New Midwest/California Bi-Level Discussion

R36 Combine Coach wrote:

electricron wrote:The idea that commuter trains will ever reach 125 mph before having to slow down for their next station is questionable.

At least in the 1990s NJT rated the ALP44s for 125 on NEC on the Trenton expresses (at least in theory, not sure if in actual practice). Commuter equipment on the NEC is now rated at 100 max.

I know you were discussing NJ Transit commuter equipment, but MARC commuter equipment on the Penn Line between Washington and Perryville operates at up to 125mph.

Didn't NJT run some test trains recently with various passenger cars and AALP-45s and AlP-45s at 135 MPH to qualify equipment to 125 ?

OrangeGrove (at different topic) wrote: With the stillborn Nippon-Sharyo order a bust, and only a handful of sleepers and baggage-dorms on the horizon, the situation isn't going to improve anytime soon.

Any foundation to this report?

Gilbert B Norman wrote: Any foundation to this report?

I suspect it ain't dead until the lawsuits are filed. Maybe then the whole story will come out. N-S isn't a newcomer to this industry - they've been around more than a century, and have a long list of respected equipment to their name, in Japan and in the US.

I still maintain that the whole story isn't getting out. Failing a crush test shouldn't be fatal (the M-8s failed theirs), and they were so close.

The eerie silence suggests that the progress meetings over the last year must be quite interesting to be a fly on the wall at...

The last known report was a redesign was in the works,no exec has taken the "fallen on the sword" honors as of this time.
There was another round of Layoffs at the Rochelle factory in the recent past.

Backshophoss wrote:The last known report was a redesign was in the works,no exec has taken the "fallen on the sword" honors as of this time. There was another round of Layoffs at the Rochelle factory in the recent past.

I'm starting to think the best option out is to void the N-S contract and have Siemens take over. Sacramento has the capability to build stainless cars now, as seen with the Brightliners. Though IDOT may not like losing the "made in IL" local production.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:

OrangeGrove (at different topic) wrote: With the stillborn Nippon-Sharyo order a bust, and only a handful of sleepers and baggage-dorms on the horizon, the situation isn't going to improve anytime soon.

Any foundation to this report?

Mostly rumors and speculation, but I didn't make the comment without a basis for doing so (doesn't mean I can't be wrong, of course. It's not like we have confirmation on such things).

We do know the AASHTO executive board has ceased releasing any information on the bi-level procurement since early this year- it is absolutely certain that the whole story is not getting out! When someone directly asked them about the issue at the annual meeting, they gave a rambling, meaningless non-response to the question. It is seldom a good sign when a group clamps down on what had been regular (every few weeks) updates on the locomotive and bi-level equipment procurement (they're still talking about the Chargers) and won't even answer basic questions. Supposedly they are still negotiating with Nippon-Sharyo (for the last six months or more.....).

R36 Combine Coach wrote:

Backshophoss wrote:The last known report was a redesign was in the works,no exec has taken the "fallen on the sword" honors as of this time. There was another round of Layoffs at the Rochelle factory in the recent past.

I'm starting to think the best option out is to void the N-S contract and have Siemens take over. Sacramento has the capability to build stainless cars now, as seen with the Brightliners. Though IDOT may not like losing the "made in IL" local production.

The problem with single-level cars is the lack of level boarding (and if California remains in the deal, they're already committed to bi-levels), though of course it is no worse than the Horizon cars at present.

So put out a spec for a low level single level car? They do exist...

I think the point of bringing up Siemens is that they have a production-ready existing design. Specifying a low-platform flat would be putting us back to square one again.

bdawe wrote:I think the point of bringing up Siemens is that they have a production-ready existing design. Specifying a low-platform flat would be putting us back to square one again.

Unless, just for the sake of argument, someone already had a pre-existing design for a single-level low boarding trainset, and maybe even had a couple sets already built and just sitting around.

OrangeGrove wrote:

bdawe wrote:I think the point of bringing up Siemens is that they have a production-ready existing design. Specifying a low-platform flat would be putting us back to square one again.

Unless, just for the sake of argument, someone already had a pre-existing design for a single-level low boarding trainset, and maybe even had a couple sets already built and just sitting around.

I assume you're referring to the two Talgo sets that have been sitting around Beech Grove gathering dust. California and Michigan, and perhaps others, have "kicked the tires," but nobody seems interested. So perhaps they are not as attractive as some people think.
The lack of any action on the part of N-S and the Midwestern states and California is quite confusing. You would think that by now the contract would be voided or work started on an alternative to the original plans. This lack of any forward motion must mean the project is in the hand of lawyers who bill by the hour.

The Talgo sets come with a maintenance tech as part of the deal,this might be part of the hang up on getting them to Ca.
So there's plenty for the "legal beagles" to iron out.

The "BIG" unknown is HOW bad the bodyshell failed the crush test,was it a "large" number under the limit or a "small" number under the limit?

OrangeGrove wrote:

Gilbert B Norman wrote:

OrangeGrove (at different topic) wrote: With the stillborn Nippon-Sharyo order a bust ...

Any foundation to this report?

We do know the AASHTO executive board has ceased releasing any information on the bi-level procurement since early this year- it is absolutely certain that the whole story is not getting out! When someone directly asked them about the issue at the annual meeting, they gave a rambling, meaningless non-response to the question. It is seldom a good sign when a group clamps down on what had been regular (every few weeks) updates on the locomotive and bi-level equipment procurement (they're still talking about the Chargers) and won't even answer basic questions. Supposedly they are still negotiating with Nippon-Sharyo (for the last six months or more.....).

Obviously the parties have totally missed the Stimulus law's draconian deadline: by the end of Sept 2017, spend it or lose it.

Doesn't that mean they will have to ask Congress to extend the deadline?

Some Critters will see that as a new appropriation. With the FY 2018 Budget a mess within the on-going mess of gutting Obamacare and Medicaid, rejiggering the tax code to still further even some more reduce taxes on the hard-suffering super-rich, and the, um, other issues now engaging the attention of the comrades in Congress, this is not a good time.

In this case, a sensible strategy would be to wait for a better time to start the begging, and meanwhile everybody keep their mouths shut.

So I'm not a fan of guys like Schumer or Blumenthal using everything as a grandstanding opportunity, but when does the governor from Michigan or Illinois stand up and lambaste Amtrak and Nippon-Sharyo? This is getting to be just friggin ridiculous. No word out of either party in over a year.

Meanwhile, Siemens is delivery powered locomotives on time, as well as entire trainsets to Florida.

China and Argentina have delivered entire trainsets in less time.

Even CAF trickles out a few cars here and there.


I was sincerely hoping Wick Mooreman would light a fire under this process.