Amtrak ALC-42 Procurement (Long-Distance LD Charger Variant)

just keep in mind no matter what anyone wants, the bid will go to cheapest bidder.

DutchRailnut wrote:just keep in mind no matter what anyone wants, the bid will go to cheapest bidder.

Not necessarily. Any delivery schedule from CAF would have a second and third look. NS meeting design requiremens. etc

http://railcolornews.com/2018/06/30/uk- ... transport/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

UK is about to accept their first Stadler EMU/DMU for intercity service. A model like this would be submitted by Stadler for use on the NEC with probably two power cars in the middle instead of the one.

Regarding reliability, its funny that Amtrak can buy a TGV knock off for Acela IIs and Euro designed locomotives nee Sprinters and we wander if an Euro designed EMU/DMU will be reliable? It is not 1975.

frequentflyer wrote: Regarding reliability, its funny that Amtrak can buy a TGV knock off for Acela IIs and Euro designed locomotives nee Sprinters and we wander if an Euro designed EMU/DMU will be reliable? It is not 1975.

This looks pretty economical:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zeBIxI7n1I" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

frequentflyer wrote:http://railcolornews.com/2018/06/30/uk- ... transport/

UK is about to accept their first Stadler EMU/DMU for intercity service. A model like this would be submitted by Stadler for use on the NEC with probably two power cars in the middle instead of the one.

The first Stadler units for East Anglia are still months away from arriving in the UK and won't enter service for another 9 months at least.

Note that the power car would be entirely unnecessary on the NEC, the power car is only for when the trains leave the electric network.

But the biggest problem is that those units are entirely unsuitable for North American use - not only do they not meet the FRA standards but they are far too small given the very restrictive UK loading gauge.

Which isn't to say Stadler couldn't design a new train to meet Amtrak or VIA's needs, but a new design brings along all the baggage that a new design has.

Now a European design could, with a waiver, possibly be used directly given the European loading gauge is somewhere between the UK and US standards, but of course Europe doesn't use high platforms so that means none of the European designs are suitable for the NEC. Which brings us back to a new design being required.

VIA has specified a bunch of things in their requirements, which includes full FRA standards compliance, both low and high level platform capability and bi-directional capability. It is possible that Stadler may submit a DMU design that meets those requirements, but they may also submit a more conventional (for North America) loco and coach option.

mdvle: Stadler is making new Goldleaf-class cars for the Rocky Mountaineer that fully meet American loading gauge, minus the fact that they are double-height. They are designed for 110 mph(!) operation, though neither Stadler nor Rocky Mountaineer expects them to see above 70 in service.

Anyway, my point is that Stadler prides itself on custom-designing cars, so this order may be entirely within their grasp no matter what equipment is ordered.

There're 2 true options on the "table" ,1, the Siemens Charger LD version,with the somewhat proven Cummings prime mover,
2,Rebuild of the P40/42's with a GEVO prime mover,with "Kits" from GE at Beech Grove or as remanufactured at Erie Pa or Fort Worth Tx.
"Delta Dick's" Dream of the 800 class dual mode E/DMU as used on UK's Network Rail and by train operator GWR will not work here in the US!

east point wrote:

DutchRailnut wrote:just keep in mind no matter what anyone wants, the bid will go to cheapest bidder.

Not necessarily. Any delivery schedule from CAF would have a second and third look. NS meeting design requiremens. etc

Exactly. If we were looking at a commodity here (something readily available, basic elements of a product with multiple ready suppliers) then we would expect the cheapest bid to get it. But for something as customized and highly engineered as new locomotives/cars, the bid will more than likely go to who can do it the best and get it to service the quickest, which means a proven line such as the Brightline cars and Chargers.

mdvle wrote:

frequentflyer wrote:http://railcolornews.com/2018/06/30/uk- ... transport/

UK is about to accept their first Stadler EMU/DMU for intercity service. A model like this would be submitted by Stadler for use on the NEC with probably two power cars in the middle instead of the one.

The first Stadler units for East Anglia are still months away from arriving in the UK and won't enter service for another 9 months at least.

Note that the power car would be entirely unnecessary on the NEC, the power car is only for when the trains leave the electric network.

But the biggest problem is that those units are entirely unsuitable for North American use - not only do they not meet the FRA standards but they are far too small given the very restrictive UK loading gauge.

Which isn't to say Stadler couldn't design a new train to meet Amtrak or VIA's needs, but a new design brings along all the baggage that a new design has.

Now a European design could, with a waiver, possibly be used directly given the European loading gauge is somewhere between the UK and US standards, but of course Europe doesn't use high platforms so that means none of the European designs are suitable for the NEC. Which brings us back to a new design being required.

VIA has specified a bunch of things in their requirements, which includes full FRA standards compliance, both low and high level platform capability and bi-directional capability. It is possible that Stadler may submit a DMU design that meets those requirements, but they may also submit a more conventional (for North America) loco and coach option.

Amtrak would use the power car in consists for points south of DC, north to Albany and Springfield off the NEC. Without a power car, the train would just be a NEC Regional train.

Those mocking the potential for DMU's do so at their own peril. It's similar to the turboprops and regional jets used by airlines -- not necessarily the most comfortable, but still better than a bus.

If the operating cost per mile can work out to be a fragment of what it is with a locomotive and one or two coaches, and marginally higher than that of a subsidized bus, this could be a decent solution in places where the need is there but the volume isn't. That's what will open up some of these smaller markets where 50-100 passengers a day or 50-100 passengers per run could suddenly be feeding other nodes in the network.

DMUs would be perfect for getting TUS-PHX and CHI-DBQ service started, and might make a lot more sense on a FTW-OKC-TUL than having a dedicated locomotive with Superliners that largely go empty.

mtuandrew wrote:mdvle: Stadler is making new Goldleaf-class cars for the Rocky Mountaineer that fully meet American loading gauge, minus the fact that they are double-height. They are designed for 110 mph(!) operation, though neither Stadler nor Rocky Mountaineer expects them to see above 70 in service.

Anyway, my point is that Stadler prides itself on custom-designing cars, so this order may be entirely within their grasp no matter what equipment is ordered.

There is no question that something could be designed, which I did indicate.

It was more a response to some of the comments on here that basically seem to be indicating that Stadler (as one example) could simply sell Amtrak some Class 7x5 units and be done, maybe just needing to "use bigger wheels" or use "ramps".

mdvle wrote:

mtuandrew wrote:mdvle: Stadler is making new Goldleaf-class cars for the Rocky Mountaineer that fully meet American loading gauge, minus the fact that they are double-height. They are designed for 110 mph(!) operation, though neither Stadler nor Rocky Mountaineer expects them to see above 70 in service.

Anyway, my point is that Stadler prides itself on custom-designing cars, so this order may be entirely within their grasp no matter what equipment is ordered.

There is no question that something could be designed, which I did indicate.

It was more a response to some of the comments on here that basically seem to be indicating that Stadler (as one example) could simply sell Amtrak some Class 7x5 units and be done, maybe just needing to "use bigger wheels" or use "ramps".

No one is stating that, the train systems that Stadler sells are all variations of the FLIRT platform. Stadler has stated themselves they can widen it to fit any gauge or raise for high platforms. Its akin to what automakers do now with the same unibody platform under a midsize, compact or CUV vehicle.

The price? Thats between Amtrak and Stadler. Not saying Amtrak is going to go this route but kudos for them for looking at the concept.

frequentflyer wrote:

mdvle wrote:

mtuandrew wrote: Anyway, my point is that Stadler prides itself on custom-designing cars, so this order may be entirely within their grasp no matter what equipment is ordered.

There is no question that something could be designed, which I did indicate.

It was more a response to some of the comments on here that basically seem to be indicating that Stadler (as one example) could simply sell Amtrak some Class 7x5 units and be done, maybe just needing to "use bigger wheels" or use "ramps".

No one is stating that,

From a week ago:

To be fair, the Class 745 and 755 Stadler trains being built for East Anglica will have floors 960 mm (just shy of 38 inches) above top of rail. Not quite the 48 inches seen on the NEC. Would it be impossible to have a 10 inch ramp in its vestibules?

Or a reply to it:

Yes, that’s impossible due ADA. And why would they? Easier to put taller trucks underneath

Seem to me to be talking about trying to modify a British train to me.

frequentflyer wrote: the train systems that Stadler sells are all variations of the FLIRT platform. Stadler has stated themselves they can widen it to fit any gauge or raise for high platforms. Its akin to what automakers do now with the same unibody platform under a midsize, compact or CUV vehicle.

But the FRA requirements are significantly different than anything in Europe or elsewhere in the world, and those modification then end up essentially being an entirely new design (unless they get a waiver, but that is unlikely for anything on the NEC).

mdvle wrote: But the FRA requirements are significantly different than anything in Europe or elsewhere in the world, and those modification then end up essentially being an entirely new design (unless they get a waiver, but that is unlikely for anything on the NEC).

I understand that the French RTG trainsets ran under waiver, while the Rohr Turboliner was a FRA compliant variant of the design. I guess the feasibility of adapting existing designs has to be evaluated on a case by case basis. The Siemens Brightline/Viaggio Comfort USA coaches I assume have some relation to the Viaggio Comfort coaches in Europe.

Matt Johnson wrote:

mdvle wrote: But the FRA requirements are significantly different than anything in Europe or elsewhere in the world, and those modification then end up essentially being an entirely new design (unless they get a waiver, but that is unlikely for anything on the NEC).

I understand that the French RTG trainsets ran under waiver, while the Rohr Turboliner was a FRA compliant variant of the design. I guess the feasibility of adapting existing designs has to be evaluated on a case by case basis. The Siemens Brightline/Viaggio Comfort USA coaches I assume have some relation to the Viaggio Comfort coaches in Europe.

Don't forget we have alternative Tier 1 compliance now. So the feasibility of adopting a foreign design is much greater.