Passenger Trains > Amtrak RFP for "LD Single Level Replacement"

One has to ask are they looking for single level cars for the entire long distance network or just for trains on the East Coast. The announcement isn't clear on that.

From Amtrak:

"The purpose of this RFP is to solicit proposals from firms who wish to be considered to provide supplies and services for the manufacture and replacement of Amtrak’s Single Level Fleet. Amtrak is soliciting Offers from established Railcar manufacturers to perform engineering, design, production, assembly, inspection, testing, delivery, warranty services and maintenance support services. In order to be qualified as a registered Potential Offeror, you must be an established Car Builder who has prior experience successfully designing and manufacturing rail vehicles for the North American passenger rail market. If qualified and interested in this RFP, please contact Gina Pitcherella to ensure that your firm receives an invitation to the solicitation. This invitation will come via email through our procurement system of record, Ariba on Demand (AOD), and we will be able to access the Solicitation Documents. Please accept the terms of this Ariba invitation."

Edit: Spelling.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/04/25 03:52 by DutchDragon.

My guess is this.  It's an RFP for Amfleet I and II equipment.  Amtrak wanted to issue and RFP for replacement Superliners, but to make them ADA compliant required elevators among other things. The car makers basically said they were next to impossible to build, so, AFAIK, Amtrak is revising it's RFP for Superliner replacements.  

Amfleet-2 and Viewliner-I.
Amfleet-1 are already spoken for with Airos.

The purpose of the RFP is to request proposals.
amtrak will then request changes that no builder can provide for what amtrak will pay.
After a few years amtrak will throw up their hands and complain they can't obtain equipment.
In the mean time the LD fleet will be further reduced by wrecks, corrosion, etc.
All part of the plan to do away with LD trains.

Thats crazy about the elevators in the Superliners RFP.  Handicapped people are accommodated in the lower levels, and meals can be brought to them.  A cray idea ruins it all.  Time to be reasonable again.

coach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thats crazy about the elevators in the Superliners
> RFP.  Handicapped people are accommodated in the
> lower levels, and meals can be brought to them.
>  A cray idea ruins it all.  Time to be
> reasonable again.

Just because he said it, doesn’t make it true.

Englewood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The purpose of the RFP is to request proposals.
> amtrak will then request changes that no builder
> can provide for what amtrak will pay.
> After a few years amtrak will throw up their hands
> and complain they can't obtain equipment.
> In the mean time the LD fleet will be further
> reduced by wrecks, corrosion, etc.
> All part of the plan to do away with LD trains.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Amazing. You can't even stand it for an RFP to be issued for single-level equipment. Even that, normally regarded as a constructive sign of progress, is a negative in your book.

Maybe it's just that you don't understand or have the experience that some of us do with procurement processes. So a reminder that an RFP is a request to bid, and to respond to what is essentially a wish list. 99% of the time that wish list is overstated to some degree by the requester, maybe only a little, but often by a lot - and sometimes hugely. Some of us in our careers have seen RFPs so hugely overstated that they were almost hilarious. Others that were clear, reasonable, sober and realistic. In either case, it's the opening step in an extended process of response, negotiation, and often considerable back-and-forth conversation, proposal and counter-proposal, plan and counter-plan, between the requester and the supplier. And it's generally quite confidential, for competitive business reasons. And it's seldom quick nor easy. I've participated in a bunch of them in other industries. They are almost always hard work. Sometimes really, really hard work. But when you're in the thick of the process, you have to keep perspective always and recognize that it is a process, a conversation, a negotiation.

Gradually, through the conversation that the RFP initiates, a set of specifications is worked out. It's almost always a compromise, to some degree or another. There's give and take by both parties. It's not uncommon for the requester to give up some pretty big asks - they're often "shooting for the moon" in one way or another, and the conversation gradually shows that the ask is just too big, too difficult, or too expensive. That is perfectly normal - it happens all the time. It may not be ideal (and I for one think that's it's not), but responsible, skilled , knowledgeable adults in the room deal with it and work it out. It's just the way the process works. Not a one I've ever been part of was like ordering something on Amazon.

You suggest that somehow that's different for Amtrak, and that it is a conspiracy to kill the LD trains. You and others have been suggesting that for some time. Hasn't happened yet. Shows no sign of happening.

In fact, in what could have been one of the potentially most threatening budget environments yet in Washington over the last few weeks, Amtrak and the LD trains look as through they survived just fine. And isn't it interesting that just as that happens Amtrak issues its next RFP (there have been several fleet replacement RFPs now previously). Coincidental? Maybe. Or not. They have just survived what weeks ago one person after another here on TO thought was going to be an extinction-level event for Amtrak. Turns out that they actually do have friends in both red- and blue-state America, and funding has stayed relatively intact. How about that? And with that assurance, they could move ahead with the next RFP for single-level equipment. Maybe coincidence. Or maybe not. I lean towards "not". The tea leaves that possibly looked terrible for them weeks ago are now okay. Seems like a good time to move forward another step. That seems commendable to me.

(Or maybe they wanted to make sure they did it right away, just to make sure they wouldn't be criticized yet again here on TO by members who say over and over again - completely incorrectly and irresponsibly - that they move too slowly on such matters). 

So, please, try to find a way to put your negativity and bitterness aside and look at facts more calmly, dispassionately and non-conspiratorially. This is a positive, constructive move forward. Recognize it as such. If the asks in the RFP turn out to be ridiculous, then that's a separate conversation for the future. As it always is in any RFP process. Or if they undershoot genuine needs (that can happen), then that too is a constructive conversation for the future. As it always is. But recognize that a positive, reasonable, constructive step forward has been taken with the issuance of this RFP.

Happy 4th - this is an aspect of America to celebrate. Shoot off a roman candle or two to celebrate. Positive constructive movement forward on a complex and necessary matter has occurred. That's something for us to celebrate, along with so much else on this Independence Day.
 
MC

Why reinvent the wheel? (Viewliners)     They should order about 125 Viewliner-3 coaches and 35  lounge cars.  That would complete a re-equipping the single level LD fleet.  And Viewliners are a known product.  Certainly Amtrak might have a few tweaks to the new cars, but they are stainless steel, attractive, comfortable, not prone to failure, etc.  They have all the existing blue prints and design specs.  Any car builder could respond to that kind of an order quickly.  

Then should come perhaps a second portion of such an equipment purchase:  one car per train that might have some small tweaks for handicapped travelers: built in lifts to lift wheel chairs onto the car; wider aisles; two handicapped toilets, etc.  

This does not have to be complicated.  It will be if Amtrak overthinks the goal and procurement specs.  

Why would Siemens want to build a 1990's car when they have their own Venture car rigging ?

Posted from Android

MEKoch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why reinvent the wheel? (Viewliners)     They
> should order about 125 Viewliner-3 coaches and
> 35  lounge cars.  That would complete a
> re-equipping the single level LD fleet.  And
> Viewliners are a known product.  Certainly Amtrak
> might have a few tweaks to the new cars, but they
> are stainless steel, attractive, comfortable, not
> prone to failure, etc.  They have all the
> existing blue prints and design specs.  Any car
> builder could respond to that kind of an order
> quickly.  

Because, being a quasi US Federal Government corporation, they can not just BUY the cars. They have to put out a RFP and then get bids and then choose a bidder.

NO,riding in the ADA bdrm from for instance Emeryville to Chicago, without access to either the diner or the sightseer car is ridiculous.   IMHO, the proper design is single level cars w/ an elevator eqipped 'dome.   Yes, I know there is takeout from the diner, that doesn't make up for being cooped up in the ADA bdrm for 48 hours.    

BrynMawr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NO,riding in the ADA bdrm from for instance
> Emeryville to Chicago, without access to either
> the diner or the sightseer car is ridiculous. 
>  IMHO, the proper design is single level cars w/
> an elevator eqipped 'dome.   Yes, I know there
> is takeout from the diner, that doesn't make up
> for being cooped up in the ADA bdrm for 48
> hours.    

The whole world must revolve around me ADA attitude is the reason why soon the world will revolve around no one.  The simplest accessible amenity is one that does not exist at all.

There is not going to be elevator equipped dome cars.  The simple solution to the sightseer lounge access problem is to not offer lounges and instead provide at seat delivery from the diner.

Strangely these sort of complaints about accessibility never apply to the airlines and airplanes.

ironmtn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Englewood Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The purpose of the RFP is to request proposals.
> > amtrak will then request changes that no
> builder
> > can provide for what amtrak will pay.
> > After a few years amtrak will throw up their
> hands
> > and complain they can't obtain equipment.
> > In the mean time the LD fleet will be further
> > reduced by wrecks, corrosion, etc.
> > All part of the plan to do away with LD trains.
>
> Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Amazing. You can't even
> stand it for an RFP to be issued for single-level
> equipment. Even that, normally regarded as a
> constructive sign of progress, is a negative in
> your book.
>
> Maybe it's just that you don't understand or have
> the experience that some of us do with procurement
> processes. So a reminder that an RFP is a request
> to bid, and to respond to what is essentially a
> wish list. 99% of the time that wish list is
> overstated to some degree by the requester, maybe
> only a little, but often by a lot - and sometimes
> hugely. Some of us in our careers have seen RFPs
> so hugely overstated that they were almost
> hilarious. Others that were clear, reasonable,
> sober and realistic. In either case, it's the
> opening step in an extended process of response,
> negotiation, and often considerable back-and-forth
> conversation, proposal and counter-proposal, plan
> and counter-plan, between the requester and the
> supplier. And it's generally quite confidential,
> for competitive business reasons. And it's seldom
> quick nor easy. I've participated in a bunch of
> them in other industries. They are almost always
> hard work. Sometimes really, really hard work. But
> when you're in the thick of the process, you have
> to keep perspective always and recognize that it
> is a process, a conversation, a negotiation.
>
> Gradually, through the conversation that the RFP
> initiates, a set of specifications is worked out.
> It's almost always a compromise, to some degree or
> another. There's give and take by both parties.
> It's not uncommon for the requester to give up
> some pretty big asks - they're often "shooting for
> the moon" in one way or another, and the
> conversation gradually shows that the ask is just
> too big, too difficult, or too expensive. That is
> perfectly normal - it happens all the time. It may
> not be ideal (and I for one think that's it's
> not), but responsible, skilled , knowledgeable
> adults in the room deal with it and work it out.
> It's just the way the process works. Not a one
> I've ever been part of was like ordering something
> on Amazon.
>
> You suggest that somehow that's different for
> Amtrak, and that it is a conspiracy to kill the LD
> trains. You and others have been suggesting that
> for some time. Hasn't happened yet. Shows no sign
> of happening.
>
> In fact, in what could have been one of the
> potentially most threatening budget environments
> yet in Washington over the last few weeks, Amtrak
> and the LD trains look as through they survived
> just fine. And isn't it interesting that just as
> that happens Amtrak issues its next RFP (there
> have been several fleet replacement RFPs now
> previously). Coincidental? Maybe. Or not. They
> have just survived what weeks ago one person after
> another here on TO thought was going to be an
> extinction-level event for Amtrak. Turns out that
> they actually do have friends in both red- and
> blue-state America, and funding has stayed
> relatively intact. How about that? And with that
> assurance, they could move ahead with the next RFP
> for single-level equipment. Maybe coincidence. Or
> maybe not. I lean towards "not". The tea leaves
> that possibly looked terrible for them weeks ago
> are now okay. Seems like a good time to move
> forward another step. That seems commendable to
> me.
>
> (Or maybe they wanted to make sure they did it
> right away, just to make sure they wouldn't be
> criticized yet again here on TO by members who say
> over and over again - completely incorrectly and
> irresponsibly - that they move too slowly on such
> matters). 
>
> So, please, try to find a way to put your
> negativity and bitterness aside and look at facts
> more calmly, dispassionately and
> non-conspiratorially. This is a positive,
> constructive move forward. Recognize it as such.
> If the asks in the RFP turn out to be ridiculous,
> then that's a separate conversation for the
> future. As it always is in any RFP process. Or if
> they undershoot genuine needs (that can happen),
> then that too is a constructive conversation for
> the future. As it always is. But recognize that a
> positive, reasonable, constructive step forward
> has been taken with the issuance of this RFP.
>
> Happy 4th - this is an aspect of America to
> celebrate. Shoot off a roman candle or two to
> celebrate. Positive constructive movement forward
> on a complex and necessary matter has occurred.
> That's something for us to celebrate, along with
> so much else on this Independence Day.
>  
> MC

He’s a bitter old man, best to ignore his nonsense ramblings.

BrynMawr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NO,riding in the ADA bdrm from for instance
> Emeryville to Chicago, without access to either
> the diner or the sightseer car is ridiculous. 
>  IMHO, the proper design is single level cars w/
> an elevator eqipped 'dome.   Yes, I know there
> is takeout from the diner, that doesn't make up
> for being cooped up in the ADA bdrm for 48
> hours.    

No it isn't ridiculous

Posted from Android

Maybe I'm being obtuse, but the need for bi-level designs centers around the increased capacity over single level designs. In my view, the seating capacity is not that much greater. However, incorporating an elevator or lift eats into that capacity advantage to where the difference is only marginal. Amtrak needs a standard, single-level fleet. Of course that is only my opinion. 

Englewood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The purpose of the RFP is to request proposals.
> amtrak will then request changes that no builder
> can provide for what amtrak will pay.
> After a few years amtrak will throw up their hands
> and complain they can't obtain equipment.
> In the mean time the LD fleet will be further
> reduced by wrecks, corrosion, etc.
> All part of the plan to do away with LD trains.

That's been the charade at Amtrak and I'm sorry but I have 0 faith that they're gonna do anything positive on the LD Equipment which is sad because without the LD Trains getting much needed replacements, they can die a slow death!

abyler Wrote:

> The whole world must revolve around me ADA
> attitude is the reason why soon the world will
> revolve around no one.  The simplest accessible
> amenity is one that does not exist at all.
>
> There is not going to be elevator equipped dome
> cars.  The simple solution to the sightseer
> lounge access problem is to not offer lounges and
> instead provide at seat delivery from the diner.
>
> Strangely these sort of complaints about
> accessibility never apply to the airlines and
> airplanes.

The air industry is exempt because it is impractical.
Come to think of it, while LD buses have elevators, they can't roll wheelchairs to the back for the bathroom and  limited to one per bus. So they rely on rest stops or Depends diapers. 
.
There will have to be waiver or exemptions for LD trains, or the trains will not be built, and that will be the end of them. ADA lawyers as of now would be perfectly satisfied with that outcome. 

Suffice it to say, the bi-level RFP will not happen, nor will elevators in dome cars. 

Have a married pair with wide gangways of a diner-lounge to an ADA coach and diner-lounge paired with an ADA sleeper.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/25 02:51 by joemvcnj.

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe I'm being obtuse, but the need for bi-level
> designs centers around the increased capacity over
> single level designs. In my view, the seating
> capacity is not that much greater. However,
> incorporating an elevator or lift eats into that
> capacity advantage to where the difference is only
> marginal. Amtrak needs a standard, single-level
> fleet. Of course that is only my opinion. 

Autotrain is mainly driving that decision. 

The entry points for BrightLine coaches are sufficiently wide to roll a wheelchair on, rotate it 45 degrees, and enter the coach via a sensing sliding door. And pass from car to car in a wheelchair without assistance. And use the handicap accessible rest room without assistance.

That wheel has already been invented. And built. By Siemens.  It's time for Amtrak to use it. Customers with mobility issues should not be excluded from trains. 

NJ Transit began installing mini high level platforms at its commuter stations 25 years ago. Sloping ramp up to a flat platform sufficient to access a high level door. I'm sure that was discontinued ("the perfect is always the enemy of the good") years ago, but it worked.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Autotrain is mainly driving that decision. 

I think that is beginning to sink in with me.

That raises a few questions. How much of the trains current handicapped / disabled clientele complain about not having access to the whole train? Are they possibly happy to have an alternative to long distance driving and overlook concerns that the ADA lobby considers essential?

Also, what is the future of Autotrain? Its situation could change over the horizon of the next decade. Amtrak might be wise to order a standard, single level fleet and then spin off Autotrain and the remaining Superliner cars.