As Buslist pointed out the dust from the N-S contract has to settle down before anything substantive happens. The specs laid out in PRIIA are still the target they are shooting for…provided Federal funds are still in play. The only thing for certain is it will be a long time before we see any new bilevel passenger cars, most likely well into the next decade.
The following Illinois government document “IF” true is interesting. Will leave comments to others.
https://www.illinois.gov/cpo/dot/Documents/Bi-level%20Railcar%20Procurement.pdf
As well look at the following on big page - 11 Small page 21
If true single level cars as predicted. I suppose they will be similar to Bright Line’s equipment.
Seems like not much of an “If” about it. CALDOT has done so and the rest will follow with Siemens single level cars.
The if in my mind comes from the fact that I haven’t seen word 1 in the trade press about this. It’s the kind of thing they would normally be all over, unless I somehow missed it.
Caltrans represents the consortium in this transaction so others have already followed.
800,000 lb crash test? Do buses have to endure a 800,000 pound crash test? The best way to crash proof a railroad car is not to have a accident in the first place.
I find it extremely odd that the first document states it would take 5 years before production of a bi-level car from Siemens vs 24 - 34 months for a single level car. Just exactly how much trouble is it to take your single level car and double it, and even if you go with single level vs double then the order should increase from 130 cars to 260 in order to meet the same capacity. After all the cost of a single leve car should be significanly less than a bi-level car, unless they’re not counting on any Federal funds and the existing appropriated State funds only cover the cost of 130 single level cars. As for this being in the trade press, I do beleive it was mentioned by Railway Age online when the announcement was made as I now recall having seen it before.
Others (Buslist, RME) would know far better than I, but making a bilevel out of a single level car has rather more design and engineering involved than merely “doubling it” as you suggest. And most bilevels do not have twice the capacity of comparable single level coaches.
A couple of points, a bilevel car would be a completely new design. Siemens experience in Europe is only partly applicable, as the FRA squeeze Standards don’t apply there. A North American Siemens single level car already exists as in the Bright Line stock. And no, building a bilevel car just isn’t that easy, although if anyone could you would think it would be NS with all their gallery car experience.
The contract between the states and and the builder was probably for a specific number of cars, not seats. Modification to include more cars would probably require a new contract with all the red tape that implies as well as potential loss of the FRA grant.
Did a major search in Age, Progressive, IRJ etc and found nothing. In fact as late as June 29 of this year there was an article on NS’s dedication to completing this order.
The Siemens single level car might be a fast expedient but it just trashes all the design and standardization guidance that Amtrak spent on the effort of a standardized car design for specific types of service. Also, throws the hoped for economies of scale of that former effort out the window as well. So I think it is a much larger setback than most would think.
The unmodified Siemens design means longer platforms, longer station dwell times, more cars to carry the same amount of passengers than bilevels, etc. Also, added…a whole new type of car to maintain to add to Amtraks growing collection of brands and types.
Why should that be?
Not necessarily longer station dwell times. Indeed, the one modification possible will probably be doors at both ends of the cars, and this should allow single-level cars to load faster than the typical bilevel.
But longer station platforms for longer trains to accomodate the same number of passengers, and higher costs because of the longer trains, and differen parts and…and…and
If platforms can’t be lengthened, then more trains must be operated and costs go even higher.
Unfortunately, vestibules at both ends only work when there is crew available to work them. Amtrak’s practice is that only one or two doors will be opened for low level platforms and single level coaches.
When I was riding in Australia and New Zealand last spring, station stops were “all hands on deck”. Everyone, even the cafe car attendant, worked the station stops.
As I recall, when I rode the GM&O’s Chicago-Joliet train 46 years ago, the doors were left open and the traps were left up. However, this is not a safe practice.
when the Wabash train was cut back from Decatur to Orland Park, all the doors and traps were removed. I’m not sure of the situation whan N&W replaced the heavy weights with light weight equipment.
And the bi-levels wouldn’t be a new type of car?
In my discussions with the powers that be I don’t think they would think it’s a setback. As I posted earlier some of the states seemed to be having buyers remorse over the bi-level choice.
Your standardization worry goes out out the window if this becomes the new standard (which is quite likely). What were the proposed Bi-levels standard with?
This Viaggio Comfort will be the defacto standard, outside of Viewliner cars, what other off the shelf car do you think Amtrak is looking at to replace 400 or so Amfleet cars? Talk about economies of scale?
And frankly, with Amtrak not spending much on LD trains, would not be suprised if the former Delta now Amtrak number driven CEO, thinks it might be a good idea to replace Superliners with Viewliners.
I initially read that Idot document too
fast. If you look closely you will
notice that it is not yet a done deal (as in signed sealed and delivered) Caltrans has just accepted the idea, probably why no press coverage yet. And this is a subcontract by Siemens to Sumatomo, (the trading company that represents Nippon Sharyo).
This change of subcontractors (and change to single level cars?) is allowed under provision SP7.2 of the contract.
Buses aren’t governed by the FRA nor do they have in train bus and draft forces Which was the original reason for this spec. FOX (Florida Overland Express) made your argument to the FRA some 20 years ago and as I remember made little progress.
This poster has become somewhat confused about this probable change of builders.
- Is it the need for additional capacity now one reason for the Siemens single level cars ?
1a. How soon can Siemens deliver the cars ? Maybe Siemens has already started parts procurement ? Even some construction ?
1b. What will they be called V-3s ?
-
Can traps be added to the Brightline type cars without major structural changes ?
-
Since superliners will still be operated on routes at the same time single levels are operated will there not be the ADA requirement for level boardings locations due to superlineers also operating on the route ?
-
Is this just a short term solution for the Nippon (NS) cars being delayed as the one document mentioned 2020 as starting delivery of bi level cars from NS ?