Amtrak Empire Service (New York State)

[gokeefe]

There are several significant advantages. One of them can be improved On Time Performance by allowing a quick turn when the arriving trainset is delayed. The Downeaster frequently is able to benefit from this practice both in Brunswick and North Station.

As a general rule corridor trains don't get serviced midday. I'm sure there are exceptions but it's not something I've heard or seen before. Consequently there's very little advantage to taking the train away from the platform in the middle of the operational platform. At NYP this could be a necessity but at other terminal stations there is usually no need.

In terms of turn times my impression has been that these can be up to an hour or more for NYP to Sunnyside and back. Given the frequency of service it is my impression that the Empire Service would want to run on 40 minute headways (or less). In that case it is potentially very significant to be able to turn trainsets at the platform.

[bdawe]

Even the Acela and Bombardier , what's that, 15 years ago , and to still blacklist a major supplier ???

Amtrak is by all appearances a 'difficult' customer, but it's not like Bombardier have covered themselves in glory in the rest of the world in the succeeding years

[gokeefe]

Amtrak is by all appearances a 'difficult' customer

I think Amtrak has been very reasonable generally. I have yet to see a situation where they attempted to shirk responsibility for their own actions which impacted vendor timelines. I'm sure there's an example somewhere but the Nippon-Sharyo and Bombardier episodes do not appear to have been their fault at all.

The delays at CAF do appear to have resulted from Amtrak's change orders and they have consistently acknowledged that as best I recall.

[mtuandrew]

Amtrak is by all appearances a 'difficult' customer

I think Amtrak has been very reasonable generally. I have yet to see a situation where they attempted to shirk responsibility for their own actions which impacted vendor timelines. I'm sure there's an example somewhere but the Nippon-Sharyo and Bombardier episodes do not appear to have been their fault at all.

The delays at CAF do appear to have resulted from Amtrak's change orders and they have consistently acknowledged that as best I recall.

In a restaurant setting, often the most frustrating customers are the ones who finish ordering then say, “oh, did I say I wanted that to be vegan? I’m so sorry! Also I’m really sorry to do this but I need two of them, and they should be large, and I really need the gift receipt, and can you divide them into multiple portions?” They may give you a large tip, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t a pain in the butt. Often a bigger pain than a rude customer, which you can write off and laugh about.

[Nasadowsk]

In a restaurant setting, often the most frustrating customers are the ones who finish ordering then say, “oh, did I say I wanted that to be vegan? I’m so sorry!

Does that ever actually happen? Typically, vegans can never shut up about being vegan, and it's generally the first or second thing out of their mouths when they meet someone for the first (or second, or third...) time....

[Tadman]

Amtrak is by all appearances a 'difficult' customer

I think Amtrak has been very reasonable generally. I have yet to see a situation where they attempted to shirk responsibility for their own actions which impacted vendor timelines. I'm sure there's an example somewhere but the Nippon-Sharyo and Bombardier episodes do not appear to have been their fault at all.

The delays at CAF do appear to have resulted from Amtrak's change orders and they have consistently acknowledged that as best I recall.

Amtrak is reasonable when they have been told they can have something off the shelf. When they get into the design and specification, it's a disaster almost every time.

I still have lots of questions about the Nippon Sharyo debacle. They consistently built some of the best stuff out there for 30 years and then massively dropped the ball? To a customer with a reputation for procurements gone wrong? Something stinks here.

Also, I think it's been pretty quiet that Amtrak did all the change orders at CAF. I certainly haven't seen any headlines about it.

[Tadman]

Seems crazy to have to turn equipment after a 2 hour trip.
As to Dutch's comment, it does seem Amtrak is hamstrung by things that happened 30 years ago . Surely they can move on after 10 years at least.
Even the Acela and Bombardier , what's that, 15 years ago , and to still blacklist a major supplier ???

Seems crazy until you think about the enterprise in big picture. They are running the same railroad from 1971, which is a shrunken version of 1950 or 1920. Other than the HST there has been little innovation in equipment, there has been no innovation in route structure, and they still act like they're doing you a favor for even turning on the website in the morning.

[superstar]

I still have lots of questions about the Nippon Sharyo debacle. They consistently built some of the best stuff out there for 30 years and then massively dropped the ball? To a customer with a reputation for procurements gone wrong? Something stinks here.

Amtrak did not order nor was managing the procurement of that equipment. It was, is, and will continue to be a Caltrans project with input from Illinois, Missouri, and Michigan.

[mtuandrew]

I still have lots of questions about the Nippon Sharyo debacle. They consistently built some of the best stuff out there for 30 years and then massively dropped the ball? To a customer with a reputation for procurements gone wrong? Something stinks here.

Amtrak did not order nor was managing the procurement of that equipment. It was, is, and will continue to be a Caltrans project with input from Illinois, Missouri, and Michigan.

It also smells of a financial decision, like subcontractor Nippon Sharyo having design difficulties and needing a bailout of either time or money from general contractor Sumitomo, but instead of investing the time & money someone at Sumitomo decided that Siemens could just fill the contract for them.

[WhartonAndNorthern]

It also smells of a financial decision, like subcontractor Nippon Sharyo having design difficulties and needing a bailout of either time or money from general contractor Sumitomo, but instead of investing the time & money someone at Sumitomo decided that Siemens could just fill the contract for them.

The states were under the gun with stimulus funds expiring. I would rather have seen an FRA waiver: what's 2000 lbs among friends?

[Greg Moore]

It's 2000lbs.

I'm not a fan of waivers without a LOT of thought as to why.
This can (not necessarily) lead to normalization of deviance. This is what happened for example with Challenger and Columbia.
The original requirement was "NO O-ring blow bys"

After the first flight, STS-1, it became, "Hmm, we had some blow-by, but we think we understand it. We'll waive the requirement for now".
As different missions showed different issues, NASA and its engineers continued to grant a waiver on this requirement. "We think we understand it."
Then... STS-51L.

Now, sometimes you do have to say, "well, this requirement is foolish! Let's get rid of it." And perhaps the 800,000lb crush test was (is?) But do you waive it? Remember, the 800,000lb crush test is supposed to be the minimum (I think or was it in fact the mean). I'm not familiar with their engineering requirements for this specific case, but generally you want like 6 standard deviations from the norm. This means that 99.7% of your tests will fall inside the curve. i.e. you want to ensure that if you build 1000 railcars, 997 will exceed the 800,00lb crush test. If your first test already fails, you've lost a LOT of confidence. Someone else would have to do the math, but to if still want a 99.7% confidence level, this means you have to actually have a crush test a lot lower than 798,000 lbs.

(I'm assuming they want 800,000 as the minimum, not the mean. If it's the mean, you're in better shape but still have to consider the impact).

Now, I personally think moving towards better crash energy management (like they've apparently done with the Acela IIs) is the way to go. But simply granting a waiver, can be far too simplistic.

[mtuandrew]

The states were under the gun with stimulus funds expiring. I would rather have seen an FRA waiver: what's 2000 lbs among friends?

But we had no news out of Rochelle for what, three years? It can’t take that long to correct for one faulty shell, and N-S engineers and designers certainly would have run hundreds of virtual simulations exceeding the crush test limits before they welded up the real thing. Something still smells rotten, like one or another company (or government agency) decided they financially would be better off abandoning the bilevels.

It's 2000lbs.

I'm not a fan of waivers without a LOT of thought as to why.
This can (not necessarily) lead to normalization of deviance. This is what happened for example with Challenger and Columbia.
The original requirement was "NO O-ring blow bys"

After the first flight, STS-1, it became, "Hmm, we had some blow-by, but we think we understand it. We'll waive the requirement for now".
As different missions showed different issues, NASA and its engineers continued to grant a waiver on this requirement. "We think we understand it."
Then... STS-51L.

Now, sometimes you do have to say, "well, this requirement is foolish! Let's get rid of it." And perhaps the 800,000lb crush test was (is?) But do you waive it? Remember, the 800,000lb crush test is supposed to be the minimum (I think or was it in fact the mean). I'm not familiar with their engineering requirements for this specific case, but generally you want like 6 standard deviations from the norm. This means that 99.7% of your tests will fall inside the curve. i.e. you want to ensure that if you build 1000 railcars, 997 will exceed the 800,00lb crush test. If your first test already fails, you've lost a LOT of confidence. Someone else would have to do the math, but to if still want a 99.7% confidence level, this means you have to actually have a crush test a lot lower than 798,000 lbs.

(I'm assuming they want 800,000 as the minimum, not the mean. If it's the mean, you're in better shape but still have to consider the impact).

Now, I personally think moving towards better crash energy management (like they've apparently done with the Acela IIs) is the way to go. But simply granting a waiver, can be far too simplistic.

Fully agreed, especially since this car failed 100% of its crush tests - a test that has been standard for literal generations for FRA-certified cab cars and locomotives.

[Backshophoss]

After that test failure at Rochelle,Nippon-Shayo folded their tent,closed that factory and retreated back to Japan
It's unknown how many execs "fell on their swords"(ie take blame) afterwords back in Japan.

New York state now has to get in line with everybody else to get cars from Siemens,most likely after Amtrak's order.

[gokeefe]

Something still smells rotten, like one or another company (or government agency) decided they financially would be better off abandoning the bilevels.

Nope. Nothing that I've seen it heard makes me suspect that. This was an engineering failure on a new design from Nippon-Sharyo (remember the "pinched nose" diaphragms?). The bi-levels remained financially advantageous to the end. Shorter trains, fewer wheels, more people.

[David Benton]

I would say Siemens would have offered a very good deal, as it took the heat off them having to prove the Chargers could meet the specified speeds with double deck cars. There was a lawsuit (from Caterpillar??) regarding the Chargers ability to meet the specs, did that disappear before or after the deal to go single level ?