New Midwest/California Bi-Level Discussion

It is my understanding that the Acela IIs are a much more modular and off the shelf design, which doesn't mean there won't be delays, but it seems like there should be fewer things like building an all new custom designed train set from the ground up, to slow the project down.
Nick

Tadman wrote: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 Moorman would light a fire under this process.

Related of sorts to Mr. Dunville's immediate presented on the previous page and captioned here in its entirety, any bets that the Acela-II sets will be delivered on time? Lest we forget, they too are from a UNY source. Anyone think Chuck and Kris will be kicking hind quarters when those deliveries make those of the V-II's look like "on time?"

Very likely not. How new is the design?

What was the last rolling stock delivered on time that wasn't a copy of an old design?

Tadman wrote:Very likely not. How new is the design?

What was the last rolling stock delivered on time that wasn't a copy of an old design?

Counting motive power: the ACS-64s, then the P40/42s. Not counting them, the original Talgos, then the MHCs I suppose? The ACS is generally great, the Genesis series excels after teething, the Talgo worked out once Amtrak and the FRA worked out their differences, and the MHCs were not unqualified successes

Isn't the ACS a modified Siemens engine from Europe? I though it was quite similar to the motors used on the Austrian Railjet.

The ACS is a Vectron,but the body is derived from the Sprinter, IIRC.

Yep, I'd forgotten that it had European origins for some reason.

Aside from those, the A-X was a mess and a half, the Horizon is a rebadged Comet with outside-equalizer trucks, the V-Is were very late, the S-IIs were based off their forebears, the F59PHI was already in production I believe (at least the F59PH was) and is more or less a swoopy GP60, and the P32-8BWHs were just a Dash 8-40BW retread. Am I missing anything post-Amfleet and Superliner?

mtuandrew wrote: Am I missing anything post-Amfleet and Superliner?

Was it Morrisen Knudsen that originally had the California car order? I seem to recall they had problems with it and maybe went bankrupt around that time. Alstom later produced the Surfliner coaches without much issue.

Haven't heard much lately about this situation. Did just dig this up from searching the internet:

"Apparently, these railcars failed the buff strength test at 798,000lbs when FRA's requirement is 800,000lbs."

Is this true? Does anyone know?

If this is the case it would seem that a waiver of some sort might be possible. The standard is pretty high to begin with and the result was very close to the requirement.

Sensible minds need to reconsider and get these cars built. Funding expires next month.

Yes, this is accurate.
And other than a few things since then, that seems to be the last real data point of anything being built.

Forget a waiver. The FRA would be setting a really slippery precedent they don't want to set if they waivered this car.

They'd have to redesign for the alternate compliance standard, likely.

I'm gonna guess that this order is DOA, and I wonder if that's by design at this point. After all, railcars you don't want anymore are really easy to pass on when they don't meet the spec, vs the political fallout from a Wisconsin-style wholesale canning of the project.

Nothing here makes sense. Either we don't have the whole story, or we're looking at it wrong. Pick one.

Thinking out loud, I wonder what this means exactly:

"Apparently, these railcars failed the buff strength test at 798,000lbs when FRA's requirement is 800,000lbs."

Did the cars buckle somewhere a few inches? Did the entire car implode on itself? I would really be interested in knowing exactly what is considered a failure at 99.75% compliance.

bostontrainguy wrote:Thinking out loud, I wonder what this means exactly:

"Apparently, these railcars failed the buff strength test at 798,000lbs when FRA's requirement is 800,000lbs."

Did the cars buckle somewhere a few inches? Did the entire car implode on itself? I would really be interested in knowing exactly what is considered a failure at 99.75% compliance.

In a sense, it doesn't matter. Most likely a failure like this starts as a slight crumple and depending on how quickly the testing machine can be shut down, would crumple in an accelerating fashion.
Compare to pushing on the to of a straw, once it starts to collapse, it happens very fast.

And as Nasadowsk said, creating waiver can set a bad precedent. If you really have an issue with a standard, the solution is to develop a new, better standard (or at least argue the current one is not good enough).
In some ways (it's a a bit more complex) the Challenger disaster was the result of continually allowing waivers to the O-Ring specs because they thought they understood the phenomenon well enough.
They didn't.

Keep in mind they DESIGNED it for 800Klb... So it's not just "give us a waiver" but really "figure out WHERE we went wrong!" Designs like this in theory should be developed well enough that testing matches expectations. The fact that it failed suggests that something is wrong with the theory and design and until you know exactly what that is, you probably shouldn't allow a waiver.

Nasadowsk wrote:I'm gonna guess that this order is DOA, and I wonder if that's by design at this point. After all, railcars you don't want anymore are really easy to pass on when they don't meet the spec, vs the political fallout from a Wisconsin-style wholesale canning of the project.

Nothing here makes sense. Either we don't have the whole story, or we're looking at it wrong. Pick one.

You have a point. Maybe the Midwest states are quietly postponing their service expansion? Illinois doesn't have the money, and neither the Wisconsin nor Michigan governments seem to be in spending moods.

mtuandrew wrote: You have a point. Maybe the Midwest states are quietly postponing their service expansion? Illinois doesn't have the money, and neither the Wisconsin nor Michigan governments seem to be in spending moods.

I'm guessing this was a happy break (!) for a few states to get out without it being a legal mess. Let's face it, this shouldn't be a show stopper - the M8s failed their first crush test too and it wasn't a setback. NS is no dummy at building railcars, either.