Passenger Trains > New Amtrak California equipment (not Charger loco related)

Word was Amtrak California, for the Surfliner and San Joaquin/Capitol Corridor trains, were due to get new equipment. Was supposed to be the same design as the current Alstom equipment. I know a few years back Nippon Sharo was supposed to be the new builder, using the same design with a few minor changes. I know they failed some kind of test and word has been pretty quiet since. Anyone here have word on what's going on with that project. For being 17 years old, I believe the current equipment is in okay shape. Cosmetically anyways.

Siemens has been subcontracted by Nippon to build the cars using the Siemens single level design. Funding expires at the end of this month so who know how all of that is going to play out. There was a pretty big thread about it a few weeks ago.

https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,4369071,page=1



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/17 15:21 by suvart.

SCspotter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Word was Amtrak California, for the Surfliner and
> San Joaquin/Capitol Corridor trains, were due to
> get new equipment. Was supposed to be the same
> design as the current Alstom equipment. I know a
> few years back Nippon Sharo was supposed to be the
> new builder, using the same design with a few
> minor changes. I know they failed some kind of
> test and word has been pretty quiet since. Anyone
> here have word on what's going on with that
> project. For being 17 years old, I believe the
> current equipment is in okay shape. Cosmetically
> anyways.

Why can't Amtrak get Surfliner car design again??

railcity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SCspotter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Word was Amtrak California, for the Surfliner
> and
> > San Joaquin/Capitol Corridor trains, were due
> to
> > get new equipment. Was supposed to be the same
> > design as the current Alstom equipment. I know
> a
> > few years back Nippon Sharo was supposed to be
> the
> > new builder, using the same design with a few
> > minor changes. I know they failed some kind of
> > test and word has been pretty quiet since.
> Anyone
> > here have word on what's going on with that
> > project. For being 17 years old, I believe the
> > current equipment is in okay shape.
> Cosmetically
> > anyways.
>
> Why can't Amtrak get Surfliner car design again??

I suppose they could. Alstom, which I believe was a division of Bombardier, was the ones who produced all the Surfliner cars and some AmCal cars, with the exception of the 8000 series equipment which was produced by Morrison Knudson. I don't think Alstom is producing anything anymore.

I remember seeing Nippon Sharro had a prototype or something already built that failed a test. And there was an article about the new cars coming. They looked virtually identical to the existing equipment. Now they want to switch to single level equipment? Those trains are sold out constantly. Usually every weekend and if it's near a holiday, forget it. They run 10 car trains to San Diego with the bi-level equipment and that still isn't enough. Still standing room only. Single level is not the way to go. They need to secure a bi-level car. And if they could get new versions of the current equipment, that's the best bet.

My understanding is that FRA rules have changed on the construction issues so that all equipment must be redesigned and then tested. No existing car can be used. Nor are any of the eastern new double deck commute cars really useful in the California market.

Keep in mind that not all 130 cars come to California. The State trains out of Chicago could make do with low level cars for now.
In California the San Joaquin's could put up with them, since its not a frequent stop-heavy loading trains like the Surfliners/Capitals

So the San Joaquin cars could go to the other two routes, until a new double deck is on the rails 4/5 years from now.

The new low level cars then can go to the proposed LA-Indio service, along with extra summer/thanksgiving trains on the Coast.

Not ideal.

> My understanding is that FRA rules have changed on the construction issues so that all equipment must be redesigned and then tested.

Not so much a change in the rules but that the cab cars failed the crew protection crush zone test. The straight coaches have a compression limit standard which is lower because THERE IS NO CAB. These can still be built.

> No existing car can be used.

Existing cab cars can still be used, new bi-level coaches can be built because they are subject to a different standard. The reason that new bi-level coaches aren't being built on this contract is because Nippon Sharyo threw in the towel and exited the business.

>So the San Joaquin cars could go to the other two routes,

The only route available at the moment is single-level cars plus cabbages.

I think that was the biggest mistake Amtrak and Caltrans made.
Back when they got the Surfliner Cars. They did not order enough of them.
To add more cars to the Consists or create new service with.

And it is coming back to bite them now


SCspotter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> railcity Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > SCspotter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Word was Amtrak California, for the Surfliner
> > and
> > > San Joaquin/Capitol Corridor trains, were due
> > to
> > > get new equipment. Was supposed to be the
> same
> > > design as the current Alstom equipment. I
> know
> > a
> > > few years back Nippon Sharo was supposed to
> be
> > the
> > > new builder, using the same design with a few
> > > minor changes. I know they failed some kind
> of
> > > test and word has been pretty quiet since.
> > Anyone
> > > here have word on what's going on with that
> > > project. For being 17 years old, I believe
> the
> > > current equipment is in okay shape.
> > Cosmetically
> > > anyways.
> >
> > Why can't Amtrak get Surfliner car design
> again??
>
> I suppose they could. Alstom, which I believe was
> a division of Bombardier, was the ones who
> produced all the Surfliner cars and some AmCal
> cars, with the exception of the 8000 series
> equipment which was produced by Morrison Knudson.
> I don't think Alstom is producing anything
> anymore.

Jerry Martin
Los Angeles, CA
Central Coast Railroad Festival

So just put the locomotive on the head end each trip instead of dealing with all this nonsense, then get your double-deck cars!!  So dumb!!

SCspotter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> railcity Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > SCspotter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Word was Amtrak California, for the Surfliner
> > and
> > > San Joaquin/Capitol Corridor trains, were due
> > to
> > > get new equipment. Was supposed to be the
> same
> > > design as the current Alstom equipment. I
> know
> > a
> > > few years back Nippon Sharo was supposed to
> be
> > the
> > > new builder, using the same design with a few
> > > minor changes. I know they failed some kind
> of
> > > test and word has been pretty quiet since.
> > Anyone
> > > here have word on what's going on with that
> > > project. For being 17 years old, I believe
> the
> > > current equipment is in okay shape.
> > Cosmetically
> > > anyways.
> >
> > Why can't Amtrak get Surfliner car design
> again??
>
> I suppose they could. Alstom, which I believe was
> a division of Bombardier, was the ones who
> produced all the Surfliner cars and some AmCal
> cars, with the exception of the 8000 series
> equipment which was produced by Morrison Knudson.
> I don't think Alstom is producing anything
> anymore.

Alstom is not a division of Bombardier. It is a French firm that is a direct competitor of Bombardier in the railcar building business.

coach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So just put the locomotive on the head end each
> trip instead of dealing with all this nonsense,
> then get your double-deck cars!!  So dumb!!


It sounds like this is the manufacturer's decision, not the customer's. The customers only agreed to the substitution in order to avoid losing the funding.

That being said, if the San Joaquins were wyed every trip (as they should be) there'd easily be a surplus of 4+ Cab cars to be distributed onto new trainsets for the Capitol Corridors and Surfliners. In the midwest they could continue their current operations (Cabbage cars and wying trains), but it's not happening.

Amtrak is NOT involved with this decision. The States are the equipment owner and purchaser, and supply the equipment to Amtrak to run State sponsored train services. This is the same model as the Charger locomotive purchase.

You can not blame Amtrak for the decision to buy the single level equipment. You can blame Amtrak for any short comings in the equipment specifications, because they were involved with the PRIIA specification for Bi-Level, Single Level, and Locomotive technical specifications.

KM-OUT


GP25 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think that was the biggest mistake Amtrak and
> Caltrans made.
> Back when they got the Surfliner Cars. They did
> not order enough of them.
> To add more cars to the Consists or create new
> service with.
>
> And it is coming back to bite them now
>
>
> SCspotter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > railcity Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > SCspotter Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Word was Amtrak California, for the
> Surfliner
> > > and
> > > > San Joaquin/Capitol Corridor trains, were
> due
> > > to
> > > > get new equipment. Was supposed to be the
> > same
> > > > design as the current Alstom equipment. I
> > know
> > > a
> > > > few years back Nippon Sharo was supposed to
> > be
> > > the
> > > > new builder, using the same design with a
> few
> > > > minor changes. I know they failed some kind
> > of
> > > > test and word has been pretty quiet since.
> > > Anyone
> > > > here have word on what's going on with that
> > > > project. For being 17 years old, I believe
> > the
> > > > current equipment is in okay shape.
> > > Cosmetically
> > > > anyways.
> > >
> > > Why can't Amtrak get Surfliner car design
> > again??
> >
> > I suppose they could. Alstom, which I believe
> was
> > a division of Bombardier, was the ones who
> > produced all the Surfliner cars and some AmCal
> > cars, with the exception of the 8000 series
> > equipment which was produced by Morrison
> Knudson.
> > I don't think Alstom is producing anything
> > anymore.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/17 07:25 by KM-ML4000.

OTG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> coach Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So just put the locomotive on the head end each
> > trip instead of dealing with all this nonsense,
> > then get your double-deck cars!!  So dumb!!
>
>
> It sounds like this is the manufacturer's
> decision, not the customer's. The customers only
> agreed to the substitution in order to avoid
> losing the funding.
>
> That being said, if the San Joaquins were wyed
> every trip (as they should be) there'd easily be a
> surplus of 4+ Cab cars to be distributed onto new
> trainsets for the Capitol Corridors and
> Surfliners. In the midwest they could continue
> their current operations (Cabbage cars and wying
> trains), but it's not happening.

Wyeing the trains is also not a feasible option in most places. San Luis Obispo, no wye. San Diego, no wye. (The Washington St. wye was taken out of service and I highly doubt trains will run all the way to Miramar and then shove all the way back to downtown.) Goleta, no wye. Los Angeles has a wye at Mission Twr but I don't think Metrolink would be very happy with clogging up the terminal with every single Surfliner needing to wye there. Bakersfield, no wye. Fresno, no wye. (Since they plan to have a morning train originate here now.) Oakland, probably a wye. Sacramento, maybe a wye. The Pacific Surfliner corridor is the second most heavily traveled route in the Amtrak system outside the Northeast Corridor. I believe the service in NorCal (San Joaquin/Capitol Corridor) is the third most heavily traveled route. Push pull service just makes sense for these operations, not to mention no real places to wye most trains. Rising fuel costs and lack of equipment, even when the new Chargers come to replace the F59s. Cab Cars will be around on these trains for a long time. And with them being the most heavily traveled routes, single level equipment sounds like a stupid idea.

SCspotter Wrote:
> Bakersfield, no wye.

Actually there are two, Kern Jct. and Landco.

Posted from Android

jkchubbes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SCspotter Wrote:
> > Bakersfield, no wye.
>
> Actually there are two, Kern Jct. and Landco.
>
> Posted from Android

That literally makes no difference from my post though. Okay, so there's a wye in Bakersfield. Still really isn't a feasible option for this service.

> That literally makes no difference from my post though. Okay, so there's a wye in Bakersfield. Still really isn't a feasible option for this service.

Would it make any difference if I told you that the San Joaquins wyed on the Landco wye (at EE Jastro siding) for several decades? I've lost count of the number of times I did this. Wyeing is quite feasible and still done, if only on very on rare occasions, and the BNSF doesn't like to allow it. On the other hand, they never wyed at Kern Jct (and the UP probably would say NO WAY!).

The wye at Kern Jct is owned by the UP and wyeing there would block the eastward UP main. The SJs were wyed when there were only three round trips. With seven round trips now, there is not enough time between arrivals and departures to wye without delaying the trains. There's nothing wrong with the push-pull service.

EtoinShrdlu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > That literally makes no difference from my post
> though. Okay, so there's a wye in Bakersfield.
> Still really isn't a feasible option for this
> service.
>
> Would it make any difference if I told you that
> the San Joaquins wyed on the Landco wye (at EE
> Jastro siding) for several decades? I've lost
> count of the number of times I did this. Wyeing is
> quite feasible and still done, if only on very on
> rare occasions, and the BNSF doesn't like to allow
> it. On the other hand, they never wyed at Kern Jct
> (and the UP probably would say NO WAY!).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/17 13:08 by stanhunter.

And I agree with the previous posts that question why California agreed with this. Accepting single-levelequipment will make managing the state's fleet of equipment much harder. One justification for funding the new bi-levels was the problem dealing with single-level equipment at peak periods (and the one set in LA). Why on earth the State agreed with this is a mystery to me - we got funding for bi-levels, why are we not getting bi-levels?

stanhunter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And I agree with the previous posts that question
> why California agreed with this. Accepting
> single-levelequipment will make managing the
> state's fleet of equipment much harder. One
> justification for funding the new bi-levels was
> the problem dealing with single-level equipment at
> peak periods (and the one set in LA). Why on
> earth the State agreed with this is a mystery to
> me - we got funding for bi-levels, why are we not
> getting bi-levels?

If you would bother reading the other post from a couple weeks ago on this you would see why.

The funding is Federally tied. That Federal funding stipulates US made cars. At present, there are NO US Made bi-level cars that meet/pass the crash standards currently in place. There are however US made single level cars that pass the crash standard. Therefore at this time, the only cars available that can be purchased with the federal funding are those single level cars.

> At present, there are NO US Made bi-level cars that meet/pass the crash standards currently in place.

Technically, there is no such thing as a "crash standard", but there are two standards: the crush zone test for cab cars and ultimate compression strength test for passenger cars in general. The crush zone has a higher numerical value than the compression test, so if a cab car passes the crumple zone test, it automatically passes the ultimate strength test.

So if you change the statement quoted above to read /bi-level CAB cars/, it's 100% correct. FWIW, technically speaking there are lots of US-made cab cars around which don't meet the crush zone standard. They're still in daily use because they're grandfathered.

Think of it this way; Nippon-Sharyo cab cars FAIL; Nippon-Sharyo coaches: PASS. When the cab cars failed, N-S decided to exit the bi-level carbuilding business (at least on that Caltrans contract).