If Nippon Sharyo is proposing the same number of single level cars as bilevel cars, shouldn’t there be some adjustment for the reduced capacity? Like 15 to 20 per cent more cars since the trains would need more cars to handle the riders expected.
I think that NS were probably looking for some economies in production. John Dunn in his history on Comeng found flaws in the pre-production the Kawasaki LIRR C3 design which of course is derivative of the Comeng designed C1. So perhaps the due dilligence wasn’t done by not hiring people with good experence with DD car design.
That would make sense in a renegotiation in business but possibly might escape a state planner. So you might want to send in a Email on that suggestion.
The first IDOT announcment with Sumitomo’s proposal of single level cars was deleted. Here is the new one: https://www.illinois.gov/cpo/dot/Documents/Railcar%20Procurement%20Subcontractor.pdf
Here is the text from IDOT:
What is the plan if they realize that the Siemens Brightline car cannot be changed to fulfill all contractural requirements. Weight perhap being the highest hurdle.
Regards, Volker
You don’t think the state’s legal folks have reviewed this change with a fine tooth comb? This would be espically true since it involved a competitive bid!
If NS wanted a change their discussion would be with the contracting agency not the “standards” body. My lawyer would never let me refer to some other document in a procurement, I needed to specify the value. I suspect the contract for the cars incorporates the values from the PRIIA document. This was an issue a few years ago when a couple of FRA safety standards included references to AAR interchange rules. FRA lawyers insisted the rules be changed to incorporate the values ( which were stated in the AAR document). Volker can confirm but it’s my understand that the EU is requiring the same thing for the new TSIs. UIC documents cannot be included by reference.
As to why they would walk away, perhaps they realized what the Siemens official stated at the time of the bidding “nobody can build that car at that price” so even if they got the car to pass they might still be selling $1 loaves of bread for $0.75.
One has to wonder when a bid comes in so far under the budgeted amount, poor calculations on one or the other’s part,
I don’t know the practice in the rail equipment industry.
In the construction industry it was common to reference to standards. Usually it read state of the art and latest standards. That led to discussions when the standards were changed during the procurement process.
I read of EMU procurements in Germany where the delivery was delayed for month as new regulations had to be implemented even during construction of the vehicles.
Regards, Volker
Looks like Siemens is not able to comply with the specifications. The minutes of the Executive Board meeting of October 24th 2017 contain a document change request (DCR) for a weight change: http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20Exec%20Brd%20minutes%20-10-24-17%20DRAFT.doc
Here in Italics a copy from the minutes:
9.
Document Management Update – single level car DCRs – Tammy Krause, Amtrak – and the NGEC Revision Control Coordinator (RCC):
My opinion is that there are too many cooks in the kitchen or there are one or two moles trying to hamper passenger rail progress. Getting multi state DOT institutions to agree on things is difficult, especially if nobody wants to take responsibility of adding a thousand pounds or more to the PRIIA specs. More weight would have solved the buff force and moment (torque) loading failure.
On the other hand, the equipment bay walls are a structurally weak design as shown in Volker’s link on 9/1/17. Here we have three large floor to ceiling openings with somewhat slender vertical members in between. There appears to be distortion in the third opening and further on, beyond the door, the center buckling with a vertical member detaching from the upper floor. The Superliner has smaller openings, more area between openings and no nearby door, all of which can contribute more wall strength, which combined with the floor above forms a truss to better combat the forces. The other bi-levels, such as the Viaggio Twin, the gallery cars, and the Colorado bi-level, have seats (not equipment bay) in this area. Below the windows there is room for an excellent truss to strengthen the floor. In fact, Colorado Railcar even used diagonal members like you see on bridges. Unfortunately, none of these other bi-levels meet the PRIIA spec of connecting to the upper level of the Superliner.
I think that N-S tried its’ best to resolve the problem, but a gummed up mess in the DOTs stopped us from having beautiful bi-levels.
The draft minutes of the Technical Subcommittee’s meeting of 11/2/2017 show the discussion about the weight DCR. The Siemens proposal was changed and voted unanimously. Minutes: http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20tech%20sc%20minutes%2011-2-17%20draft.doc
There are other committees that have to agree before it is finally accepted.
The weight are changed as follows:
- coach: 104,000 lbs to 126.200 lbs
- cab/baggage: 108,000 lbs to 137,200 lbs
- cafe/lounge: 111,000 lbs to 132,000 lbs
There is no weight buffer for further design changes.
Regards, Volker
OK, I don’t want to be a pest for asking this, but I’ve ridden VRE and NJ Transit trains, and I’m puzzled as to the definition of NJ Transit “Bilevel cars” vs. VRE “Gallery cars.”
I know there’s a difference, but I don’t know what it is. The VRE cars fit into Washington DC Union Station but don’t go north of it (yet). The “upper” level is two single-seat aisles separated by a gap (where you can see the lower level and VRE has rules in which they ask you not to drip wet umbrellas or dirty shoes to down below) and have a luggage rack. I wasn’t in the NJ Transit car to notice much difference but the NJ Transit cars fit into shorter tunnels than the VRE cars do.
The VRE cars have impossibly narrow stairs to the “upper” level that I don’t remember on the NJ Transit cars.
What’s the difference?
The gallery part is the open space between the single aisles on the second level. The NJT cars have a true second level with a full floor and full seating.
Thanks, I always wondered why the VRE cars don’t have a full upper level. I guess it was probably for cost reasons. Along with scolding passengers for dripping and shaking dirt on the lower level passengers, they also cry poor about eight-car train passenger loads and the lack of layover storage in the carriage yard. I guess the extra passengers afforded by true bilevel cars didn’t seem worth it.
Look like clones of Brightline Cars, complete with ADA wide aisles (and accompanying narrow seats. Amtrak 23", Brightline 19", Airline 17")
But Tamie said they were going to be “spacious”.
Didn’t occur to me to ask for what category of rail rider they were spacious for. Dyspeptic inmates of an orphanage for dwarfs (seated two by two)?
I’m a bit surprised. The minutes of the Executive Board meeting of 11-07-2017 state that the final ruling by the Executive Board will happen on 11-21-2017
http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents/305%20Exec%20Brd%20minutes%20-11-7-17%20DRAFT.doc
See chapters 5 to 7.
Regards, Volker
Curiouser and curiouser, the technical committee approval of the weight reduction was made 11-02-2017 (to continue in that date format) and that may be the action used as a basis for Tamie McGowen’s press release - note the indication in section 5, provided below, that ‘all subcommittee voting members’ were ‘in agreement for the DCR as amended’ and would hence be justified in going forward UNLESS the DCR as amended fails in some way to accord with the requirements document - that is the thing that all the subsequent check-and-review is concerned with. (You can check with her directly about this issue at (916) 657-5060, but I think it would make sense to go ahead and issue the release based on what’s expected to happen; note the e-mail addresses for the individual review-panel members should you want to consult them directly)
Here is the relevant section of the draft minutes:
5. Status: Single level car DCR 003-155 on Weight change - Tammy Krause, Amtrak – NGEC Revision Control Coordinator: Tammy Krause repor |
|---|
You might be right that they proceeded because the final rule might predictable.
Then I would have expected a remark like “to place the order on condition of final approval by the Excecutive Board” or so in the minutes.
Instead:
7.
Scheduling the Review Panel Meeting - Eric Curtit, Missouri DOT – NGEC Chair:
Eric Curtit and Steve Hewitt will set a date and time for the Review Panel to meet to consider the report and recommendations. It is anticipated that it will take place early next week. (week of 11-12-17)
The goal is to bring this forward to the Executive Board for its consideration on 11-21-17.
The reason it’s not particularly curious to me is that they clearly disclose that all the subsequent ‘review’ by the Panel is only to confirm (perhaps largely for CYA reasons) that the decided final proposal is “i’s dotted and t’s crossed” fully in accord with the basic ‘requirements document’. Now, it would be a very poor DCR indeed if a Structural or Technical WG hadn’t conducted all its review and engineering with an eye toward the design requirements, and therefore no surprise that a pro forma review and signing-off is only a last step of no particular operational importance (or that a change mandated by a last-minute discovery of some error would be somewhat unlikely!)
This organization is not like the one in France which blithely arranged for an entire order of cars to be designed and built too wide to fit French platforms.