Passenger Trains > Nippon Sharyo Bi-Level car order update for IDOT , Caltrans?

Newbie here--- be gentle.
Wondering if anyone has heard latest regarding work, post the failed Nippon Sharyo 800,000# compression test on the car shell late in 2015? Saw some articles on line recently discussing whether federal monies will disappear as deadlines approach. But other than a February of 2016 update at Cal Trans (which says that the compression test failed at 798,000# - THAT CLOSE? wow...) I cannot find anything. The Siemen's Charger tests on the initial two engines delivered as part of this overall multi-state upgrade are all over the web, but when it comes to the 130 car rolling stock order... nada.
Any help?

I tried to attach the article, but neither pdf nor powerpoint look to be valid to upload.

Thanks.   Ed
 

And yet they still crank out bi-level electric cars for Metra?
Could they have done a single level car within the crush test parameters?

< Could they have done a single level car within the crush test parameters?>

Doesn't matter. Nobody is buying them.

There's a brief article about the cars in the latest issue of "Passenger Train Journal."

Posted from iPhone

Are the Nippon people even doing any work on the new cars?  I understood they paid off many of the workers and sent them home. Turned out the lights, and closed down most of their operation on the bi-level cars.

mp51w Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And yet they still crank out bi-level electric cars for Metra?

That's a different design, one closely following the proven Metra bi-level (non-electrified) cab car shell, with the exception of the high-level platform doors and the pantographs on the roof.  They've been in service since 2005 on Metra Electric, and 2009 on the South Shore Line.

The AASHTO publishes minutes of their regular meetings.  The latest on the passenger cars is as follows, but the bottom line is they are working hard on the carshell redesign, continuing on everything else on plan, and finding a workaround for the funding issues as they can.

Status Update:  Bi-Level Car Procurement – Bruce Roberts, Caltrans:
 
Bruce Roberts provided a brief update on the status of the Bi-Level Procurement, and noted that there were formal notes as well (reprinted below in italics from the 7-28-16 Technical subcommittee call:
 
Bruce expressed thanks to IDOT, the Mid-West states, and the FRA who are all working hard with the vendor to address issues related to, not only the carshell redesign, but also those related to funding.   At this point it seems that all parties have come to a meeting of the minds on a way to fully fund and deliver the base order. Even with the issues related to ARRA funding deadlines.  An amendment is in process with Caltrans, IDOT and all relevant parties.
 
Bruce also pointed out that the internal schedule for delivery of the carshell redesign has not changed over the last 6 months – which is a very positive sign – and model 2C is progressing well.
 
Final Design Review is anticipated to take place in January of 2017 – with a pre-meeting expected to take place in October of this year. 
 
There has been “lots of static and fatigue review” and it looks like the redesign of the carshell will be compliant with all necessary forces.
 
There is a team in Sacramento this week looking at project management issues and production schedule as well as elements of open items with regard to weight issues.  The weight continues to be “slightly heavy” at about 1000lbs over.
 
Bruce added that the Nippon Sharyo team has been “focused and intense”. As a result, the redesign seems to ”be a good model, a good design.”
 
FAIs –Truck Assembly FAI took place on July 12 in Rochelle.  Our Subject Matter Expert reported that it was an excellent FAI with no open issues. The upcoming FAIs are for passenger seat and table, food service cars and ATR/UTR in fall 2016.
 
       Carshell –We continue to have regular updates from NS to review the progress of the design issues and the schedule for the design activities.  The last update meeting was July 25, Monday. Carshell design activities are now proceeding in accordance with the schedule requirements of the supplemental design review in 2017.  A number of design refinements have been incorporated into the structure and the Method 2C model has been created.  All load cases have been run on this model and the analysis of the results is underway.  Any further refinements will be added to Method 2D, which is the final standard model.  Briefings were provided on a number of the design updates such as material changes, plate thickness increases and additional webs.
 
Testing –The seat/table dynamic tests took place on June 30 & July 1.  While some tests were successfully completed, there are still a few open items that need to be discussed and worked out between Caltrans, NS, and Kustom Seating. We are hoping to resolve all issues by fall.  We will schedule seat and table FAI after all issues have been closed. 
 
Misc. – Program Management Plan Audit took place on July 13.  Nippon Sharyo (NS) was well prepared.  We spent a lot of time on risk management.  We were able to close about half the audit items based on the evidence that NS presented during the audit.  NS agreed to revise the plan by the end of August to close the rest of the open items. The QA meeting, which took place on July 14, also went well.  NS was the most prepared that they have ever been.  Overall, they have made good progress since our last meeting, and were able to present quite a bit of quality data from the pilot car build.   The next QA date was set for October 6.  At that time, we will do another CDRL Element Audit.  Our Quality system records audit went well with a minimal number of minor findings.
 

I am not holding my breath for a resolution and return to mass production for the Oct 2017 deadline.

They could have licensed the Surfliner design from Alstom, tweaked it a bit and run with it. But that would be a total marketing disaster for them, so a no go.

Exactly. Why they needed to "re-invent the wheel" is a question the N/S management has to answer. I think the possible loss of a Very Big contract put things in a new perspective.

Jishnu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They could have licensed the Surfliner design from
> Alstom, tweaked it a bit and run with it. But that
> would be a total marketing disaster for them, so a
> no go.

I don't think the multi-state specification permitted the simple reuse of the Surfliner car design. Among other differences (such as design loadings), the spec set a maximum weight of 150,000 pounds per car. A Superliner weighs about 170,000 pounds. If the weight of the Surfliner is similar to the Superliner (I suspect it is, but do not know for sure), then the spec required a car weighing 20,000 pounds less than a Superliner (and presumably a Surfliner). At least some of that 20,000 pound weight reduction would have to come reduction in the weight of the car structure. That magnitude of weight reduction, while retaining the same structural capability, would require a lot more than a tweak.

The spec should have been just to replicate the Surfliner/California Car, and a heavy, purpose-built cab car with a long nose with armored steel.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The spec should have been just to replicate the
> Surfliner/California Car, and a heavy,
> purpose-built cab car with a long nose with
> armored steel.

Then they would not have needed a committee and a bunch of consultants to rewrite the spec for the wheel. Makes too much sense.

There is a great old movie, Mister Blandings Builds His Dream House, starring Cary Grant and Myna Loy.  In one scene they have the base plan for their new home laid out on a table, and then start to mark-up this change and that addtion until the drawing becomes more scribble than plan. That is what I picture happens at meetings of the multi-state "NextGen" committee.

prr60 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then they would not have needed a committee and a bunch of consultants to rewrite the spec for the
> wheel. Makes too much sense.

So true.  But in their defense, a plan to operate diesel-powered trains at 125 mph requires every possible economy in weight.  A proven North American high-level or bi-level design would weigh too much for the planned locomotives to reach the design speed with the proposed consists.  Perhaps they could have used a Euro-standard proven lightweight design, but even though technically in compliance with the latest U.S. standards, such cars are still restricted from running on tracks used by freight trains.  See discussions regarding FRA waivers for the Stadler EMUs ordered by Caltrain for the considerations involved.

As an aside, the European standards are based on managing crash energy in low-speed collisions near terminals (I think 45 km/h is the speed, or 27 mph).  That's where most (I think 88 percent is the number) European collisions occur.  Out on the line, "That's what the signal system is for", to quote a Stadler engineer; i.e., invest in crash prevention, not survivability.  The U.S. version of the standards adds a couple of special cases:  Collision with a truck carrying a coil of steel (the result of a grade crossing collision on the South Shore Line in NW Indiana some years back), and keeping liquids out of the car (not sure what accident this refers to, but presumably a grade crossing collision with a loaded gasoline truck).

Jishnu, does the Surfliner car design meet the current crash worthiness standards?

Thanks very much for the detailed factual response. More than I hoped for in details AND far better news than I expected in terms of the overall project's status. Seeing the 2 Charger engines running around gives hope for the entire project and this update raises hopes for new rolling stock to accompany the power.... As only makes sense, obviously. But when was the last time Illinois politics made sense, so that infecting IDOT and a multistate project to me is always a scary proposition, but I digress. .... (from an Illinoisian).

And who knows, maybe those Siemens's Chargers prove to actually be the positive solution nationally to the aging and increasingly problematic GE Genesis fleet with this contract's built in option for far more (225?) units.

Ed