). Should that initiative move forth, considerable $$$ would be required to train Amtrak Shop and Operating employees on this 'two of a kind' equipment. While Talgo has relied upon contracted-out maintenance for the Cascades equipment at Seattle, I'd place my bets that no party is about to propose such in the highly Unionized work environment here in Chicago. While of late, Michigan has become more Union-hostile, where would such a contract maintenance facility be built?First, let us note it would appear that Talgo and the railfan community are on the same page - get the stuff rolling and a few Pesetas (whoops; Euros for the moment) in our pocket - and you guys will have some unique equipment available to be photographed. Win; Win.
bostontrainguy wrote:I would imagine that the Talgos will reduce running times on the route to shorter than existing timetables. Once people get used to these faster schedules it would be difficult to introduce slower equipment so the Talgos would probably be here to stay.I think this discussion is ignoring what Michigan is seeking in its RFP. The core of which is available here. I suggest people at least skim it. Michigan, Illinois, and Missouri will be getting 82 corridor bi-level cars courtesy of federal money with only a minimal outlay of state funds. The corridor bi-level cars will provide a lot of capacity and flexibility. And the contract with Nippon-Sharyo has options for 300 more coach cars which will make it easy for the states to buy additional cars if they need them (and have the money).
I think Talgo got treated badly and this opportunity is well deserved. I have ridden these trains and the passive "KISS" technology is very smart and works very well.
Long live Talgo!
David Benton wrote:Are the states mandated to seek RFP's by the PRRIA legislation, or simply empowered too. If mandated , that would explain Michigan and Indiana's recent requests for bids.Talgo Spain have found it impossible to sell any coaches outside of Iberia in the rest of Europe. I haven't travelled in any of them but I think they are too dependent on special track conditions for use outside Iberia. The same may be true of the US. I would not expect to see them expand outside of their current locations.
Reading between the lines of a few articles, it appears the most likely eventual destination for the Talgos, the Pacific Northwest, is unable to add more trains for a few years . It seems the Time period Michigan requires trainsets prior to the delivery of the new bilevels, fits into this nicely.
As far as I can see Talgo has done nothing wrong, the Talgos are the best equipment available right now in the USA, and hopefully they get to be used.