-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Amtrak Looking for New DMUs
- Thread starter longhorn
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
TwistedMentat
Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2016
- Messages
- 151
I seriously doubt the 800s would meet the requirements for US passenger stock that shares tracks with freight trains. Not without major structural redesign that would basically turn it into a new train.
They're more likely to look at what was purchased by Brightline in Florida.
They're more likely to look at what was purchased by Brightline in Florida.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
BestWestern
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,736
Amtrak stuff is huge, isn't it? You might need two 800s stacked on top of one another
More seriously, whatever they buy will be American, surely?
jyte
Member
Moreover, I think they legally have to buy american.Amtrak stuff is huge, isn't it? You might need two 800s stacked on top of one another
More seriously, whatever they buy will be American, surely?
TwistedMentat
Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2016
- Messages
- 151
Amtrak stuff is huge, isn't it? You might need two 800s stacked on top of one another
More seriously, whatever they buy will be American, surely?
Their rules will require assembly and majority construction in the US. But they do buy Euro designs.
...which isn't any more a DMU than a 68 and a set of Mk5s.
BestWestern
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,736
Indeed. Although, would a Newton Aycliffe set-up technically qualify?!
As I understand it, the only the vehicles that have the engines carry fuel. I don't think there have been any published fuel capacity but the Technical Specification required them to achieve 500+ miles on a full fuel of tank on self powered mode.There haven't been any level crossing incidents so far, although (as others have suggested) I still wouldn't be confident in the ability for an 80x to meet federal standards.
That said, I think that an 80x style train for the states would be somewhat overkill - the only 125mph lines that they have in the states are the North East Corridor and Brightline (once built), and perhaps more importantly, the floors are over 1m above rail level. I do think that for the main Amtrack services something akin to the Mk5a s would be best (fixed formation carriages, with a loco at both ends), and if they do want DMUs for suburban style services, they would be better served with a regular DMU of continental low floor design.
From the scant info coming out of Amtrak, most likely the DMUs would be used on the NEC and its branches. So a single consist could go from Boston-Washington DC under catenary and switch to diesel continue to Richmond Va, Harrisburg Pa, or upstate New York.
It makes sense, just wandering about the different types of DMUs out there, especially the Hitachi sets replacing the venerable HSTs.
Amtrak buys alot of Euro equipment put together in the states. Even Stadler has a facility in the Utah. The FRA has rewritten some of the safety rules to take into account lighter units such as DMUs. Thats how Stadler is able to sell the same FLIRTs in Europe in the states too with some modifications.
Thank you for the replies.
jyte
Member
Yes, Airbus has one in Alabama that qualifies for the Buy America Act IIRC.
In that case, the 80xs would probably be a good fit, if you can get around the "Buy American" regulations. Another option could of course be Siemens (who seem to be gaining something of a foothold in the American traction market) with something like an ICE-TD derivative.
James James
Member
- Joined
- 29 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 426
From what I can remember, the "rewritten" rules are mostly that European standard trains can be used only during times when freights are excluded from the rails (so-called "temporal separation"). Whether or not that's feasible depends very much on the line. Caltrain for example sees little freight, so using Stadlers there was fine. I imagine NEC might have a bit of freight (even if minimal), which might make things more difficult.
The new rules were to allow Amtrak to buy off the shelf equipment with less modifications (assembled in the US) to allow for a lower cost and enhanced performance. The old rules are the reason that the present Alstom/BBD Acela is a slug but built like a tank.
Amtrak will release a RFP for DMUs./EMUs supposedly in July. This 800 seems like a perfect fit for the NEC, except I see servicing issues such as refueling. Unlike the Sadler power unit, one would have to refill fuel tanks in three or more cars which add to servicing time outside of yards (many of Amtrak trains are refueled from a fuel truck). After a rocky start, the Hitachi units seems to be operating up to spec per the posts here and from what I read in the media.
Amtrak will release a RFP for DMUs./EMUs supposedly in July. This 800 seems like a perfect fit for the NEC, except I see servicing issues such as refueling. Unlike the Sadler power unit, one would have to refill fuel tanks in three or more cars which add to servicing time outside of yards (many of Amtrak trains are refueled from a fuel truck). After a rocky start, the Hitachi units seems to be operating up to spec per the posts here and from what I read in the media.
Just to elaborate on the fuel range I was estimating earlier, it should also be remembered that the 802s ordered for services to the West of England (and have larger fuel tanks) will have to be able to do Paddington-Penzance-Paddington-Penzance (assuming they replace HST diagrams like for like) - which is in excess of 900 miles. That should keep them going for a few days at least if they are working ~200 mile rounders away from the wires. The refuelling multiple cars issue would be common to pretty much all DMU designs, the exceptions being those like Stadlers offerings or even the HST, where your fixed rake of carriages has only one or two prime movers on it. That said, I don't think it is beyond the wit of man to work around the refuelling issue, after all each fuel tank will be smaller than that of a loco so should be quicker to fill, or even then, a change in practice so that refuelling is done in the yards or with otherwise dedicated infrastructure instead of a man & a truck.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Although they refuel from trucks on the one-a-day western workings (sometimes even during a station stop), with the shorter journeys and greater density of trains on the NEC I would imagine everything gets back to a "proper" depot every day or two
philabos
Member
I agree, a perfect fit for trains going south of Washington that now have to change power.
It would be theoretically possible to work around the freight issue on the NEC, although not easy. Once south of Washington on CSX or NS, no way. Same issues west of Albany and Harrisburg.
You never know though, we now have a railway person in charge of the Federal Railroad Administration instead of the usual political hack. Maybe they can find a way.
It would be theoretically possible to work around the freight issue on the NEC, although not easy. Once south of Washington on CSX or NS, no way. Same issues west of Albany and Harrisburg.
You never know though, we now have a railway person in charge of the Federal Railroad Administration instead of the usual political hack. Maybe they can find a way.
North American trains have long refuelled at intermediate stations, the facilities themselves all needed to be rebuilt some years ago after new regulations to contain any fuel spillage at the site, in concrete and with oil traps. The facility is long enough to refuel the normal string of locomotives at once.
The most significant thing to handle is collision resistance, not only with freight trains, which itself seems to happen too regularly, but with road vehicles (including heavy trucks) at level crossings, which for the major operators there is unfortunately almost a weekly event. European style layouts with the cab right at the front are out, US locos have very substantial collision protection inside their nose, plus an expectation of how frequently they need to be repaired from this. Brightline in Florida has had a considerable number of serious such collisions in its first few months.
The common US double-deck passenger car as used by Amtrak actually handles the accessibility regulations, which are similar to Britain, quite well. The majority of the accommodation is on the upper deck, the shorter lower deck is depressed between the bogies with straightforward access from low level platforms, the WCs etc, the accessible seating or bedrooms, and central stairs up to the main upper deck. Vestibules to the next car are at the upper level, and can be a challenge to negotiate when the train is swaying at low speed on poor quality track.
The most significant thing to handle is collision resistance, not only with freight trains, which itself seems to happen too regularly, but with road vehicles (including heavy trucks) at level crossings, which for the major operators there is unfortunately almost a weekly event. European style layouts with the cab right at the front are out, US locos have very substantial collision protection inside their nose, plus an expectation of how frequently they need to be repaired from this. Brightline in Florida has had a considerable number of serious such collisions in its first few months.
The common US double-deck passenger car as used by Amtrak actually handles the accessibility regulations, which are similar to Britain, quite well. The majority of the accommodation is on the upper deck, the shorter lower deck is depressed between the bogies with straightforward access from low level platforms, the WCs etc, the accessible seating or bedrooms, and central stairs up to the main upper deck. Vestibules to the next car are at the upper level, and can be a challenge to negotiate when the train is swaying at low speed on poor quality track.
ac6000cw
Established Member
DMU cars are nothing new in the US - there have been internal-combustion powered passenger cars running around since the 1920s. In the 1950s Budd sold almost 400 of its 'RDC' cars to railroads all over the country (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_Rail_Diesel_Car ) which were used on everything from branch line to inter-city services. Amtrak inherited a reasonable number of them on its formation in 1971. Budd tried again with a new 'SPV-2000' design in 1978 but it wasn't a commercial success - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_SPV-2000
Given that many loco hauled commuter trains in the US use passenger-carrying cab-control cars at one end ('driving trailers' in UK parlance), and the US is happy to run much heavier vehicles than in Europe (e.g. 125 mph passenger locos with 30 tonne axle loads...) I suspect it's quite possible to design a modern DMU that meets the crash-worthiness requirements to share tracks with freights.
European standard DMUs (e.g. FLIRTS) are not allowed to share tracks with freight trains, but they are presumably regarded as OK from a grade-crossing collision point-of-view.
Given that many loco hauled commuter trains in the US use passenger-carrying cab-control cars at one end ('driving trailers' in UK parlance), and the US is happy to run much heavier vehicles than in Europe (e.g. 125 mph passenger locos with 30 tonne axle loads...) I suspect it's quite possible to design a modern DMU that meets the crash-worthiness requirements to share tracks with freights.
European standard DMUs (e.g. FLIRTS) are not allowed to share tracks with freight trains, but they are presumably regarded as OK from a grade-crossing collision point-of-view.
All the GWR 80xs are fitted - or being retrofitted - with the larger fuel tanks.
ac6000cw
Established Member
From what I read elsewhere (e.g. the Trains magazine NewsWire), it's basically the single-deck passenger fleet (Amfleet/Heritage cars and P42 locos) that Amtrak is looking to replace.
So in an ideal world they would probably end up with a mixture of low-floor 'regional express' DMUs for the various non-electric 'corridor' services e.g. in the Midwest, a Bi-Mode version of that for the NE corridor services to/from 'off-wire/off-3rd rail' destinations e.g. Albany, Springfield and maybe Pittsburgh, and new hauled stock for the longer distance routes that use part of the NEC e.g. the Florida trains.
Having just replaced their entire electric loco fleet, they are not likely to replace them again with a fleet of bi-modes - just buy new stock to replace the Amfleet cars they haul on the NEC.
Interestingly VIA Rail in Canada is also currently in the market for similar equipment, which might increase the interest from potential suppliers.
Personally I think a strengthened, enlarged (maybe double-deck?) Stadler FLIRT might work out quite well for the 'regional express' DMUs and bi-modes. Siemens must be a front runner for the locos and hauled stock.
So in an ideal world they would probably end up with a mixture of low-floor 'regional express' DMUs for the various non-electric 'corridor' services e.g. in the Midwest, a Bi-Mode version of that for the NE corridor services to/from 'off-wire/off-3rd rail' destinations e.g. Albany, Springfield and maybe Pittsburgh, and new hauled stock for the longer distance routes that use part of the NEC e.g. the Florida trains.
Having just replaced their entire electric loco fleet, they are not likely to replace them again with a fleet of bi-modes - just buy new stock to replace the Amfleet cars they haul on the NEC.
Interestingly VIA Rail in Canada is also currently in the market for similar equipment, which might increase the interest from potential suppliers.
Personally I think a strengthened, enlarged (maybe double-deck?) Stadler FLIRT might work out quite well for the 'regional express' DMUs and bi-modes. Siemens must be a front runner for the locos and hauled stock.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Stadler have a double deck product, it's called the KISS and there are already some in the US I believe.
Yes, DMUs are not new to the US. The ill fated Budd SPVs and RDCs are generations removed from what is available today. In regards the new electrics locos bought from Siemens, they can be resold to the local regional agencies or elsewhere in the world. Its the same Vectron locomotive the Europeans have been using years.
The DMUs are to be used mostly in the NEC. The midwest states and California have already ordered new locomotives and pax equipment from Siemens so they are set. By the way, why are the Siemens cars used by Brightline and now the midwest states and California so heavy in comparison to 40 year old Amfleets?
There are criticisms from railfans and some Amtrak employees in the states regarding DMUs, many remember the RDC and SPV reliability problems. But its easy to see how a FLIRT or even a 800 could be more efficient than 130 ton locomotive pulling five or six 70 tons pax cars.
I agree, on paper a FLIRT looks to fit what the Amtrak CEO is looking for, and in a speech he gave in California, he gave a shout out to the Stadler rep who was also there to speak. The Amtrak CEO stated they would "talk" later. Stadler has a factory in Utah, so we will see.
Curious, what are Stadler, Bombardier, Siemens and Alstom reputations on the European continent?
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. I have learned much in just the 24 hours I have been reading this forum.
Siemens : Regard themselves as the "Mercedes" of manufacturers. Some batches have good reputations, others have been a bit surprising. Notably heavyweight. Not the cheapest. Straightforward. Long history of their production plant in California.
Bombardier : A mix of production plant acquisitions. Known for fiddly faults and defects after delivery. Do build a good proportion of European stock. A bit short of money at present due to their aircraft division.
Stadler : Bit of a new kid on the block. Innovative designs. Seem to be building a good reputation. Some quite lightweight designs.
Alstom : French manufacturer traditionally supported by state purchases. Allegedly difficult to deal with, both pre and post delivery. Sometimes quirky design features.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I wonder would CAF be interested?
I'd say of them "good quality but traditional, simple designs at a good price".
I'd say of them "good quality but traditional, simple designs at a good price".
Amtrak and CAF are not on the best terms now. CAF is presently building in upstate New York, Amtrak's Viewliner pax car. The order is behind schedule and the quality has been questionable on the early cars.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,285
Heavyweight? Maybe for the first round of Desiro orders, but not for the Desiro City design - see this month's Modern Railways Informed Sources.
In the past, I would have characterised Siemens by the "Mercedes" name, at least in terms of locomotives. The Taurus design was a top-of-the-range "Mercedes" against Bombardier's TRAXX which was more of a "Ford". However, the Vectron seems to have narrowed the price gap and has noticeably picked up a lot of recent European locomotive orders.
squizzler
Established Member
Talgo might be worth mentioning as they have done some stuff lately in the states, what with the Cascades in particular. Their fast DMU, the Tango XXI, does not seem to have been commercial successful: despite being a turn of the century design it seems the prototype has been converted to the Spanish network's equivalent of the Flying Banana and no others built for passenger service.
James James
Member
- Joined
- 29 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 426
Not yet - they're being built soon for Caltrain, and needed a Waiver to be allowed to operate.
There's also never been a diesel KISS, but I imagine they could build power units into one of the end cars (perhaps even just downstairs in the end cars?).
- Status